Agenda and minutes

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

Application No. 18/06677/FU – M621 Junction 7, Park and Ride facility, and Application No. 18/03744/FU – Melbourne Street, Leeds and was attended by the following Councillors: J Mckenna, N Walshaw, A Khan, A Garthwaite, P Carlill, C Gruen, J Goddard, C Campbell, D Cohen, P Wadsworth, T Leadley and D Blackburn.

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:-

That, in accordance with Regulation 4 of The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following parts of the agenda designated as exempt 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 public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information so designated as follows:-

Appendix No.2 to Planning Application 18/02481/FU report was deemed exempt from publication in accordance with Access to Information Rule 10.4 (3) as it included information which provided financial viability information concerning the business affairs of the applicant. It was considered that it was not in the public interest to disclose this information as it would be likely to prejudice the applicant’s commercial position. (Minute No. 119 referred)

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. 

There were no declarations of any disclosable pecuniary interests.

To consider apologies for absence (If any)

There were no apologies for absence.

To consider and approve the Minutes of the previous meeting held on 6^th December 2018.

(Copy attached)

The Minutes of the previous meeting held on 6^th December 2018 were submitted for comment / approval.

Members requested a minor change to the wording of Minute No. 101 to include the provision of Birch Trees within the landscaping proposals. A further amendment was required to Minute No. 104 stating that “the applicant suggested a condition could be added which could limit the amount of retail floor space to be used prior to the completion of the MLLR”

RESOLVED – That, with the inclusion of the above, the minutes of the previous meeting held on 6^th December 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 an application for the development of a Park and Ride facility with car parking or up to 1,200 cars; associated single storey terminus building, landscaping, CCTV, lighting, fencing and associated infrastructure at Land Adjacent to the M621 Junction 7 Roundabout, Bordered By Hunslet Cemetery to the West by, the A61 and the Motorway/ A61 Circulatory to the East and North, and the Middleton Residential Area to the South.

(Report attached)

(Prior to consideration of the following item Councillor E Nash informed the meeting that she had assiduously avoided as far as possible, getting into debates about this proposal at residents meetings and she had not responded to articles in the local newspaper. However, in the interest of openness and transparency, she would not participate in the discussion or any subsequent vote on this application. Councillor Nash then withdrew from the meeting)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application for the development of a Park and Ride facility with car parking for up to 1,200 cars; associated single storey terminus building, landscaping, CCTV, lighting, fencing and associated infrastructure at land adjacent to the M621 Junction 7 Roundabout, bordered by Hunslet Cemetery to the west, by the A61 and the Motorway/ A61 circulatory to the east and north, and the Middleton Residential Area to the south.

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 boundary

·  The proposal to create a Park and Ride facility with car parking for 1200 cars

·  Single storey terminal building, vehicle shelters and CCTV monitoring

·  Access arrangements

·  Dedicated cycle ways and footways

·  Landscaping proposals, new tree planting to protect the setting to the nearby cemetery

·  Proposals for off-site highway works

The Panel heard from Rob Chesterfield – Stop the Park and Ride in Stourton (SPARS) who was objecting to the proposal.

Mr Chesterfield said that there was a lot of concern that the issues raised by residents of the Stourton and Middleton areas and referred to in paragraph 8.4 of the submitted report had not been heard. A petition containing 3000 signatures opposing the scheme had also been prepared and submitted to the Council. Referring to the consultation on the scheme Mr Chesterfield said consultation had been low key, some public meetings had been arranged but notification about the meetings was poor and as a result attendance was low. Mr Chesterfield said it was the view of SPARS that the site before Members was not the right location for a large park and ride facility and that it would not improve traffic congestion.

Questions to Mr Chesterfield – None

The Panel heard from Martin Fitzsimmons (Will Contacts Spencer) who was also objecting to the proposal.

Mr Fitzsimmons suggested that investigations as to the suitability of the site had not been fully completed. The site was located on an area of wetland with Stourton Beck running through the site. It was suggested there would be a high risk of flooding. Earlier proposals on the use of the site (1985) suggested the land was not suitable for any building works. Mr Fitzsimmons said he was supportive of a Park and Ride facility but not in this location.

Questions to Mr Fitzsimmons – None

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

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)

With reference to the previous meeting and the decision to deferdetermination of the application for one cycle (3^rd January 2019) to await the submission of a further progress report on the delivery of the Manston Lane Link Road (MLLR).

The Chief Planning Officer now submitted a further update 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 6^th December 2018

·  Ground works were now complete, eliminating the danger of finding more mine entries

·  The biggest threat to further delays in the programme of works would be poor weather conditions

·  A new proposed completion date of 30^th April 2019 (back stop date) was considered achievable by the developers

·   Monitoring/ update reports would be provided on a monthly basis

·  A suggestion to impose a condition preventing the cinema element from opening in late February/ early March was considered by officers to be unreasonable but restrictions on other retail and leisure floorspace was considered a sensible solution

·  Some weekend working had taken place resulting a clawback of 1.5 weeks

The Panel then heard from Councillor Peter Gruen, Local Ward Councillor

Councillor Gruen informed Members that the developers of the site, Scarborough Developments had worked well overall but correspondence continued to be received from local residents concerned at the delay in completion of the MLLR. The original completion date was 21^st December 2018, following delays to the programme a new backstop date of 28^th February 2019 was suggested. It was now understood that the completion date had now slipped to 30^th April 2019. Councillor Gruen said the programme had slipped 4 months in a period of 2 months with mine entries, poor weather conditions and complications with the bridge contractors all put forward as causes for delays in completion of the scheme.

