Agenda and minutes

A Members site visit was held in connection with the following applications:

Application No.19/01666/FU – Residential Development at Kirkstall Hill, Leeds 5, PREAPP/1800636 – Residential Development at the former Yorkshire Post Site, PREEAPP/1800245 – Residential Development at Springwell Road, Leeds 12 and Application No.19/01242/OT – Proposed Adult and Children Services Hospital at the Leeds General Infirmary site, Leeds 1 and was attended by the following Councillors: D Blackburn, G Latty, J McKenna,

E Nash and P Wadsworth.

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 considered.

Although there were no late items the Chair did accept the inclusion of Supplementary Information in respect of Agenda Item No. 9 – Application No. 19/04278/FU - Proposed Student Accommodation Development at Oak House, Park Lane, Leeds 3. The Supplementary Information included a report from the Chief Planning Officer which provided the most up to date position on negotiations with the applicant, there was also representations from the local ward Members. (Minute No.84 referred). There was further Supplementary Information in respect of Agenda Item No.10 – Application No. 19/01666/ FU – Development at Kirkstall Hill, Leeds 5, which included the submission of a Viability Report (Minute No. 85 referred).

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 of disclosable pecuniary interests made at the meeting.

To receive apologies for absence (if any)

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor C Campbell

To consider and approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 31^st October 2019.

(Copy attached)

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 31^st October 2019 were submitted for comment/ approval.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 31^st October 2019 be accepted as a true and correct record

To consider any matters arising from the minutes.

Former Marsh Lane Railway Station (Minute No. 71 referred) – With reference to the previous meeting when it was reported that the Chief Planning Officer together with the Chair had sent a joint letter to Network Rail seeking to ascertain what stage had been reached in any ongoing discussions regarding the re-opening of the rail halt at the former Marsh Lane Railway Station.

The Chair was not aware a response had been received and the matter would be followed up with the Chief Planning Officer.

Section 106 Agreements – Reference was made to the general issue of Section 106 Agreements, in particular the 3 month period allocated to finalise such an Agreement. Members were of the view that such a time period was unrealistic and could research be undertaken to identify a more realistic timescale.

The Council’s Legal Officer reported that an exercise was currently ongoing, with data on timeframes for Section 106 Agreements over the past 12 months being collected and analysed in order to determine an appropriate benchmark. The findings would be reported to Members at a future date, but indications do show an improvement in the ‘turnaround’ time from instructions / Panel resolution to completion of Section 106 Agreements in the last 6 months and particularly on the more straightforward Section 106 Agreements completed

in-house by Legal & Democratic Services.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an outline planning application including the demolition of the former nurses' home and other buildings and the construction of new adult and children's healthcare facilities, a multi-storey car park, new access and egress points into hospital grounds with landscaping at the Leeds General Infirmary, Great George Street, Leeds, LS1 3EX.

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an outline planning application, including the demolition of the former nurses home and other buildings and the construction of new adult and children’s healthcare facilities, a multi-storey car park, new access and egress points into hospital grounds with landscaping at the Leeds General Infirmary, Great George Street, Leeds, LS1 3EX.

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

·  Site/ location/context

·  New upgraded health facility for Leeds and the North of England region

·  Creation of a new adult and children’s service health facility, linked building, a new multi storey car park, new access and egress points and landscaping scheme.

·  Some buildings have historic / architectural merit

·  Some buildings being decommissioned for future development

·  Off-site highway works

·  Vehicular routes

·  Drop off areas

·  Pedestrian routes

·  Massing/ elevations/ materials

·  Townscape impact

·  Key views

Members raised the following questions to officers:

·  The design concept, as demonstrated within the presentation, was it likely to be an accurate representation

·  Is the development likely to achieve a BREEAM excellence rating

·  Had there been any discussions with WYCA in respect of the pick-up and drop-off areas

·  Height differential between the proposed new development and the existing Brotherton Wing

·  The proposed new development would be twice the height of the existing Brotherton Wing, therefore a quality design and materials would be very important

·  Could some thought be given to the patient experience and assistance in getting around the building, particularly when distances between different hospital departments was likely to be considerable

·  What was proposed for the open space/ green space and relaxation areas

·  What was the timescale for the development and subsequent opening/ operation of different elements of the new facility

·  The Calverley Street/ Portland Way Junction is very busy, are there any plans to upgrade it

·  Was there potential for the City’s Park & Ride services to access and service the new facility

·  Decommissioned buildings/ empty buildings could be unattractive, what was envisaged for these buildings, what was the Masterplan

·  One Member expressed concern about the size of the multi storey car park (650 spaces)

·  One Member queried whether the provision of secure cycle spaces (100 spaces) was sufficient 

·  Consideration and monitoring of air quality around the new development, particularly having regard to controlling smoking around main hospital entrances and on the site as a whole

In responding to the issues raised, Planning Officers/ the applicant’s representatives said:

·  Members were informed that the design was a representation based on the design parametres for the outline application.  The internal designs shown on the ‘fly-through’ were also illustrations of what it is hoped will be achieved . The full design details will be informed by a design brief and competition and will be secured via a procurement process.

·  Members were informed that the vision was to push the sustainable design  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application which seeks the erection of between 3 and 6 storey building providing purpose built student accommodation comprising 188 student rooms in cluster flats and studio format with additional communal facilities and landscaping at Oak House, Park Lane, Leeds, LS3 1EL

(Report attached)

With reference to the meeting held on 31^st October 2019 and the decision to defer the application for further discussions with the applicant around design, massing, use of materials and the greenspace provision. The Chief Planning Officer now submitted a report indicating that further discussions to address Members’ concerns had taken place with the applicant, resulting in further revisions to the scheme. 

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

·  Members had previously accepted the principle of student housing in this location

·  Amended brick detailing, greater layering and depth to reveals, more windows added to the pavilion and all dormers amended to be square headed

·  The sub-station repositioned and planted to side, green roof to be incorporated, increase in number of trees, hedges planted at the top of the bank and a living wall on the western elevation

·  Landscaping around the perimeter of the site and on the building

·  Ground floor room raised above street level, railings and fritted glass to obscure views

·  Hanover Avenue to be resurfaced as a pedestrian priority

The Planning Officer reported the receipt of letter of support from a Ward Member, together with a letter of support from Unipol, a Leeds based registered charitable company specialising in student housing.

Members were given the opportunity to view building materials and possible finishes to be used on the development that had been provided by the applicant.

There were no questions raised by Members.

In offering comments Members raised the following matters:

·  The alternative coloured brick created a much improved scheme.

·  Some Members expressed a preference for a darker metal cladding.

·  The increased green provision and planting, both alongside and integral to the building design, was welcomed.

·  All Members were of the view that the proposed revisions created a much improved scheme.

The Chair thanked the developers for their attendance and presentation, commenting that the earlier scheme had met with some criticism but successful negotiations / discussion with all parties had addressed many of the earlier concerns. Members now appeared to be supportive of the proposals.

RESOLVED –

(i)   That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval following the expiry of the period provided for publicity and comments on the revised proposals on Monday 9^th December 2019 and subject to the conditions specified in Appendix 1 of the submitted report (and any others which he may consider appropriate) and subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the following obligations:

·  Restriction on occupancy to full-time students only during term times

·  Travel Plan Review Fee of £3,528

·  Local Employment & Skills Initiative

(ii)  In the event of the Section 106 Agreement having not been completed within 3 months of the resolution to grant planning permission, the final determination of the application shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application which seeks the demolition of existing buildings and structures and redevelopment of the site for a mixed-use development comprising up to 263 residential units (Use Class C3) and flexible commercial floorspace (Use Class A1, A2 or B1a); together with associated vehicular access, car and cycle parking spaces, bin stores, plant, landscaping, amenity space and associated infrastructure and engineering works on land at Kirkstall Hill, Kirkstall, Leeds LS5 3BH.

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out a Position Statement in respect of an application which sought the demolition of existing buildings and structures and redevelopment of the site for a mixed-use development comprising up to 263 residential units (Use Class C3) and flexible commercial floor space (Use Class A1, A2 and B1a) together with associated vehicular access, car and cycle parking spaces, bin stores, plant, landscaping amenity space and associated infrastructure and engineering works, on land at Kirkstall Hill, Kirkstall, Leeds, LS5 3BH.

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

·  Site / location / context

·  Site currently occupied by a large retail unit together with some vacant buildings which are in a state of disrepair

·  Key issues include: highway implications and viability issues

·  The development proposes 263 dwellings: 183 apartments and 80 townhouses (Residential blocks are 3 storey’s in height)

·  The scheme creates a stepped design responding to the change in levels across the site

·  Access into the development to be taken from Beecroft Street via 3 separate access roads

·  231 car parking spaces (Including 16 disabled spaces) and 25 visitor spaces

·  Materials: red brick with stone accents to some elevations to provide character, roof material grey slate

·  Affordable housing provision

·  The area of land identified as Area 5 was outside the red line of the site

·  The site would require 20% greenspace provision to be policy compliant (Policy G4), but that that this could not be  provided in the way required by policy otherwise this would adversely impact on the viability of the proposal

·  An additional highways contribution would be required which had not yet been taken into account as part of the viability calculations.  This would potentially be for use on junction improvements (Hot spots), bridge widening, provision of 2 metre-wide footpaths and other highway works.  This was likely to be required as part of emerging policy however, so can only be afforded limited weight.

·  Controlled parking zone contribution was being sought commensurate with policy requirements

·  Sustainability features, first passive design, possible connection to district heating system and electric vehicle charging points

·  The site is designated in the Site Allocations Plan for mixed-use development, comprising residential, commercial and with some element of office use.  The office-use has not been brought forward as part of the proposals, but there does remain a mixed-use element to the scheme proposed.

The application was being brought to Panel at this stage by way of a Position Statement, such as to allow Planning Officers to present the scheme to Members and for Members to consider and comment on the proposals.  Members would therefore be involved in decision-making in respect of the application at a later Panel, but at this stage were to focus on discussion of the matters outlined in the Chief Planning Officer’s report.

The Panel then  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of a Pre application proposal for 2 separate planning applications:

(i)  Full application for 2 build to rent residential buildings, (approximately 419 units) with ancillary ground floor active uses, small scale retailing, café/restaurant, bars; from 17 up to 23 storeys

(ii)  (ii) Outline application for hotel use from 16 up to 19 storeys (200 bedrooms approximately) at site bounded by Wellington Street and Wellington Bridge Street (Northern part of the former Yorkshire Post Site)

(Report attached)

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

Pre Application proposal for 2 separate planning applications:

(i)  Full application for two build to rent residential buildings, (approximately 419 units) with ancillary ground floor active uses, small scale retailing, café/restaurant, bars; from 17 to 23 storey’s in height

(ii)  Outline application for hotel use from 16 up to 19 storey’s in height (200 bedrooms approximately) at site bounded by Wellington Street and Wellington Bridge Street (Northern part of the former Yorkshire Post site)

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

·  Northern part of the former Yorkshire Post site

·  Full application – Two build to rent residential buildings, 17 to 23 storey’s in height (419 apartments including 5 townhouses)

·  Both blocks linked at ground level by a double height glazed residents entrance and reception area. Supporting commercial spaces would be integrated at ground floor to comprise gym, café and retail, alongside plant and bin storage areas

·  Affordable Housing Provision would be delivered by commuted sum in lieu of on-site provision in accordance with Policy H5 (iii)

·  Outline application  - Erection of hotel 16  to 19 storey’s in height (200 bedrooms)

·  Hotel arrival zone – public space and active frontages

·  Hotel to achieve a BREEAM Excellent standard

·  New road to be provided to the south

·  Emerging proposals for landscaping

Members raised the following questions:

