Agenda item

To consider a Position Statement in respect of Application Nos. 09/05411/FU and 10/00378/CA for the part demolition, change of use including 5 storey extension and addition of new floor to roof of former tannery to form 190 apartments and erection of multi level development up to 7 storeys in 3 blocks comprising 9 town houses and 150 apartments with retail shop, car parking and landscaping at Buslingthorpe Tannery, Education Road, Sheepscar, Leeds 7

(Report attached)

  (Prior to consideration of this matter, Councillor Gruen left the meeting)

Plans, photographs and graphics were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented a report setting out the current position on an application for part demolition, change of use, including five storey extension and addition of new floor to roof of former tannery to form 190 apartments and erection of multi level development up to 7 storeys in 3 blocks comprising 9 town houses and 150 apartments with retail shop, car parking and landscaping together with a related Conservation Area application at Buslingthorpe Tannery, Education Road Sheepscar LS7

  Members were informed that the main tannery building would be retained for residential use, with an additional floor being added to part of the roof.  Three new part 4/part 5 buildings would be erected on the site with the design of these reflecting some of the historic elements of the tannery, albeit in a modern interpretation

  A landscaped boulevard through the centre of the site would provide some of the greenspace associated with the scheme.  Whilst the overall amount was less than that required under policy, an off-site contribution would be sought

  The proposals were for 349 flats in a mix of studio, one and two bed with nine town houses, each of the houses having a private garden.  Car parking spaces would be shared amongst residents, with 237 spaces being proposed

  Two feeder roads served the site and whilst initially access was to be taken from Sheepscar Road, Officers considered this was not acceptable and the applicant had been asked to remove this

  The S106 obligations had yet to be resolved although the application would require contributions of approximately £850,000 plus 15% affordable housing and a financial viability assessment submitted by the applicant was currently being examined

  The Panel was informed that concerns at the intensity of the development and the lack of family housing had been raised in a letter from Councillor Dowson

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  the level of affordable housing being sought and why this was not at a level of 25%

·  concerns that the proposals were overintensive and too high

·  the ‘H’ shape of the tannery extension and concerns this was not the most attractive design

·  that insufficient family housing was being provided and concern at the high level of flats and apartments being proposed

·  that the high number of flats and studio apartments could mean the development would predominantly be occupied by students and that their requirements would need to be catered for.  Officers advised that the applicant had stated the development would not be for students but would be marketed towards those people who could not afford to live in the city centre

·  odour issues; the fact that the site was still being used for the processing of dead skins and that the smell around the area was off-putting.  Officers were unsure of the exact length of occupancy remaining for the tannery, but this was considered to be approximately 2-5 years

·  the need for the site to be developed

·  that the applicant would be required to provide planning contributions by way of a S106 legal agreement and concerns that the education contribution of £30,000 was insufficient

·  that taking vehicular access from Sheepscar Street North was not supported

·  the need to reassess the parking needs if the accommodation mix was changed

Regarding the level of affordable housing being requested on this

scheme, the Head of Planning Services stated that there was not a blanket level of 25% affordable housing but a gradation of levels across the city and he agreed to check the level for inner city areas

  In summing up the comments made on the position statement, the Chair stated that the view of the Panel seemed to be that the proposals as presented, were not good enough

  RESOLVED – To note the report, the presentation and the comments now made