Questions to Councillor P Gruen

·  The new back stop date of 30^th April 2019, was it achievable

·  In your opinion what were the causes for the delay

·  Was it too late for a more robust monitoring process

In responding to the issues raised, Councillor P Gruen said:

·  I hope the MLLR can be completed by that date, but a realistic incentive needs to be set for the developer

·  Members had already been made aware that mine entries, poor weather conditions and complications with the bridge contractors all contributed to delay of the scheme, but also certain sections of the scheme were prioritised over others resulting in other sections of the MLLR not being delivered at the same rate.

·  Councillor Gruen suggested that it was late in the day for a more  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application for the erection of 100 apartments in two buildings between 5 and 7 storeys, 3 commercial units (A1,A2,A3,B1,D1), 3 no. car parking spaces on land located between Melbourne Street and Lower Brunswick Street, Leeds

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application for the erection of 100 apartments in two buildings between 5 and 7 storeys, 3 commercial units (A1,A2,A3, B1 and D1), 3 car parking spaces on land located between Melbourne Street and Lower Brunswick 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.

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 erection of 2 buildings between 5 and 7 storeys in height, separated by a central area of open space

·  100 apartments in total all meet the requirements of the Nationally Described Space Standards with the exception of a single studio apartment (33 sqm)

·  3 commercial units located at ground floor level

·  Rooftop garden areas

·  Areas of public realm throughout the site

·  Public open space

·  Footpaths widened/ tactile paving

·  Car parking/ cycle parking / refuge storage areas

·  Materials – Brick / light coloured masonry cladding/ glass

·  5% affordable housing controlled through a Section 106 Agreement along with the standard fallback clauses

Members raised the following questions:

·  Referring to the affordable housing provision, Members sought clarification with regard “the standard fall back clauses”

·  As part of the proposal could Lower Brunswick Street be resurfaced with cobble sets

·  Referring to the plant room at ground floor level, Members queried how this would appear at street level

·  The provision of 11 trees across the site, could assurances be provided that planters would not be used and what species of trees were to be used

·  Would it be possible to increase the size of the studio apartment on the 5^th floor studio to make it compliant with space standards

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

·  Members were informed that applicants were required through the legal agreement to work with a registered provider to deliver the affordable housing provision on site. If a registered provider could not be attracted to deliver the affordable units on site then a commuted sum would be sought to deliver off site affordable housing, this was known as the fall back position 

·  Referring to the possible resurfacing of Lower Brunswick Street the Planning case officer said that “missing cobble sets” would be replaced and this would be agreed/ controlled through the use of a 278 Agreement 

·  Members were informed that “dummy glass” would be used to screen the plant room at the lower levels

·  Members were informed that the full landscaping details were to be controlled by planning condition but the views of Members about the use of planters would be made known to the applicant. Details of tree species would be notified to Members in due course.

·  The Architect confirmed that attempts had been made to make all apartments space standard complaint but it could not be achieved in one  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application for two residential blocks at 17 and 21 storey’s high, comprising of 463 flats with linked podium, car parking, landscaping and associated facilities at Doncaster Monk Bridge Whitehall Road, Lower Wortley Leeds LS12 1BE

(Report attached – Please note Appendix 2 contains confidential information and will be considered in closed session)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application for two residential blocks at 17 and 21 storey’s high, comprising of 463 flats with linked podium, car parking, landscaping and associated facilities at Doncaster Monk Bridge, Whitehall Road, Lower Wortley, Leeds, LS12 1BE.

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

·  The erection of two residential blocks; 17 and 21 storeys in height, 463 residential apartments specifically built for rental purposes (PRS)

·  Accommodation to include: 70 Studio Apartments, 162 X 1 bedroom apartments, 208 X 2 bedroom apartments and 23 X 3 bedroom apartments (All in accordance with National Space Standards)

·  102 car parking spaces available at ground floor and basement level, 448 cycle parking spaces and 48 motor cycle spaces

·  Access off Whitehall Road

·  Entrance areas/drop off areas/ loading bays/ refuse strategy

·  Landscaping/ public realm areas

·  Communal amenity space

·  Materials – brick/ glazing

·  Wind mitigation measures

(At this point the meeting went into closed session to receive information about the financial viability of the scheme)

The meeting returned to open session

The Panel then heard from Andrew Steer (Director, for and on behalf of City Island Management Limited) who were objecting to the scheme.

Mr Steer informed Members that the City Island development was 14 storeys in height, the proposed Monk Bridge development was far higher ranging in height between 17 and 21 storeys. The proposed new development was not in keeping with the surrounding area, residents occupying City Island would experience a loss of; light, privacy and views over the city.

Mr Steer suggested the submitted report did not grapple with the issues raised in a meaningful way and the proposal would impact significantly on the residents of City Island who were of the view this was a gross overdevelopment of a small site.

Questions to Mr Steer - None

Members raised the following questions:

·  Had adequate consultation taken place

·  Were Officers aware of the sunlight study that had been produced

·  Was there a need for a sustainable travel plan fund contribution for this particular application

·  What was the distance between this development and the City Island development

·  The proposed development would include 23 x 3 bedroom apartments (Family accommodation) what was the nearest school provision

·  In this case could the sustainable travel plan fund be used to fund more affordable housing provision

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

·  Members were informed that adequate consultation had taken place, the proposal had been advertised  by site notice and in the press as per the statutory requirements

·  The City Centre Team Leader was aware of the sunlight assessment undertaken by the applicant looking at potential impact throughout the year concluding that there was no effect to City Island. At a distance of 110m from City Island officers had no reason to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

To note that the next meeting will take place on Thursday, 24^th January 2019 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds.

RESOLVED – To note that the next meeting will take place on Thursday 24^th January 2019 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds.