Agenda and minutes

Plans Panel Members carried out site visits in respect of the following:

PREAPP/19/00477 – Proposed residential development and ancillary commercial uses at former Arla Foods Site, Kirkstall Road, Leeds and PREAPP/19/00543 – Proposed student residential development and education facility at Brotherton House, Westgate, Leeds and was attended by the following Councillors: D Blackburn, K Brooks, C Campbell, G Latty,

E Nash, P Wadsworth and N Walshaw.

In the absence of Councillor J McKenna, Councillor C Gruen was elected Chair for the duration of the meeting.

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 Nos. 9 &11 – (Application No.19/01666/FU – Mixed use development to land at Kirkstall Hill, Kirkstall, Leeds 5 – Viability Appraisal – Minute No. 136 referred) and (PREAPP/9/00543 – Conversion and extension of existing building to student housing and educational facilities at Brotherton House, Westgate, Leeds 1 – Minute No.138 referred). Members were informed that in both instances the supplementary information was not available at the time of agenda publication/ circulation and it was in the best interests of the Council and other parties concerned that the new information be considered without delay.

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 Councillors A Khan and J McKenna

Councillors: K Brooks and K Ritchie were in attendance as substitute Members.

To consider and approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 20^th February 2020.

(Copy attached)

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 20^th February 2020 were submitted for comment/ approval.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 20^th February 2020 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 an application for the erection of 437 dwellings with new roads, open space, landscaping, drainage and associated works at Radial Park, Manston Lane, Leeds, LS15 8ST.

(Report attached)

With reference to the meeting of 6^th January 2020 and the decision to defer consideration to allow further discussions/negotiations with the applicant concerning: Alternative design solutions of the house types; an increase in the provision of photovoltaic cells or adaptability of properties to incorporate cells at a later point, accessible housing provision, unresolved highway issues, incorporation of additional elements linking the development to its former use (and heritage significance of the same).

The Chief Planning Officer now submitted a report indicating that the scheme had been subsequently revised and overall the proposal was in accordance with the Development Plan.

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

·  Masterplan

·  Provision of accessible housing

·  Design and Character/ Heritage

·  Sustainability – Provision of solar panels

·  The development was in accordance with Strategic Policies SP1 and H1 of the Development Plan and HG2 of the SAP

·  Provision of a commuted sum towards off-site playing pitch provision

The Planning Case Officer reported the receipt of one additional representation received after publication of the agenda. The representation raised no new issues and those matters raised were covered in paragraphs 1.4 and 1.8 of the submitted report or earlier reports.

Members raised the following questions to officers/ applicant’s representatives

·  The roofscape appeared to be very bland, could further consideration be given to make the roofscape more interesting, consider the inclusion of chimneys

·  Would there be sufficient electrical supply capacity for adding solar panels in the future

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

·  The Planning Officer noted that there was already variety across the site with the inclusion of different roofscapes and levels.

·  The architect confirmed that one of the house types from the Strata Development contained chimneys and two house types from the Redrow Development also contained chimneys but further design of the roofscape could be negotiated if deemed necessary

·  Members were informed that solar panels could be included as an optional extra and there is sufficient electrical capacity to enable this but it was understood that not all occupiers considered solar panels were a benefit

In offering comments Members raised the following matters:

• The majority of Members welcomed the application suggesting the scheme was much improved and merits approval but could further refinements be made to the house types and the roofscape in consultation with Ward Members
• Members welcomed the inclusion of some accessible housing units
• Members accepted the viability position on the affordable housing provision
• The retention of the Barnbow Social Club was important to the community, but the additions made to reflect the heritage importance of the site was acknowledged and appreciated

The Chair thanked the developers for their attendance and presentation, commenting that Members appeared to be supportive of the development

RESOLVED –

(i)  That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to a satisfactory  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.

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 sets out details 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 or B1a) together with associated vehicular access, car and cycle parking spaces, bin store, plant, landscaping, amenity space and associated infrastructure and engineering works on land at Kirkstall Hill, Kirkstall, Leeds, LS5 3BH.

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

·  Former Super Market site together with a number of vacant buildings in a state of disrepair

·  Main access to the site is taken from Beecroft Street

·  The proposal 263 dwellings with a mixture of house types: Apartments 183, Townhouses 80

·  Residential blocks 3 storey’s in height

·  Stepped design in response to the level changes across the site.

·  Commercial units along Kirkstall Hill/Lane providing active frontage

·  The landscaping plan proposes hedge planting, amenity grass, wildflower areas, allotment planters and rain gardens

·  Undercroft parking and on-street parking 231 spaces

·  Cycle parking 310 spaces

·  Materials red brick with stone accents, roof materials grey slate, timber windows reflecting the heritage of the area

·  Affordable housing provision 13.6%

·  Viability issues

The Panel heard from Councillor J Illingworth (Ward Member) and Mr S Long, a local resident, both were objecting to the proposal.

Councillor Illingworth said that originally Kirkstall Ward Members were supportive of the scheme but engagement with Ward Members and the local community had ceased with a number of outstanding issues still to be addressed. Ward Members now suggested that Panel consider deferral of the application to allow further discussions with the applicant in respect of insufficient affordable housing provision, insufficient on-site greenspace provision and highway safety concerns.

Mr Long said the proposal included a large number of flats, the area did not need any more flats, more family housing was required and the development’s design also needed to be considered in more detail. Mr Long said traffic generation continued to be a concern and improvements were required at the junction of Kirkstall Lane and Kirkstall Road as traffic congestion would otherwise be increased. Further, Yorkshire Water have lodged an objection and it is the case that the existing sewerage provision will not be sufficient once the development is complete.

Questions to Councillor J Illingworth

There were no questions to Councillor J Illingworth

Questions to Mr S Long

·  What was the view of local residents with regard to this application

·  How was it felt that the development would impact on Kirkstall Abbey

In responding Mr S Long said;

·  There was resentment in the local area to the application

·  Images had not been provided by the developer which indicated how the proposals would ‘sit’ within the background of Kirkstall Abbey, but there was the potential for it to interfere with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning officer which sets out details of a pre-application presentation for an outline proposal “The Tannery” - mixed use scheme comprising build to rent (BTR) residential with ancillary ground floor mixed uses including small scale retailing, café/restaurants, bars and crèche on the former Arla foods site on the southern side of Kirkstall Road and fronting the River Aire.

(Report attached)

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

pre-application proposal for an outline proposal “The Tannery” – mixed use scheme comprising build to rent (BtR) residential with ancillary ground floor mixed uses including small scale retailing, café/restaurant bars and crèche on the former Arla food site on the southern side of Kirkstall Road and fronting the River Aire.

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

·  Large scale redevelopment of a brown-field site

·  Kirkstall Road is located to the north of the site, the River Aire and towpath of the Leeds Liverpool Canal are positioned to the south

·  The proposal, build to rent residential development, six blocks on a site which is L-shaped, 7 to 16 storey’s in height delivering 640 residential units

·  Surface level car parking (230 spaces) cycle parking to be determined

·  Supporting commercial uses on ground floor

·  Single point of vehicular access/egress would be provided on Kirkstall Road with an exit only on Washington Street

·  Public realm, public open space, landscaping and greenspace proposals

·  Pedestrian access/ service arrangements

·  Affordable housing 7% (Compliant with Core Strategy Policy H5)

·  Energy/ Sustainability Strategy to be provided

·  Full wind assessment to be undertaken

·  Flood risk assessment to be provided

Members raised the following questions:

·  There appeared to be a significant amount of visible car parking, could some of this be hidden

·  Does the car parking provision reflect a city centre location

·  Would flood alleviation measures be included within the development

·  The overall alignment and design of the buildings appears to be “too boxy” and perpendicular to each other, could this be re-visited

·  The illustrations provided did not provide a true representation of the development, with better quality images being needed before Members could necessarily be expected to give a clear ‘steer’ regarding design

·  Had balconies been considered

·  How was it intended that the public realm space proposed would be ‘activated’

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

·  The architect stated that the car parking was located in undercroft areas or enclosed by buildings to limit street views as far as possible. He suggested the car parking could be further clustered to free up other areas and more green infrastructure could screen the car parking areas

·  The City Centre Team Leader reported that the car parking provision for this development was 37% similar to some other fringe city centre developments where less than the allowable maximum parking levels had been approved, however, it was understood the developers were encouraging less car travel and parking areas would revert back to landscaping if not used at a later date once occupation of the development increased and the extent of active use of car parking facilities had been gauged.

·  Members were informed that the proposal would be constructed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 138.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of a pre application proposal for conversion and extension of existing building to student housing and educational facilities at Brotherton House, Westgate, Leeds, LS1 2RS.

(Report attached)

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

pre-application proposal for conversion and extension of existing building to student housing and educational facilities at Brotherton House, Westgate, Leeds, LS1 2RS.

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

·  Refurbishment/ conversion of the vacant Brotherton House and the construction of a new 15 storey block for 102 purpose built student housing flats (Providing 350 bedspaces)

·  The accommodation would be across both the existing building and the proposed new building; 56 studio flats and 46 cluster flats

·  The new block to include communal areas, educational use including lecture theatre and teaching rooms over three lower floors

·  External works to existing building including refurbishment of the windows, glazed link connecting the two buildings at ground floor level

·  Retention of historic features

·   The material for the new building would include white concrete tiles/ panels with clearly defined base, middle and top. Dark bronze window frames would be set within a 200m deep reveal window. The eastern and western gables would feature a projecting bay of windows framed with dark bronze coloured metal

·  Amenity through the building/ public realm/ landscaping

·  External roof terraces

·  Two disabled car parking spaces, electric vehicle charging points provided on site

·  Pick up and drop off, refuse servicing and cycle parking would be from Grace Street/ St Paul’s Street and manged by the applicant

·  Building to achieve 20% better than the carbon emission target in the 2013 Part L Building Regulations and a minimum of 10% energy generation  would be developed through renewable  energy sources

Members raised the following questions:

·  Members requested if the glazed link connecting the two buildings could be raised to first floor level

·  Given the proximity of the Westgate tunnel, was air quality an issue in this area

·  What was the approach to the boundary treatment and soft landscaping generally

·  Would green walls be incorporated within the development

·  The new building was very dominant compared with neighbouring buildings. Was the site in a location identified for tall buildings in the Council’s tall building guide

·  Can the new building be moved onto the adjacent council land to provide greater separation

·  The inclusion of some affordable units as part of the student accommodation proposed would be welcome

·  Is the proposed educational use independent or linked to the student use

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

·  The architect said that the Leeds Civic Trust had also raised issue with the glass link being included in the position proposed, but the preference was to retain the glass link in its current position to as to ensure a single point of entry at ground floor level.

·  The architect suggested that there were many areas on the site where greenery: grass, trees and hedges could be planted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139.

To note that the next meeting will take place on Thursday, 2^nd April 2020 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds.

RESOLVED – To note that the next meeting will take place on Thursday, 2nd April 2020 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds