Agenda and minutes

To consider any appeals in accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2 of the Access to Information Rules (in the event of an Appeal the press and public will be excluded)

(*In accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2, written notice of an appeal must be received by the Head of Governance Services at least 24 hours before the meeting)

There were no appeals.

1  To highlight reports or appendices which officers have identified as containing exempt information, and where officers consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, for the reasons outlined in the report.

2  To consider whether or not to accept the officers recommendation in respect of the above information.

3  If so, to formally pass the following resolution:-

  RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following parts of the agenda designated as containing exempt information on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information, as follows:-

There was no exempt information.

There were no late items.  Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 11 February had been circulated following the publication of the agenda.

To disclose or draw attention to any disclosable pecuniary interests for the purposes of Section 31 of the Localism Act 2011 and paragraphs 13-16 of the Members’ Code of Conduct. 

There were no declarations.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor C Gruen.  Councillor S Hamilton was in attendance as substitute.

To consider and approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 11^th February 2021.

(Copy to follow)

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 11 February be confirmed as a correct record.

To consider any matters arising from the minutes.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the development of 152 affordable dwellings (C3) with associated access and landscaping.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the development of 152 affordable dwellings (C3) with associated access and landscaping at the Horsforth Campus, Calverley Lane, Horsforth.

The application was previously presented to Plans Panel in October 2020 when it was deferred as follows:

‘That the development of the site be accepted in principle but further discussions on design are to take place’

Site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

The following was highlighted:

·  There was extant approval for up to 70 dwellings on the central portion of the site.

·  Revised site plan – this had made improvements with more open space between dwellings and throughout the site with more areas for open play.

·  CGI images of how the proposals would look were shown including the apartment block. These images also showed the site layout including house types, boundary treatments, parking areas, play areas and open space.

·  It was felt that concerns previously made by the Panel had been addressed. There had been reductions in the amount of highways space, increase of open space and pedestrian areas.  There had also been alterations to the apartment block and house types.

·  There had been some late representations made by Horsforth Ward Councillors but these did not raise any new material planning considerations in relation to the application.

·  The application was recommended for approval.

In response to questions from the Panel, the following was discussed:

·  Types of trees to be planted were still to be decided as part of the final landscaping plan, but due consideration would be given to these being species that were of an appropriate size and would not become over-dominant.

·  There would not be a formal cycle way on the path round the site so it would not be lit.  It was more intended for the surrounding pathways to be for pedestrian use and ‘with ‘natural’ surveillance from the surrounding dwellings.

·  Pavement parking was always a possibility in such types of development layout – but there were a number of laybys to try and reduce this.  Road widths would also allow for cars to park without using the pathway.

·  Minimum garage sizes should allow space to fit cars.  There were only seven proposed houses on site with garages.

·  Footways would be two metres wide.

·  With regard to meeting Policies EN1 and EN2, it was reported that there would be photovoltaic panels to all properties and also electric vehicle charging points.  There would be conditions to the application to ensure it was policy compliant.

·  It was felt that the contemporary style offered by the use of flat roof dormers on a number of the house types provided a more unusual, distinctive approach compared to the inclusion of pitched dormers.

·  Residents would make financial contributions towards the management of outside areas and the s106 Agreement would ensure that Stonewater themselves would be managing the greenspace in the long-term as opposed to a third party management company.

·  Sustainability issues with regards  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a hybrid application for full planning permission for the erection of new residential dwellings with ancillary commercial uses (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1 and D2) and landscaped public realm; outline application for an associated ‘hub’ building in a flexible commercial use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1 and D2).

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a hybrid application for full planning permission for the erection of new residential dwellings with ancillary commercial uses (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1 and D2) and landscaped public realm; outline application for an associated ‘hub’ building in a flexible commercial use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1 and D2) on land at Whitehall Road and Globe Road, Leeds.

Site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

The following was highlighted:

·  The application was in two parts.  Full permission was sought for 8 buildings with a total of 783 apartments and 3,000 square metres of ancillary, commercial and leisure space.  Outline permission was sought for a standalone building (‘The Hub’) and 3,000 square metres of commercial and leisure space.

·  The site covered 2 hectares in total.  There had been considerable development activity in the surrounding area.

·  An image was displayed showing the massing and building types that were proposed.  Further images showed the proposed layout, façade treatments, boundary treatments and materials to be used.

·  Improvements and widening of footpaths and installation of a pedestrian crossing were proposed.

·  Extensive wind tunnel testing had been carried out – temporary mitigation measures would need to be installed until the adjacent site was developed.

·  Public space, landscaping, biodiversity features.

·  Provision of communal spaces.

·  Land would be reserved for a footbridge to the canal towpath, but this did not form part of the current scheme proposed.

·  Graphics displaying views from and around the site were shown.

·  Provision of the full affordable housing requirement was not viable.  There could either be 27 units or 80 units at 20% discount.

In response to Members questions, the following was discussed:

·  Whitehall Road would still have an austere appearance – different iterations had been considered and safety issues have to be considered for widening of footpaths and putting in cycle lanes.  A conscious decision had been made for the design to reflect the ‘harsher’ nature of the city scape along Whitehall Road.  However if there was opportunity for greening and softening the space at street level this would be considered.

·  It was envisaged that the connection with Globe Road would be the element that would feel most pedestrianised and ‘user friendly’ with greenery etc. incorporated as part of the design.

·  There would be conditions agreed with the Canal and River Trust to ensure there would be no adverse impact on the canal, either during construction or post-development.

·  There would be conditions to ensure that lighting did not adversely affect the railway, i.e. causing glare or dazzling for drivers.

·  There would be some informal play areas within the site, with it very much being part of the scheme’s overall ethos to create a new community as a result of the development coming forward.

·  It was not felt that there could be any more provision of affordable housing.  A representative of the District Valuer explained the process that had been applied to reach the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for two residential blocks including access, parking, drainage and landscaping.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer referred to an application for two residential blocks including access, parking provision, drainage layout and landscaping at land off Flax Place, Richmond Street, Marsh Lane and East Street, Richmond Hill, Leeds. The application had been considered at the meeting of the City Plans Panel held on 7 January 2021 when Members had resolved not to accept the officer recommendation and that it be deferred to allow officers to prepare detailed reasons for refusal.

Site plans photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the report:

The following was highlighted:

·  A further letter of objection had been received regarding the lack of benefits for the community and concerns regarding the design and massing.

·  Affordable housing – Members were reminded that there had been a viability appraisal with regard to the provision of affordable housing.  Reasons for refusal with respect to this were that the proposals did not fulfil policy requirements for affordable housing.

·  Open space and landscaping –the development did not provide adequate open space and the landscaping scheme was of poor quality.

·  Design and massing – the proposals were over dominant and failed to protect the visual amenity of the area.

·  Community facilities – the development failed to provide facilities in terms of retail and GP/health provision.

·  Parking and road safety – low provision of on-site parking would lead to parking on the adjacent site and surrounding highways leading to safety issues and damaging the amenity of others.

Members were invited to make comments.  The following was highlighted:

·  The five points individually did not give grounds for refusal but cumulatively highlighted that this proposal was not right for this site.

·  Suggestion that condition 4 be amended with regard to provision of retail units and GP/health facilities.

·  The application was inferior to what was previously proposed on the site.

The Area Planning Manager summarised the discussion.

RESOLVED –

REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE REASONS SET OUT BELOW:

1)  The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development fails to provide the full policy requirement for affordable housing. The proposal is thereby contrary to Policy H5 of the Core Strategy, Policy GP5 of the UDP Review.

2) The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed development fails to provide the full policy requirement for on-site open space and is without adequate provision of landscaped on-site green and amenity spaces, with the on-site landscaped green and amenity spaces being of poor quality, to the detriment of the amenity of future users of the spaces. The proposal is thereby contrary to Policies G5 and P12 of the Core Strategy, Policy GP5 of the UDP Review and Policy AVL8 of the Aire Valley Leeds Area Action Plan.

3) The Local Planning Authority considers the design of the proposed development to be unacceptable in respect of its over-dominant massing and the architectural detailing to its facades and that as a result it fails to protect the visual, residential and general amenity of the area. The proposal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a pre-application for the change of use and extension to offices and a new standalone building to form student accommodation.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer informed Members of a

pre-application proposal for the change of use and extension to offices and creation of a new standalone building to form student accommodation at the Leonardo Building and Thoresby House, 2 Rossington Street, Leeds.

Site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the proposals.

The following was highlighted:

·  The site had been sold in two parts.  Number 2 George Street had been sold separately to the Leonardo Building and Thoresby House and would be subject to a separate application.

·  The proposed use of the building met policy requirements and sustainable re-use.

·  There would be the erection of a new building on the car park adjacent in between Leonardo Building/Thoresby House and 2 George Street.

·  Heritage of the area was a key design driver.

·  It was proposed to retain key features of the buildings.

·  There would be a façade replacement of the office side of the Leonardo Building.

·  Massing of the buildings would be stepped down from Woodhouse Lane to Cookridge Street.

·  Connectivity in and around the site and access through the site.

·  Proposed floor plans within the buildings.

·  Landscaping proposals.

·  CGI Images of the proposals demonstrating views from the surrounding areas.

In response to Members comments and questions, the following was discussed:

·  The mix of accommodation across the buildings would be attractive undergraduates, post graduates and young workers.  There was a broad spectrum of accommodation to suit changing demands. In turn, the range of accommodation to be provided meant that it was adaptable if the demand for student accommodation altered in the long-term, thus the proposal was robust.

·  Size and design of the accommodation units, including the materials proposed to be used at this stage.

·  There would be detailing on the façade of the new building to the side facing the old school.

·  Some concern regarding the height of the proposed new building and that it may be over dominant.

·  The atrium would be retained with a new staircase between Leonardo and Thoresby buildings.

·  The corner rooms facing onto Millennium Square would be amenity rooms.

·  Ventilation and noise attenuation measures.

·  The ground floor area of the new building would be aimed towards amenity and could include uses such as cafes and other community and public use.  Thought could be given to active street frontages where possible.

·  There would not be any car parking spaces available with the accommodation.

Members broadly supported the proposals and agreed that there was a need for more detailing on the new building. 

In response to questions outlined in the report, Members considered that the proposed use of the site for student accommodation and loss of office accommodation was acceptable in principle.  It was also considered that the

living conditions within the student accommodation would be acceptable, subject to further details of the design and space standards being provided.  The emerging principles in respect of design were supported, but with the comment from some Members to be noted that had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

To note that the next meeting will take place on Thursday, 11^th March 2021 at 130pm (Remote Meeting – Zoom)

Thursday, 11 March at 1.30 p.m.