·  Welcome the cluster of the building, but buildings in close proximity could cause light issues, materials should be light in colour

·  The Hotel, what was the intended rating

·  Could Members be made aware of the species of trees to be planted

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

·  The Architect suggested that further discussions would be taking place with the Planning Authority, but the intention was to use some light colour materials and have overall variety

·  The images presented did not necessarily give a good indication in terms of colour palette or distances, as the spaces between and within the buildings actually comprised a considerable square footage for a City Centre scheme

·  Members were informed that at this stage no operator could be named but there was good interest.  At the outline stage though, the developer was setting the parameter scale to approximately 200-bed

·  The applicant confirmed that the species of trees to be used would be made available to Members.

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

·  The majority of Members were supportive of the scheme, commenting that it was a good design and well thought through

·  Members welcomed the cluster of the buildings, the light materials to be used and emphasised the need for a lot of greenery

·  The intention for the hotel to achieve a BREEAM Excellent standard was welcomed

·  Ensure there was enough light between the cluster of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of a pre-application presentation for the demolition of the existing building and creation of residential development (“Springwell Gardens II”) with 288 apartments and a commercial unit. This is a second phase to the adjacent ‘Radius’ (“Springwell Gardens I”) development (16/05198/FU) at Cartwright House, Springwell Road, Holbeck, Leeds, LS12 1EX

(Report attached)

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

Pre Application proposal for the demolition of the existing building and creation of residential development (“Springwell Gardens II”) with 288 apartments and a commercial unit. This was the second phase to adjacent Radius (“Springwell Gardens I”) development (16/05198/FU) at Cartwright House, Springwell Road, Holbeck, Leeds, LS12 1EX

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

·  The site lies within the Holbeck Neighbourhood Plan and within the South Bank Regeneration Area

·  The proposal is to construct a 24 storey residential building, containing 288 apartments: 72 one bed suits, 80 one bed apartments, 122 two bed apartments and 14 three bed apartments

·  All apartments would meet Nationally Described Space Standards

·  Active frontage onto Springwell Road

·  Secure cycle storage

·  Parking for 24 cars

·  11 motorcycle parking spaces

·  Communal terrace at first floor level linking in with Phase I

·  Rooftop landscaping

·  Large balconies

·  Affordable Housing 7%, preferred option to provide off-site (Policy H5)

·  Key views

Members raised the following questions:

·  Would a noise survey be undertaken

·  Would all the apartments have a balcony

·  Would Affordable Housing provision be provided

·  Would any wind studies be undertaken

·  Was overlooking of the balconies an issue

·  How would the greenery be maintained, especially that incorporated as part of the ‘hanging’ design on the building’s façade 

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

·  The Applicant confirmed that a full noise assessment would be undertaken.  In addition, there was the intention to incorporate high performance glazing and a number of other measures within the design to assist with noise mitigation and ensuring appropriate ventilation.

·  Discussions are underway with neighbouring landowners (including Network Rail) and these would continue as the applicant works towards an application submission. However, this is a City Centre scheme and there will inevitably be activities that are associated with a City Centre location that generate some noise impact. 

·  Members were informed that all apartments would have a balcony

·  The Affordable Housing contribution would be delivered at 7%, on-site provision had been considered and it was hoped that this site would be attractive for registered providers, such that it may be possible to have on-site delivery

·  Members were informed that a full wind assessment would be undertaken and submitted.  The development of Springwell Gardens I had already provided some protection for the application site from prevailing winds, but further mitigation measures would be considered as necessary.

·  The Planning Officer confirmed that some overlooking could take place but due to the good separation  distance of 25-35 metres, and given that both phases were part of one overall scheme within a high density City landscape, the proposals were seen to be acceptable.

·  The maintenance of the greenery was an important factor and further consideration was required, but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

To note that the next meeting will take place on Monday, 6^th January 2020 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds.

RESOLVED - To note that the next meeting will take place on Monday, 6^th January 2020 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds.