Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out details of an outline application to erect 14 storey block comprising 150 bed hotel with 2 floors of B1 offices and basement car parking at South Point House, South Accommodation Road, Hunslet, Leeds 10

(Report attached)  

  Plans, photographs, drawings and graphics were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which sought permission for a 14 storey, 150 bed hotel with offices and basement car parking on a 0.4ha site at South Point House Hunslet LS10

  Members were informed that the site was within an area of Air Quality Concern due to emissions from the nearby glass works.  The site was also in Flood Zones 2 and 3

  The application had been brought to Panel with a recommendation for refusal with suggested reasons being included in the submitted report and outlined to Members.  Following the submission of an addendum to the flood risk assessment by the applicant, the Environment Agency (EA) had removed their technical objection.  Members were advised that if minded to refuse the application, then reason two should be deleted and an amended reason was read out for Panel’s consideration together with minor amendments to reasons one and three

  Officers reported the receipt of two further letters of representation, these being letters of support from the Royal Armouries and Alea Casino, based at Clarence Dock

  The Panel heard representations from the applicant’s agent who attended the meeting

  Members discussed the following matters:

·  that despite the Environment Agency’s removal of their technical objection, there were flood risk issues associated with the scheme and a representative should have been in attendance

·  that the proposals could lead to the creation of jobs and the weight this was given by Officers when considering the application

·  the statement by the applicant’s agent that a smaller scheme comprising an eight storey building might be acceptable

Officers provided the following responses:

·  that job creation was recognised as being important, however on this site a hotel could potentially compromise other existing hotels in the area and those nearby sites which had consents for hotel use.  On this matter, Officers were of the view that the applicant had not put forward a good enough case

·  regarding a smaller scheme on the site, that this had not previously been mentioned and even at eight storeys the building would be considered to be too high for the surrounding area as the seven storey building occupying the site was regarded as being an anomaly

RESOLVED-  That the application be refused for the following reasons:

1  The proposal is to locate a main town centre use in an unsustainable out of centre location.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are not sequentially preferable sites available and has not carried out an impact assessment as to the effects of the development on the vitality and viability of existing centres.  Furthermore the site is considered to be in a relatively inaccessible location with limited public transport links in the evenings.  As such it is considered that this is an unsustainable form of development that is contrary to the guidance set out in PPS1, policies EC15 and EC16 of PPS4 and policy E2 of the Regional Spatial Strategy together with policies GP5 and T2 of the UDP Review 2006

2  The application site lies within Flood Zone 3a defined by Planning Policy Statement 25 as having a high probability of flooding.  PPS25 requires new development to apply a ‘sequential test’ to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably available sites which could be considered as being suitable and appropriate for the development that is proposed, where that development could then be located.  The applicant has failed to apply the sequential test and the proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to guidance within PPS25 and policy N38A of the Leeds UDP Review 2006 and would result in unnecessary risk to life

3  The proposed development gives rise to significant potential for noise disturbance to future occupants of the building which would require significant noise attenuation measures to overcome.  Furthermore, the application has not taken account of the effect of actual emissions from surrounding uses which affect the air quality of the site.  In the absence of the applicant demonstrating that United Kingdom National Air Quality Strategy (UKNAQS) objectives will not be exceeded it is considered that it has not been demonstrated that the site is suitable for the proposed use and the application is contrary to guidance within PPS23 – Planning and Pollution Control, Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 – Planning and Noise and policy GP5 of the UDP Review 2006

4  The proposed 14 storey building is considered to be an unacceptable scale of development, which would be out of scale with the surrounding area and would contribute to the pepperpotting of tall buildings within the city.  The proposal is considered to be contrary to guidance within the Tall Buildings Design Guide as the site is outside of the identified zones of opportunity for tall buildings and is also contrary to policies N12 and BD2 of the UDP Review 2006

5  It is considered that the proposal for a tall building in this location would detract from the setting of both Hunslet Mills and Victoria Mills which are Grade II* and Grade II listed buildings respectively, by virtue of the development’s dominance within the skyline which would compete with and detract from views of the listed buildings.  As such, the proposal is contrary to guidance within PPS5 and policies GP5 and BD2 of the UDP Review 2006

6  The proposed development could have a detrimental effect on the adjacent viaduct as a wall is proposed and parking bays within the required easement distances from the structure.  Yorkshire Water records also indicate that a water main crosses the site and the proposed location of the hotel building is sited directly over the public water main.  As such, the proposed layout is considered to be unacceptable and could be detrimental to highway safety and the ability of Yorkshire Water to maintain the public water network.  The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policies GP5 and T2 of the UDP Review 2006