Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position on an outline application to lay out access roads, erect mixed use development with residential business, retail, leisure and community uses with car parking, public open space, riverside walkway and nature corridor

(report attached.   Please note that the A3 colour plans to accompany the report are separate from the agenda)

  Plans, photographs, graphics and artist’s impressions were displayed at the meeting

  The Panel had previously received a formal presentation on the scheme at the meeting held on 6^th December 2006 (minute 87 refers) and several workshops involving Members had taken place on the scheme in 2007, particularly on the proposals for a living bridge, which had now been removed from the proposed development

  Officers presented a position statement setting out the progress on the scheme for a mixed use development on the former Yorkshire Chemicals site on Kirkstall Road/Wellington Road

  Members were informed that whilst the mix of uses had remained much the same since the scheme was last presented, there had been an overall reduction in the heights of the buildings, with the exception of the offices and car park at the Kirkstall Road end of the site

  The north/south and east/west routes through the site would remain and a pedestrian bridge was now being proposed across the river, linking the two sites.  The potential for another bridge from the adjacent site to the Island was highlighted

  A considerable amount of open space was being provided in the scheme together with some private amenity space for residents

  On the Kirkstall Road/Riverside site, vehicular access would be from a central point on the Kirkstall Road frontage, with car parking being located in single level basement areas under the office buildings and the eastern residential building.  A multi-storey car park was also being proposed on this site

  On the Island site, vehicular access would be taken from the south-eastern corner of the site along one service access route, with no parking being provided in the private residential space

  With the exception of the two buildings fronting Kirkstall Road, there would be residential accommodation sited on the upper floors of the buildings, with the Island site providing further residential units, including town houses with outbuildings

  Whilst the formal application would be in outline, it was likely that some design details would be envisaged, ie glazing to the ground floor buildings, to secure active frontages

  The applicant would be required to update a range of documents ahead of submitting a formal application and another consultation process would be required;  Legal Services Section were also considering if the application required re-advertising as a departure from the Development Plan

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  the scale of the proposals and uncertainty regarding the height and massing of the large residential block adjacent to the town houses on the Island site and that further design detailing was required

·  the car parking for the residential units on the Island site and concerns that no disabled parking was being provided directly outside the town houses

·  the massing of the buildings, with some Members raising concerns that these were too bulky

·  the living bridge, with mixed views about the deletion of this feature from the scheme

·  the latest otter survey and the need for reassurances that the proposals took this survey into account

·  concerns at the underground parking, particularly due to the high risk of flooding on this site

·  why the proposals might constitute a departure from the Development Plan

·  the level of affordable housing being provided on the site

·  the need to provide links to Armley and under the Inner Ring Road (IRR) to the city centre

·  the need for the towpath and Island road to be separate

·  the need for quality design, materials and construction and regret that the opportunity for an iconic building in this area had been lost through the deletion of the living bridge

·  that the replacement pedestrian bridge must be of good quality and design

·  concerns were expressed that the newly extended eastern residential limb was located between the existing and proposed green spaces rather than allowing them to be joined and should be redesigned and reconfigured, recognising that the neighbouring existing greenspace was in a different ownership

Officers provided the following responses:

·  that the tall residential block on the Island site was smaller than in the previous scheme, although the Civic Architect, Mr Thorp, stated that further consideration could be given to this building.  It would then be a balanced judgement between either a reduction in height to reflect the town houses, or be designed to be more reflective of its island context

·  that some vehicular access to the town houses, particularly for people with disabilities could be considered

·  that the otter survey would need to be updated by the applicant

·  in relation to flooding, that there was an obligation under the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment to satisfy the Environment Agency (EA) on the proposals and if the EA remained unhappy, the scheme could be called in by the Secretary of State

·  that safety measures would be included in the design details of the underground car park

·  that Officers were considering whether the application was a Departure from the Development Plan as the office and commercial elements were not in the city centre.  However the Kirkstall Road Renaissance Area Planning Framework did envisage a mix of uses and underground car park for the site

·  that the applicant had agreed to affordable housing provision of 15%

·  regarding linking the site to the wider area, that a Green Travel Plan would be included and would provide for a cycle, bus and walking study which would show the links from the site to the city centre, and that further consideration would be given to establishing links to Armley and the city centre under the IRR

·  that as the living bridge was not required by policy and as it was an aspiration of the applicant, then its loss could not be objected to

·  that discussions would take place with the applicant on the need for better links both visually and management wise between the existing and new open space

RESOLVED -  To note the position statement and the comments now made