Agenda item

Further to minute 29 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 2^nd July 2009 where Panel considered a position statement, to consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application for the erection of replacement retail store (Class A1), with covered and surface car parking, new petrol filling station and landscaping

(report attached)

  Further to minute 29 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 2^nd July 2009, where Panel received a position statement on proposals for the demolition of the existing Tesco and Homebase stores at 361 Roundhay Road LS8, and the erection of a replacement A1 retail store with covered and surface car parking, a new petrol filling station and landscaping, Members considered the formal application

  Plans, photographs, drawings, artist’s impressions and graphics were displayed at the meeting.  A site visit had taken place earlier in the day which some Members had attended

  Officers presented the report and highlighted the main issues the Panel would need to consider, these being:

·  the principle of development, including the increased floorspace provided by the scheme and the fact that the Homebase store has an unrestricted A1 consent

·  the impact of the proposals on nearby residential properties and the Oakwood District Centre, including the fact that the site is opposite the Roundhay Conservation Area and the impact of the service yard and delivery hours on residential amenity

·  scale and design of the proposals; that the building would be larger and sited closer to the Roundhay Road frontage

·  highways issues and access arrangements

·  planning obligations, these being £319,000 for public transport infrastructure, £46,000 for the relocation and upgrade of bus stops, public realm contribution and a commitment to use reasonable endeavours to provide local employment and training initiatives

Members were informed that the applicant had requested that the

standard period of 3 years for implementation of any permission be extended to 5 years.  Officers stated that extensions to the implementation period of permissions were currently being encouraged in certain instances by central government, to provide developers with greater flexibility and that the relevant condition could be amended as requested

  If minded to approve the application, an additional condition was proposed specifying no external storage

  With reference to the representations received on this application, Members were informed that 448 letters of objection had been received with a further 143 additional letters being submitted since the publication of the report with several new issues being raised

  Members were informed of a correction to the report at paragraph 10.8 which should have indicated that two objections had been received from businesses within Oakwood, and not one as stated

  Representations had also been received from the proprietor of the existing petrol filling station together with Ward Members, Community Groups, Leeds Civic Trust and the local MP

  Receipt of a letter from Councillor Wadsworth was reported who had stated that the new Tesco store would be an improvement but had commented on a range of issues including the impact on the BP garage, highways issues, the height of the building, possible noise nuisance, lack of information as to the sum available for public realm enhancements and that the Officer’s report did not fully reflect public opinion

  Regarding support for the proposals, Officers reported receipt of 417 letters of support, 389 of which were copies of a standard letter distributed in the existing store by Tesco and signed by individual customers, together with a letter of support from a business located in the Oakwood centre

  The Panel was given the opportunity to ask questions of Officers prior to consideration of the verbal representations

  Members discussed the following matters:

·  highways, including proposals for the provision of a fourth

traffic lane on Roundhay Road as part of a Highways project and how this related to the proposals; the increase in traffic to/from the store, whether cycleways would be provided and that the parking spaces closest to the petrol filling station kiosks should be for customers and not staff

·  local employment opportunities and concern that the phrase ‘reasonable endeavours’ was vague

·  recycling facilities; where these would be sited; whether glass recycling would be included, and if so whether this would lead to increased noise and the possibility of the applicant closing the glass recycling bins at night time

·  the public realm enhancements

Due to the level of representation on this application, the Chair agreed

for two objectors to address the Panel for a total of five minutes followed by questions from Members.  A representative of the applicant was afforded the same amount of time to address the Panel and to respond to questions

  The Chair invited Councillor Lobley, who was in attendance, to address the Panel on matters of fact following comments from one of the objectors.  The Legal Services representative advised that the protocol for speaking at planning meetings should be adhered to

  Members discussed the following matters:

·  the level of consultation on the proposals and the efforts made by the applicant to engage and work with the community which it serves

·  the level of contributions for public transport and the need for details of the enhancements which this sum could provide

·  the need for public art to be provided

·  that Swallow boxes should be included around the site

·  further details in respect of the amount of money available for public realm enhancements and the need for local consultation on the most appropriate uses for this

·  the environmental credentials of the proposals

Following a short adjournment, the Panel resumed its deliberations and

discussed the following issues:

·  the size of the building and its increased prominence on Roundhay Road

·  concerns at the proximity of two petrol filling stations and whether the applicant would reconsider this element of the proposals

·  the need for greater transparency in respect of the developer contributions and the need to establish what the phrase ‘in the vicinity’ would mean

·  that the local community should be involved in discussions relating to the provision of public realm

·  that public realm works should be carried out on both sides of the road

·  that public transport improvements should be considered and that a suitable scheme should be costed and put forward to the applicant

·  concern whether Highways Officers had fully estimated the likely attraction of the development and could provide reassurances that the scheme would not adversely affect local traffic

·  the implications of the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) scheme and that local Councillors had not been informed about this

·  the need for further information on the construction phase and how this would impact on neighbours and local traffic

·  the need for carefully worded conditions to be attached if planning permission was granted and for the necessary monitoring to be undertaken

·  concerns at the impact on the Oakwood shopping centre of a larger store offering a large scale shopping experience

·  concerns at the request for an extension to the timescale for implementation of planning permission; the view that there were no reasons to extend this and that, if permission was granted, the applicant should be able to undertake the scheme within the usual three years

Officers provided the following responses:

·  that the proposed store would be more prominent and was larger but that as the majority of the trees on the site would be retained there would be significant screening of the development although oblique views would be glimpsed from some angles.  On balance, Officers were of the view that the size of the store was acceptable and that it would enhance the area

·  regarding the petrol filling station, this was part of the application and had to be considered.  The nearby BP garage was located out of centre and so competition between the two filling stations could not be regarded as a material planning matter

·  that £192,500 had been negotiated for public realm enhancements.  It was considered that this amount would pay for works to the western side of the road from the site boundary up to and including land within the Oakwood district centre.  Members’ guidance on whether it was appropriate to seek enhancements to the eastern side of the road and to include the Oakwood Clock was requested

·  in relation to the phasing of the proposals, detailed plans would be submitted by the applicant and that conditions would be imposed in respect of specified hours for demolition/construction, dust suppression etc

·  regarding public transport contributions, a methodology existed for this, although no single development could fund a major public transport scheme; instead, contributions from several developments, including this one, would provide funds for improvements

·  an assessment of the traffic increase had been undertaken by Officers with indications of, on a Saturday, 150 extra vehicles departing the site and 163 arriving per hour and at a week day evening peak between 5pm-6pm, 175 vehicles arriving and 184 vehicles departing.  The accepted method of assessment had been carried out with data that was constantly being updated, with the 85^th worst outcome being used, this being a nationally accepted figure for transport assessment

·  that proposals for the HOV lane on Roundhay Road had been included in the local transport plan regardless of the supermarket proposals, with the Head of Highways Development Services being of the view that this scheme had no direct bearing on the plans for the HOV lane

The Head of Planning Services who was in attendance summarised

the main areas of concern relating to the highways impact of the scheme and how it linked to plans for Roundhay Road;  how well the development would tie into the rest of Oakwood and how the public realm would be linked to the store and the local area

  Members considered how to proceed

  A proposal to refuse the application was not seconded

  Further deliberations on the most appropriate way to proceed ensued

  RESOLVED -  That determination of the application be deferred to enable further information to be provided on the highways implications of the development; to enable further discussions and consultation with local people on the proposed public realm contributions and further information to be provided on the sustainability of the scheme and its impact on the Oakwood District Centre, and that a further report addressing all these issues be submitted in due course

  (It was noted that Councillor Congreve who had joined the meeting partway through consideration of this item did not speak or vote on this matter)

  (Under Council Procedure Rule 16.5, Councillor Finnigan required it to be recorded that he voted against the matter)