Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting

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

  Appendix A referred to in minute 86 under Schedule 12A Local Government Act 1972 and the terms of Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3) and on the grounds it contains information relating to the financial or business of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).  It is considered that if this information was in the public domain it would be likely to prejudice the affairs of the applicant.  Whilst there may be a public interest in disclosure, in all the circumstances of the case maintaining the exemption is considered to outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information at this time

The Chair admitted one late item to the agenda, these being the minutes of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 17^th January 2013 ( minute 79 refers).  The minutes which had been circulated prior to the meeting required urgent consideration to enable them to be presented to the next available meeting, in the interests of transparency.

Although not a formal late item, the Panel was in receipt of a colour drawing which had been circulated prior to the meeting in respect of the pre-application presentation relating to proposals for Plot C, Sovereign Street (minute 84 refers).

Councillor Nash declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in Application 12/03788/FU – 29 Wellington Street LS1, through being in receipt of a small income from the Co-op which had a store immediately opposite the site (minute 82 refers)

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor R Procter who was substituted for by Councillor J Procter.

The Chair also informed Panel that the Head of Planning Services and the North East Area Planning Manager were unable to attend the meeting because of health reasons.

To confirm as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 7^th February 2013

(Copy attached)

RESOLVED – To approve the minutes of the City Plans Panel meetings held on 17^th January 2013 and 7^th February 2013.

With reference to minute 71 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 7^th February 2013 in respect of Application 11/03705/FU – ERF, site of former Skelton Grange Power Station, the Chief Planning Officer informed Members that in view of the concerns expressed about the lack of a response to the proposals by the Fire Authority, this had been investigated and comments had now been received.  Whilst there were some issues to be addressed by way of the Fire Certificate, there were no issues which had a material effect on the application

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of 364 dwellings with ancillary retail and community facilities to land at Grimes Dyke, Off York Road, Whinmoor.

(Report attached)

Further to minute 23 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 25^th October 2012 where Panel considered a position statement on proposals for a residential development at Grimes Dyke, LS14, Members considered the formal application

Plans, photographs, graphics and drawings were displayed at the meeting.  Officers presented the report and advised that in view of the comments made by Panel in October, the scheme had been revised with the retail element being deleted from the scheme in favour of a more robust district centre to be provided as part of the adjacent Northern Quadrant proposals.  In terms of community facilities, Ward Members had expressed the view that providing funds to enhance existing facilities in the area was more appropriate, therefore a commuted sum of £150,000 had been agreed with the applicant for this.  In view of the deletion of these uses from the scheme, a further 6 dwellings would now be provided on the site

Other revisions to the scheme were outlined, these being the deletion of the two and half storey properties; the redesign of the apartment block; the removal of rear access ways and a reduction in the number of rear parking courts

In terms of affordable housing, the application granted on appeal included 30% affordable housing.  Although Officers had pursued the higher level, the costs of the scheme and particularly the site access rendered a level of 30% unviable.  What was now being offered by the applicant – 15% -  was in line with the current policy and because of the increase in the number of dwellings to 370, a further affordable dwelling would be provided to reflect the increase in units

In respect of education contributions, Members were informed that Children’s Services had sought a full secondary education contribution as whilst there would be capacity in local high schools in the early years of the development, over time, these places would be filled.  The developer having originally not agreed to a secondary education contribution had now agreed to provide this at a figure of £323,364.49.  In view of the additional 6 dwellings on site, the primary education contribution had increased and would now be £1,073,008.42.  The S106 Agreement had been discussed with Ward Members and on balance, Ward Members were comfortable with the package

An issue raised at the October meeting had been the possibility of land contamination through the burying of animal carcasses on the site.  The Environment Agency had been consulted on this but records prior to 2001 – the last major foot and mouth outbreak – did not exist.  However, since 2001 there were no records of carcasses being buried on this site

Members commented on the following matters:

·  the need for assurances that the education contributions would be available to local schools rather than used city wide

·  the provision of jobs and skills, including apprenticeships and that this should be clearer in the S106 Agreement

·  the need for the developer to give assurances that they would work with local Councillors  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an hybrid application for full permission for 11 storey office building and outline application for office/hotel building up to 8 storeys with ancillary ground floor A1,A2, A3,A4, and A5 uses to land at 29 Wellington Street, Leeds 1

(Report attached)

Having declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in this matter, Councillor Nash withdrew from the meeting

Further to minute 38 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 22^nd November 2012, where Panel considered a position statement on proposals for a mixed used development on the former Lumiere site on Wellington Street/Whitehall Road LS1, Members considered the formal application

Plans, photographs and graphics were displayed at the meeting. 

Officers presented the report and provided for context, details on the scale and type of the surrounding buildings, some of which were Listed

Members were informed that the application was a hybrid one in that whilst it was for two buildings, one was a full application and the other was in outline and was seeking design parameters which were supported by the design statement which had been submitted with the proposals

The 11 storey building was for office use and had been well received when the scheme had been presented in November 2012 and there had been few design changes since that time.  The creation of a new public space was also part of the application

Members were informed that a wind survey had been commissioned and this had been assessed by the Council’s independent consultant.  The survey had indicated there were two points of distress conditions on Wellington Street which could impact on cyclists and elderly people.  These conditions were due to existing wind conditions and were not caused by the development, however in view of this it was considered appropriate for the proposed bus stops and pedestrian drop off point to be deleted from the scheme and pedestrian guard rails to be included.  Metro had stated that there was not a capacity issue and that there were other stops in the area which could be utilised.  In terms of the deletion of the drop off point if the use was a hotel, smaller buses and coaches could use the service area and as some hotels did not provide a drop off point, the deletion of this could not be considered as a reason to refuse the application

Members commented on the following matters:-

·  that with the outline application it was not clear what height the finished scheme would be, with concerns about this

·  that as part of the Lumiere scheme, it had been proposed to reinstate the bus stops on Wellington Street, why this had changed and the possibility of reconsidering this in due course, subject to the wind issues being satisfactorily resolved

·  that it was not possible to attribute all of the wind issues on Wellington Street to one application

·  the legal position in respect of culpability in the event that a satisfactory wind assessment proved to be incorrect

·  the possibility of utilising the signage on the building to warn of high wind conditions

·  the time limits of 5 and 7 years being proposed and why shorter timescales were not being required

·  the need for the public area to be well lit and be properly managed

·  jobs and skills,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a reserved matters application for 189 houses, one block of 9 flats and one block of 6 flats including associated landscaping at Optare, Manston Lane, Cross Gates, Leeds 15.

(Report attached)

Plans, photographs and graphics were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

Officers presented a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current proposals in respect of the Reserved Matters application for a residential development on Manston Lane Cross Gates LS15.  The Panel noted that the outline application for up to 256 residential units had been agreed by the former Plans Panel East as its meeting held on 7^th June 2012 (minute 22 refers)

Officers presented the report and informed Members that the scheme would be delivered in two phases, the second phase being dependent upon the delivery of the Manston Lane Link Road (MLLR).  Members were informed that the dwellings would be sited around a central area of public open space (POS), with the highways layout revolving around that to give a good order to the streets

Concerns remained about the lack of separation between dwellings which created high density and a terraced feeling to many of the areas.  Whilst it might be possible to accept less than the standard 3.5m distance between dwellings in some cases, distances of 2.00m were being generally proposed across the site, with in some cases, distances of 1.00m being shown.  In addition, some of the gardens did not comply with the requirements set out in Neighbourhoods for Living and in relation to some properties, there were no active frontages which also was a concern for Officers

Regarding the delivery of the POS, the developer proposed commencing on this when 25% of the scheme was introduced and that half of the POS would be completed when 50% of the units were occupied, with Members’ views on this being requested

Receipt of a letter of objection from a local resident was reported with Panel being informed that the issues raised in the objection would be outlined when the scheme was brought for determination

Members commented on the following matters:

·  the separation distances and that across the site these were not acceptable

·  the public open space and whether this was considered to be in the correct place.  Officers were of the view that the central area was the most appropriate location for the POS and that it ensured it was easily accessible from all properties

·  that the report referred to ginnels and that these must be removed and there should be no alleyways

·  the phasing of the scheme and the number of properties to be delivered in the first phase.  Members were informed that the first phase was restricted to 138 units, although the condition could be varied slightly to accommodate the 115 houses the developer wished to bring forward in the first phase

·  the need for the square to be a major feature in the scheme, that this had been achieved successfully in several London boroughs and that a quality scheme was needed for this area which provided more than benches

·  that the proposals represented overdevelopment

·  that there was a need to ensure there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a pre-application for an office development at Plot C, Sovereign Street, Leeds 1

(Report attached)

This is a pre-application and no formal decision will be taken, however it is an opportunity for Panel Members to ask questions, raise issues, seek clarification and comment on the proposals at this stage.  A ward member or a nominated community representative has a maximum of 15 minutes to present their comments.

Plans, graphics and photographs, including an historical image showing the former Queens Hall, were displayed at the meeting

Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out pre-application proposals for an office development at Plot C, Sovereign Street and received a presentation on behalf of the developers

Members were informed that the proposals were for a 6 storey office building with ground floor retail and food and drink uses which would provide active glazed ground floor frontages to Swinegate, the new Swinegate Link, Sovereign Street and the recently approved Sovereign  Square greenspace

The elevational treatment to Sovereign Square and Swinegate would be a ‘sawtooth’ glazed façade, with brick and glazing elections to the Sovereign Street and Swinegate Link

Basement car parking would be provided for approximately 40 cars

The office entrance would relate to the entrance on the new KPMG building and the possibility of using a corner of the building to create a terrace overlooking the greenspace was being considered

The ‘sawtooth’ treatment enabled maximum glazing and would help to control solar gain.  On the Swinegate elevation coloured elements could be introduced to emphasise the sweep of the building which was reminiscent of the Queens Hall

Members discussed the proposals and commented on the following matters:-

·  the roofline, with mixed views on the appearance of this

·  the position of the vehicular access

·  the opportunity to open up the area beyond the north end, possibly for open-air dining if the existing restaurant required this

In addressing the specific points raised in the report, the following comments were provided:-

·  taking into account the views about the roofline, the general form and siting of the building was acceptable

·  that the building successfully addressed Sovereign Street, Swinegate and the new greenspace

·  that the proposed elevational treatment and materials were considered to be appropriate to the character of the surrounding area

·  that taking vehicular access from Sovereign Street was appropriate

·  that the glazed ground floor treatment indicated on the proposals would create openness and activity around the building once it was occupied and that there appeared to be adequate provision for bins, kitchens, chiller cabinets, store rooms and other back of house functions away from the window frontages, to avoid the need for tenants to use window vinyls to conceal them

·  that more information was needed on the screened rooftop plant enclosure

RESOLVED – To note the report, the presentation and the comments now made

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a pre-application presentation for a hotel development to land at Whitehall Road, Leeds 1

(Report attached)

This is a pre-application and no formal decision will be taken, however it is an opportunity for Panel Members to ask questions, raise issues, seek clarification and comment on the proposals at this stage.  A ward member or a nominated community representative has a maximum of 15 minutes to present their comments.

Plans, graphics, precedent images and sample materials were displayed at the meeting

Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer on pre-application proposals for a hotel adjacent to No Whitehall, on Whitehall Road

Officers presented the report and informed Panel that an application for mixed office and hotel use on the site had been approved in 2012 but that there were now revised proposals for a hotel use only.  The Panel then received a presentation on behalf of the applicant

Members were informed that the scheme being proposed was for a 128 bed hotel which would complement the building style and materials of developments on Whitehall Road by the use of solid, robust materials in clean lines

The whole site would not be required to deliver the hotel so an area of landscaping would be provided which would include mature trees along the Whitehall Road frontage to provide privacy and protection

Service access would be from Whitehall Road with the main entrance to the hotel being off Northern Street

Active, transparent uses would be sited at ground floor level to provide interest and the layout of the hotel was in line with the client’s brief for the building

A green roof would be provided which would also include a water tank, with all plant being screened from view

A separation distance of 21m would exist between the hotel and the nearby office building

The main elevational treatment would be anodized aluminium in

different shades, ie dark and silver which would create different effects of the day.  Anodized aluminium was hardwearing and any scratches to its surface could be polished out, so ensuring the quality of the finished structure was retained over time

Members commented on the following matters:-

·  uncertainty about the metal cladding on this site; that natural materials as proposed in the previous scheme for the site might be better and concerns that the ground floor was reminiscent of a 1960s shopping parade

·  the large windows being proposed, including windows to one side elevation and the welcome effect of these in the overall scheme

·  that the quality of the workmanship was a key factor when considering metal clad buildings

·  the high quality of the adjacent No1 Whitehall and whether the design of the proposed building was right for this site

·  that metal cladding used elsewhere within Leeds had not always proved successful and the effects of colour changes which occurred during the day could be questioned

·  the possibility of including renewables on the roof

In summing up the discussions, the Chair, whilst noting the mix of views about the cladding and the proposed colours, felt there was much merit in the scheme which had been presented and whilst accepting that it was right to compare the scheme in relation to No1 Whitehall, the site was also adjacent to the Novotel and that it was felt this was an appropriate location for the proposed use

RESOLVED – To note the report, the presentation and the comments now made

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a pre-application presentation for the laying out of access and erection of circa 1700 houses at the Thorp Arch Estate, Wetherby, Leeds 22

(Report attached)

This is a pre-application and no formal decision will be taken, however it is an opportunity for Panel Members to ask questions, raise issues, seek clarification and comment on the proposals at this stage.  A ward member or a nominated community representative has a maximum of 15 minutes to present their comments.

The Chair stated that although the Press and Public had been excluded, he would on this occasion use his discretion to enable a community representative, Parish Councillor Brown, Chair of Walton Parish Council, to address the Panel and to remain in the room to hear the discussions on the understanding that the confidential nature of the discussions was respected

Further to minute 10 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 27^th September 2012, where Panel considered a pre-application presentation on proposals for the redevelopment of part of the site up to 1150 residential dwellings, with new primary school, access, landscaping and public open space, Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer and further pre-application presentation providing details of discussions on the proposals at the newly-established community forum

Plans and photographs were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

The Chief Planning Officer presented the report and Panel then received a presentation on behalf of the proposed developers

Members were informed that the developers had listened to the views expressed at Panel and had taken on board the wish for an integrated masterplan for the whole estate and the setting up of a consultative forum

A revised scheme had been presented to the forum where it became clear that the main priority was the provision of a relief road, with the Parish Councils indicating their support for housing, including the possibility of increased levels of housing, if the relief road could be delivered

A heart was also required within the scheme, comprising community shopping centre, playing fields and a separate sports centre

Following on from this a further scheme was devised which was more favourable to the Parish Councils, however one particular issue was the location for the possible additional housing, which currently was part of an industrial estate.  Funding and deliverability of the relief road was also an issue which would need to be addressed by the developer working in conjunction with the Council.  In terms of the route of a relief road, two options had been drawn up with the Parish Councils being unanimous that the route should be along the western route.  Whilst the delivery of the relief road would ideally be at the start of the scheme, the funding issues alluded to needed to be taken into account and work currently was being done on this.  In answer to a point raised by Panel, no specific costings for a relief road had been drawn up

The Panel then heard from Councillor Brown, Chair of Walton Parish Council who was speaking on behalf of Walton, Boston Spa and Thorp Arch Parish Councils

Councillor Brown stated there was local support for in the region of 1700 properties and the provision of a relief road on the western route and that the proposals would bring a brownfield site back into use; provide a new, self-contained and sustainable community; would segregate industrial use from residential use and encourage the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

Tuesday, 26^th March 2013 at 2.00pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds (Additional Meeting)

Tuesday, 26^th March 2013 at 2.00pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds.