Agenda and minutes

A Member’s site visit was held in connection with the following applications:

Application No. 18/06512/FU – Elland Road Park and Ride, PREAPP/18/00633 – Wellington Place, Leeds, PREAPP/18/00458, Lisbon Street, Leeds and PREAPP/18/00600 – Merrion Centre, Leeds and was attended by the following Councillors: J Mckenna, E Nash, B Anderson, P Wadsworth, A Khan, A Blackburn, P Carlill, T Leadley and R Grahame

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 against the refusal of inspection of documents.

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 were no items identified where it was considered necessary to exclude the press or public from the meeting due to the confidential nature of the business to be transacted.

There were no late items of business identified.

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. 

Although not a pecuniary interests Councillor Wadsworth required it to be recorded that he had a personal interest in Agenda Item No. 10 (Extension to the main Airport Terminal Building at Leeds Bradford Airport) as a Member of the Airport Consultative Committee. Councillor Grahame required it to be recorded that his wife, Councillor Pauleen Grahame also served on the same Committee (Minute No. 102 referred). Councillor Garthwaite declared a personal interest in Agenda Item No. 10 (Pre Application Presentation for a 17 storey Office Building at the Merrion Centre) Councillor Garthwaite informed Members that one of the representatives for the Merrion Centre was a Board Member of the Leeds Bid, Councillor Garthwaite was also a Member of the same Board. (Minute No.106 referred)

To receive apologies for absence (If any)

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J Bentley, D Blackburn, C Campbell, J Goddard and C Gruen.

Councillors: A Blackburn, R Grahame and K Ritchie were in attendance as substitute Members.

To consider and approve the Minutes of the previous meeting held on 15^th November 2018.

(Copy attached)

The Minutes of the previous meeting held on 15^th November 2018 were submitted for comment / approval.

Members requested a minor change to the wording of Minute No. 91 removing the words former restaurant archway and replacing with former restaurant gazebo.

RESOLVED – That, with the inclusion of the above, the minutes of the previous meeting held on 15^th November 2018 be accepted as a true and correct record.

To consider any Matters Arising from the Minutes.

There were no issues raised under Matters Arising.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of applications for the partial demolition and rebuilding of the Leonardo Building, the conversion of the Thoresby Building and 2 Great George Street for a change of use from offices to a mix use of hotel, officer, restaurant / café and bar uses and the extension of existing buildings to the Leonardo Building, Thoresby House and 2 Great George Street, Leeds.

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application which sought the partial demolition and rebuilding of the Leonardo Building, the conversion of the Thoresby Building and 2 Great George Street for a change of use from offices to a mix use of hotel, offices, restaurant/ café and bar uses and the extension of existing buildings to the Leonardo Building, Thoresby House and 2 Great George Street, Leeds.

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

Planning Officers together with the applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  Site/ location/ context

·  Site layout

·  The proposal seeks the regeneration and extension of the Grade II Listed Thoresby and Leonardo Buildings and No.2 Great George Street and the creation of a new third building between the two historic buildings, contemporary in design

·  Rooftop extension to 2 Great George Street

·  Tower feature to the Leonardo Building

·  Levels and step changes

·  Massing of the building

·  Materials – Glass, slate and terracotta stone

·  New entrances

·  Connectivity through the site, public realm, landscaping

·  Vehicular access/servicing/ the calming of Rossington Street and Cookridge Street

·  Letters of objection received from the Leeds Civic Trust and the Victorian Society, following publication of the Panel report

Members raised the following questions:

·  What were the proposals/ treatment for Rossington Street

·  The public realm areas, was there suitable access for the disabled, had the appropriate groups been consulted.

In responding to the issues raised, the applicant’s representative and council officers said:

·  Members were informed that the footways would be wider but the street would not be closed, discussions were ongoing with regard pick  up and drop off and also pay & display parking

·  Members were informed that the Council’s Access Officer had been consulted on the proposals, it was also possible that “SNAPS” could be factored into the consultation

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

·  Members were generally supportive of the application suggesting that many of the earlier concerns raised by Members had been addressed

·  A small number of Members expressed disappointment about the rooftop extension to 2 Great George Street suggesting it was out of place, it was located in a prime position and the structure may age badly, further finesse was required.

·  Members also expressed the view that the parapet interface between the old and new (top of 2 Great George Street) was not quite right , could further refinement be considered

·  Could there be some refinement to the tower element to the proposed Leonardo extension to ensure it was not flat on top

In responding to the comments about the parapet interface at 2 Great George Street and the tower element to the Leonardo extension, the Chief Planning Officers suggested that it may be possible to amend the detailed design to address Members concerns.

In summing up the Chair thanked all parties for their attendance and contributions, he said the scheme had come a long way since it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application to extend the existing park and ride site to include approx. 550 additional car park spaces and new 2 way road with associated controlled/ uncontrolled pedestrian crossing points to the north of Leeds United Football Club is also proposed providing a link between Bobby Collins Way and Lowfield Road At Elland Road Park and Ride Phase 3, Elland Road, Beeston, Leeds. LS 11 8TU

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application to extend the existing park and ride site to include approximately 550 additional car park spaces and new 2 way road with associated controlled/ uncontrolled pedestrian crossing points to the north of Leeds United Football Club. There was also a proposal to provide a link between Bobby Collins Way and Lowfield Road at Elland Road Park and Ride Phase 3, Elland Road, Beeston, Leeds, LS11 8TU

Members visited the site prior to the meeting. Site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

Planning Officers together with the applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  Site/ location/ context

·  Site layout

·  The proposal (Phase 3) increasing the Park and Ride facility from 800 spaces to 1352 spaces (an increase of 552 spaces)

·  The construction of a two-way link road between Bobby Collins Way and Lowfields Road

·  Circulation of vehicles

·  Bus access/ access arrangement

·  Flood risk

Members raised the following questions:

·  How would the proposed access off the M621 be controlled for buses only

·  Were there any proposals to improve the landscaping/ appearance around the site.

·  Where was the disabled parking located.

·  The electric vehicle charging points were they signposted, were they sufficient in number (11) and were they “trickle or rapid charge”

·  What would the arrangements be for matchday parking for Elland Road Stadium

·  Where would toilet facilities be provided

In responding to the issues raised, the applicant’s representative and council officers said:

·  Members were informed that access for buses would be controlled by the use of an automated bus gate. Enforcement cameras would also be operational for unauthorised access 

·  Members were informed that landscaping (including the provision of Birch Trees) would be introduced around the car parking areas and road edges. It was reported that control could also be exercised over replacement surfacing materials to ensure they were more visually pleasing. Full details would be controlled by planning condition

·  Members were informed that disabled parking was located near the main building together with Blue Badge parking

·  Members were informed that the electric vehicle charging points were signposted and they were visible from the access points. In terms of adequate numbers it was reported that the infrastructure was already in place if further charging points were considered necessary. The Section Head, Legal Services informed Members that an amendment was required to the existing Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for the Park and Ride facility to take account of the time limit for electric vehicle charging points.

·  Matchday parking arrangements for Elland Road Stadium would not be affected by the proposals

·  There were existing toilet facilities at the bus terminal building

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

·  Members were supportive of the application

In summing up the Chair thanked all parties for their attendance and contributions suggesting Members appeared to be supportive of the application.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved subject  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application for the construction of a two/three storey extension to the main airport terminal building to provide an improved arrival hall, internal facilities including; departure gates, retail and food and beverage outlets and new seating area and associated work at Leeds Bradford Airport.

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application for the construction of a two/three storey extension to the main airport terminal building to provide an improved arrival hall, internal facilities including: departure gates, retail and food and beverage outlets and new seating area and associated work at Leeds Bradford Airport.

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

Planning Officers together with the applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  Site/ location/ context

·  The creation of an Airport Terminal extension with ground floor retail and office space

·  The site was on different levels

·  A requirement for a deed of variation to the existing Section 106 Agreement

·  Materials – Composite cladding/ glazing

·  Landscaping and seating proposals

·  Highway implications

Members raised the following questions:

·  Would there be any increase in night time flying

·  Would the delivery of heavy plant and bulky construction materials be done in off peak hours

·  Could assurances be provided that any removal of trees as a consequence of the construction works would be suitably replaced

In responding to the issues raised, the applicant’s representative and council officers said:

·  Members were informed that nigh time flying was covered by a separate consent but it was understood there were no proposals to amend the existing consent 

·  Members were informed that bulky deliveries to the site would be covered by condition

·  Members were informed that any trees removed would be replaced in accordance with the Landscape Management Plan (Condition No.18)

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

·  Local Ward Members confirmed that they had been well briefed on the application and due consideration had been given by the applicants to everything requested.

·  Members were supportive of the application

In summing up the Chair thanked all parties for their attendance and contributions, he said the scheme was welcomed and Members appeared to be supportive of the application.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions specified in the submitted report and any others which the Chief Planning Officer considers appropriate and following the completion of a deed of variation to the existing Section 106 Agreement for the inclusion of an amendment to include the Viking Car Park and a mechanism for bus contributions

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officers which sets out details of an application for the formation of public park, playing pitches, park and changing rooms on land to west of Thorpe Park, Austhorpe Lane, Leeds.

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application for the formation of public park, playing pitches, park and changing rooms on land to west of Thorpe Park, Austhorpe Lane, Leeds.

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

Planning Officers addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  Site/ location/ context

·  Site covered an area of 47 hectares

·  The original application to layout business park, a public park and access roads was granted 1995 (Reference No. 32/199/94/OT)

·  Proposal to include: 6 sports pitches and pavilion, formal/ informal children’s play area, new walking routes, wildflower meadows, artwork and interactive structures, open parkland, new woodland, nature enclosure, picnic area and orchards

·  50 designated car parking spaces within Thorpe Park for use by visitors to the park

·  New school drop off area adjacent to Austhorpe Primary school

·  No objections received from the Coal Authority

Members raised the following questions:

·  How many Great Crested Newts were present on site

·  Would the Changing Pavilion be constructed in accordance with the latest Football Association specifications and include facilities for both male and female players

In responding to the issues raised, the applicant’s representative and council officer’s said:

·  Members were informed that the ponds were created in 2008 and 2016. Trapping and relocation occurred in 2015 where 162 Great Crested Newts, 232 Frogs and 1173 smooth newts and 1283 common toads were found. A survey in 2016 found 69 adult Great Crested Newts and this increased to 96 in 2018. The Great Crested Newts were now classed as a medium population

·  Members were informed that changing facilities had originally been designed to the latest FA Standards but in view of the comments made by Members, officers would double check this and an appropriate condition would be added to secure revisions if this was not the case. Officers did advise that Sport England had not objected to the application.

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

·  Members were supportive of the application

In summing up the Chair thanked all parties for their attendance and contributions, Members appeared to be supportive of the application.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved subject to the conditions specified in the submitted report with the inclusion of an additional condition to ensure the detailed design for the changing pavilion complied with FA Standards.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application which seeks the removal of condition 50 (MLLR delivery) of approval 16/07938/OT, on land Between Barrowby Lane and Manston Lane, Thorpe Park, Leeds.

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application which sought the removal of condition No.50 (MLLR delivery) of approval 16/07938/OT, on land between Barrowby Lane and Manston Lane, Thorpe Park, Leeds.

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

Planning Officers together with the applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  The report before Members was an update report, the application was last considered by Panel on 4^th October 2018

·  Further mine entries had been discovered leading to delays in completing the MLLR

·  Wet/bad weather had also slowed progress down by impacting on the usability of fill

·  Members were informed that the proposed completion date of 21^st December 2018 was not achievable, a further backstop date of 28^th February 2019 was also considered to be uncertain. A more realistic completion date of 30^th April 2019 had been proposed by the applicant.

·  It was reported that Local Ward Members had been kept informed of the development and were disappointed at the lack of progress. 

Members raised the following questions:

·  Were the delays in delivering the MLLR mainly as a result of the poor weather

·  Was Lazencroft Cottage occupied and if so had any noise reduction measures being but in place

·  Were there any financial penalties / consequences for the developer in not delivering the MLLR within the specified period

·  It was suggested by the applicant that a condition could be added which could limit the amount of retail floor space to be used prior to the completion of the MLLR

In responding to the issues raised, the applicant’s representative and council officers said:

·  Members were informed that poor weather was a contributing factor but the discovery of further mine entries (900 in total) and the need for these to be “grouted and/ or capped” had led to delays in progress.

·  Members were informed that Lazencroft Cottage was now used as a Children’s Nursery. The arrangement of junction 46 of the M1 was an existing situation and the motorway was elevated at this point so any traffic noise from MLLR was reduced

·  Highways officers confirmed there were no financial penalties associated with the delivery of the MLLR, there were no Traffic Management costs, the only costs that would apply would be for inspection of the works

·  The Section Head, Legal Services advised that any conditions added would need to be meet the tests set out in the NPPF – be necessary; relevant to planning; to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise and reasonable in all other respects

In the discussion that followed Member expressed the view that further assurances were required on progress of the MLLR before a completion date or any other measures could be identified.

The Chair suggested that in view of the comments raised, determination of the application be deferred for one cycle to await the submission of a further progress report on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of a pre-application presentation for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of proposed office development at land bounded by Wellington Street/ Grove Street, Cropper Gate, Skinner Street and Lisbon Street, Leeds

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of a

pre-application proposal for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of proposed office development at land bounded by Wellington Street/ Grove Street, Cropper Gate, Skinner Street and Lisbon Street, Leeds.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting. Site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  Site / location/ context

·  City Centre location

·  Demolition of existing buildings and creation of single building 11storey’s in height rising to 18 storey’s

·  Relationship with the surrounding buildings

·  3 metres of pavement space to create improved setting

·  Materials - Bronze anodised metal / glazing

·  132 car parking spaces, disable parking bays

·  Electric vehicle charging points 

·  Cycle parking provision

Members raised the following questions:

·  Referring to one of the CGI graphics, it was suggested that the top of the building appeared to be “a bit pointy” was this a true representation of the building

·  Were there any proposals for the building to be carbon neutral/ achieve BREEAM Excellent standards

·  Were there any proposals for outdoor space / landscaping

In responding to the issues raised, the applicant’s representative and council officer’s said:

·  Members were informed the graphic was deceptive and other views provided a more accurate representation

·  Members were informed that it was intended the building would achieve BREEAM Excellent standards, there was also a move to be innovative in respect of sustainable issues

·  Members were informed that there was an intention to provide a high level outdoor terrace with landscaping, there was also a proposal for a roof top garden.

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

·  Members were generally supportive of the application

In drawing the discussion to a conclusion Members provided the following feedback;

·  Members considered the proposed scale of development and its relationship with the surrounding context was acceptable

·  That following the submission of a formal application, Members requested that the application be brought to Panel for determination

The Chair thanked the developers for their attendance and presentation suggesting that Members appeared to be generally supportive of the scheme

RESOLVED –

(i)  To note the details contained in the pre-application presentation

(ii)  That the developers be thanked for their attendance and presentation

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of a pre application presentation for a 17 storey building, comprising 13 floors of offices, 3 floors of co-working; ground floor and basement retail at 66 - 70 Merrion Centre, Merrion Way, Leeds, LS2 8NG.

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of a

pre-application proposal for the construction of a 17 storey building, comprising 13 floors of offices, 3 floors of co-working, ground floor and basement retail at 66 – 70 Merrion Centre, Merrion Way, Leeds, LS2 8NG.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting. Site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  Merrion Centre Vision 2018

·  Site/ location/context

·  Demolition of existing 4 storey office block

·  Creation of a 17 storey office tower with ground floor retail space

·  Materials - Bronze anodised metal / glazing

·  New publicly accessible courtyard with entrances from lobby of the new building / connectivity

·  Loading and deliveries

·  Emergency escape proposals

·  Desktop wind study undertaken

Members raised the following questions:

·  Members supported the principle of the proposal, but also suggested it would make the neighbouring building; Wade House, look unattractive, were there any proposals for Wade House.

In responding to the issues raised, the applicant’s representative said:

·  The applicants reported that currently Wade House was fully occupied but if some of the existing tenants moved  to the new building there may be opportunities for further development

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

·  Members were supportive of the proposal, with some suggesting  the design could be more iconic and that a taller building could be considered

·  One Member suggested the design was too bland, something different was required

·  Members welcomed the proposals around public space subject to further detailed design development

·  Members expressed the need for a quantitative wind tunnel assessment to be undertaken

In drawing the discussion to a conclusion Members provided the following feedback;

·  Members considered the uses proposed were acceptable

·  Members were supportive of the emerging scale and massing but a more iconic design was required

·  Members were supportive of the emerging public realm and approach to connectivity

The Chair thanked the developers for their attendance and presentation suggesting that Members appeared to be generally supportive of the scheme and looked forward to the submission of a formal application

RESOLVED –

(i)  To note the details contained in the pre-application presentation

(ii)  That the developers be thanked for their attendance and presentation

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of a pre-application presentation for mixed use development comprising offices, hotel, residential, ground floor commercial uses, multi-storey car park and new public spaces to Site 2, Wellington Place, Leeds LS1 4AP

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of a

pre-application proposal for mixed use development comprising offices, hotel, residential, ground floor commercial uses, multi-storey car park and new public spaces to Site 2, Wellington Place, Leeds, LS1 4AP.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting. Site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  Site/ location/context

·  Revised masterplan

·  Proposed building uses

·  Car parking

·  Connectivity through the site and to the nearby viaduct

·  Landscaping

·  River crossings

·  Flooding

Members raised the following questions:

·  In terms of disabled access, had the disabled access officer been consulted about the scheme

·  One Member expressed concern about the proposal to include a multi storey car park as part of the development, could occupiers of the site be encouraged to use park & Ride facilities

In responding to the issues raised, the applicant’s representatives together with council officers said

·  The applicants confirmed that the disabled access officer would be consulted

·  Members were informed that it was important to have an element of car parking, once the site was complete and occupied it would have a population of 15,000 and a car park of 1700 spaces was consider modest in the overall scheme. In addition a pro-active approach would be taken to travel planning to encourage more sustainable modes of transport in the city centre location

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

·  Members were generally supportive of the application

In drawing the discussion to a conclusion Members provided the following feedback;

·  Members considered the proposed mix use to be acceptable

·  Members were supportive of the revised masterplan arrangements for the remaining development plots at Wellington Place

·  Members were supportive of the proposed maximum scale (Height) of development on the remaining development plots

·  Members were generally supportive of the proposed introduction of a multi storey car park to meet the development car parking provision on the estate only. Councillor Nash stated that although she was supportive of the development generally, she could not support the multi storey car park element

·  Members were supportive of the emerging approach to public space and landscaping, including the replacement of the urban beach within viaduct square.

The Chair thanked the developers for their attendance and presentation suggesting that Members appeared to be generally supportive of the scheme

RESOLVED –

(i)  To note the details contained in the pre-application presentation

(ii)  That the developers be thanked for their attendance and presentation

To note that the next meeting will take place on Thursday, 3^rd January 2019 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds.

RESOLVED – To note that the next meeting will take place on Thursday 3^rd January 2019 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds.