Agenda item

To consider a position statement on the outline application to develop a multi use arena with ancillary restaurants (A3), bars (A4) and retail units (A1) and provision of public realm, laying out of new access and pedestrian footpath.

 

(Report attached)

 

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a position statement on the development proposals for the Leeds Arena. The Panel had previously visited the site and had received a pre-application presentation on 8^th October 2009.

 

Members noted receipt of comments from both statutory and non statutory consultees and were aware of recent comments in the press from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) regarding the design of the Arena.

 

Mr P Crabtree, the Chief Planning Officer, addressed the meeting and acknowledged the comments made by CABE and in response, he clarified that CABE had accepted the site was suitable for the Arena development but had queried the approach adopted to the planning process. Mr Crabtree explained that securing Outline permission would provide assurance that the principle of the development was agreed in the first instance, and allow the necessary contracts and road closure orders to be progressed. Mr Crabtree stressed the importance of this development to the city and its aspirations and that it would have a significant regenerating impact on the northern part of the city centre.

 

The Principal Planning Officer then explained that Outline permission would provide the developer with flexibility in the design process whilst keeping overall momentum in the planning process.

 

The contents of an additional letter of representation received from the North Street and Regent Street Residents Association were reported regarding residents’ parking controls and improved pedestrian links, particularly through the site to the Lovell Park area.

 

Plans and aerial photographs of the site were displayed at the meeting. Photos showing views to and across the site from various vantage points, including photo montages with the proposed Arena in-situ, were also displayed.  Officers reported their view the Arena sat well within the site however the developer was aware the Brunswick Street elevation required further consideration.

 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the proposal was supported by national and local policy and would deliver sustainable economic benefit. He highlighted the benefit of this site being close to the city centre and good transport infrastructure/pedestrian links and went onto outline the following matters:

Bus stops – to be improved within the immediate locality with an NGT stop proposed on Woodhouse Lane

Pedestrian access – the piazza will provide a new north-south route and a new northern footpath will link with the eastern network and provide through routes towards Eastgate/Harewood Quarter

Junctions – a new crossing will be provided on Clay Pit Lane designed to accommodate high volumes of pedestrians; the Merrion Way/Brunswick Terrace junction will be improved to include a raised plateau to assist pedestrian movement around the Arena and the Clay Pit Lane junction at The Coburg public house will also be improved

Car parking – there were an estimated 2,900 car parking spaces within 400m of the site and on-street parking will be discouraged in residential areas. Existing Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO’s) and Residents Parking Permit areas will be improved and extended. Parking spaces for disabled people would be provided on the access road, Tower House Street, Merrion Way and possibly in Queen Square.

 

The application is supported by a Travel Plan designed to reduce single car occupancy. The applicant had also confirmed that a public transport contribution would be paid in accordance with the SPD.

 

Service access road – this road will incorporate a turning head and provide a drop-off/pick-up point for taxis. Coaches would drop-off at Wade Lane; a “lay-over point” for coaches for the duration of events was yet to be identified. The Principal Planning Officer indicated that potential noise disturbance from the late nigh movement of event vehicles is an issue upon which there is continuing work

Amenity – the highest part of the Arena was designed to project away from the Opal 3 residential student block.

 

Mr J Thorp, the Civic Architect, briefly outlined the motivation for the design process and confirmed his support for the ”fan-like” shape of the Arena itself within this site and the proposed access arrangements. He reported on the current challenges presented to the design team as being: 

• Public realm – the need to ensure this is a viable space and can accommodate the movement of patrons attending when there is a full capacity event at the Arena
• Access – the need to ensure there are both detailed considerations of access to the Arena and general access to the site from various point s across the city

 

The Principal Highways Officer outlined the balance of priorities between patrons arriving in the city centre to attend an Arena event at the same time as commuters leaving the city centre. Additional traffic and footfall would also be generated for matinee events during the weekends. This would require careful management. The traffic modelling undertaken so far confirmed that the highway network could accommodate the additional traffic generated by the Arena with some alteration to signal timings.

 

The report sought to identify planning policies relevant to the arena development, confirm the details of the planning application and identify outstanding issues; to update Members on the outcome of the initial consultations and to seek the Panel’s comments on a number of key issues as highlighted in the report at paragraph 9.9.

 

The Panel acknowledged the importance of the Arena development to the vitality and economy of the city and went onto discuss the following matters with officers:

 

Queens Square – contained a public park and some residential property. Patrons should be discouraged from using this site as a short-cut to the arena.

·  Officers responded that the applicant had conducted a pedestrian movement study and this was not one of the preferred routes. Signage could be used to discourage its use and highlighted the new pedestrian initiatives and footway along Providence Place which would encourage patrons away from this area

 

Merrion Centre Car park – the entrance requires careful controls to balance pedestrian and vehicle priorities

 

Disabled access/transport – Panel members were in receipt of an e-mail from a representative of the Access Committee for Leeds. Members discussed whether the 35 space taxi rank on the service road would provide sufficient space for pick-up/drop-off for wheelchair accessible vehicles as some of these required extra space for manoeuvring and whether the road could incorporate an area designated specifically for such vehicles. Members also commented that the population generally was aging, and there would be a subsequent increase in the numbers of people with mobility issues who would require the use of taxis/private hire vehicles to transport them closer to the Arena. The Panel noted a query why the service road could not be a through-road.

·  The Principal Highways Officer confirmed there would be sufficient space for all the necessary vehicle movements and time required for all passengers to disembark. The service road arrangements were being discussed with LCC Taxi and Private Hire Section and representatives of the taxi trade.

·  It was reported that creation of a through-road onto Clay Pit Lane would conflict with pedestrian priorities, level changes and incur more costs. A new junction there could not, in any event, provide a right–turn facility as there was not enough space on Clay Pit Lane for stacking turning vehicles prior to the Inner Ring Road junction signals. All traffic would have to go left and back into the city centre, there would not be any advantage in terms of traffic routing and there would be concern that this would conflict with pedestrian movements across Clay Pit Lane towards the car park and increase U-turns at the bottom of Clay Pit Lane.

·  Officers highlighted the fact that not all 142 events per year suggested for the Arena would be capacity events, or evening events and officers were confident that the existing city centre car parks could cope with the additional visitors subject to the careful signage, management and control of the visiting traffic.

 

Noise impact – Panel expressed concern over possible noise impact on the residents of Opal 3 and the Harrison Potter Homes nearby; especially as the Arena could be in use 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. A suggestion was made to restrict the use of the Arena to cease at 00:00 midnight, whilst acknowledging the service road would still be in use after this time whilst events were dismantled.

·  Officers responded that restricting the hours of use would adversely affect the use of the Arena and restricting the hours for stage clearance would not be acceptable

 

Clay Pit Lane development sites - Panel discussed the two proposed development sites and the impact the Arena would have on any future proposals here, and similarly the impact of any high rise development on these two sites. Members suggested that the sites could be utilised as pick-up/drop-off points for the Arena until their development commenced.

·  The Civic Architect responded stating the LPA did not envisage the 2 sites to be suitable for “tall building” development.

 

Public realm – the two proposed development plots appeared to reduce the available public realm space and Members were keen to ensure that LCC provided a high quality landscaping scheme and that the pedestrian routes made proper links with existing routes and the city centre.

·  The Civic Architect reported on current consideration of making a defined edge for the site at Claypit Lane, and rather than using temporary landscaping whilst the development took place, to use better quality, but ultimately “sacrificial landscaping” instead

 

Pedestrian access – any proposals must include routes through to Lovell Park and those routes must be carefully considered in terms of safety and amenity

·  Officers agreed to ensure that this would be addressed through the evolution of the scheme.

 

Car Parking – the Panel sought more detail of the off street strategy particularly on which areas would be included. The Panel were concerned that patrons, who did not wish to pay to use the car parks, would park in residential areas such as the Lovell’s or Hyde Park, or on North Street, and walk to the site.

 

A suggestion to utilise the derelict nearby Caspar site as a car park was made but officers reported this was not within the gift of LCC as it was not an LCC owned site

 

Members added that there were existing businesses on North Street which flourished due to the car parking available through the day and evening, any arena users parking there would have a negative impact on those businesses. Members also highlighted the fact that Leeds already benefited from a strong night time economy and visitors already made use of the existing city centre car parks during the evenings. Members were keen to ensure that the car parking and highways strategy could manage the conflicting visitor priorities.

 

·  The Principal Highways Officer reported that the adjacent residential areas were covered by Residents car permits schemes largely to prevent daytime commuter parking and these schemes would be extended to address night –time parking too.

 

Coaches – further detail of the “layover area" was required and the Panel was keen to ensure this was not on Woodhouse Moor which was regarded as a sensitive area

 

(Councillor Hanley withdrew from the meeting for short time at this point)

 

The Panel then went onto discuss the issues highlighted in the report as recommendations to consider and:

·  considered the location of the arena and agreed to endorse the preferred location

·  agreed to confirm the acceptability of the outline application process and the design approach being pursued

 

With regards to the issues at 9.9 of the report, the Head of Planning Services, in agreement with Panel, summarised the main areas for future consideration as:

Suitability of the site – noted the Panel agreed the preferred location but key issues were whether the site would cope with the projected people and vehicular movements and the impact of the Arena on the existing residents. Assurances were sought on the future of the two development plots and how the Arena site works

 

Building parameters – the scale, footprint, height and “fan shape” of the proposals were broadly accepted, but further information on the two adjacent development blocks was required

 

The off-street car parking strategy – more detail on the overall strategy (including controls in the adjacent neighbourhoods) was required especially to cover the night time economy particularly

·  How will visitors be directed to available spaces

·  How the impact on local communities will be managed

·  Details of existing controls and those proposed with the application

 

Service road provision – details to include the taxi/disabled parking provision (including the lay-over site) and how the cul-de-sac arrangement will work

 

Pedestrian access and suitability of the routes to and from the site – further consideration of the Lovell Park area was required and more detail of proper links through and to the site required (to include Merrion Street, Merrion car park and Queens Square)

 

The public realm – the two development plots and how they work in the future will be a key issue for Members to consider. In the short term these were vacant spaces but in the long term would be developed and impact on the arena and the space about the site available for patrons

 

The 24/7 service arrangements – more detail of the noise implications was required

 

Finally the Panel noted the aspiration to present the Outline application to the March meeting, but due to the number of issues identified, the submission timetable may have to be revised

RESOLVED – That the contents of the Position Statement and the comments of the Panel be noted