Agenda item

Application 06/06118/FU - Two Linked towers (Part 12 storey raising to 19 and part 24 Storey raising to 26) block comprising 357 Crash Pads, 63 Studio Flats, 16 one bedroom Flats and 4 two bedroom flats, with Launderette, residents gym and 85 car parking spaces at Cromwell Mount, Burmantofts

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out proposals for residential development on Cromwell Mount, LS9 including crash pads, studio flats and a mix of one and two bedroom flats


(Report attached)


  Plans, photographs, drawings 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 which sought permission for a major residential development on a brownfield site at Cromwell Mount LS9 comprising two linked towers, part 12 storey raising to 19 and part 24 storey raising to 26 containing 357 crash pads, 63 studio flats, 16 one bed and 4 two bed flats together with a residents’ gym, laundrette and 85 parking spaces

  Members were informed that the area was characterised by multi-storey buildings and that the site was in close proximity to St James’ Hospital in the heart of Burmantofts

  Images of the previous designs of the buildings were shown for comparative purposes with Officers stating that the revised scheme resulted in a more slender building and featured a glazed corridor to link the two blocks.  To address issues of overlooking, fins would be incorporated to obscure the views on floors 3 – 7

  A copy of a plan showing the sun path analysis was circulated at the meeting

  The Panel was informed that concerns had been raised in respect of car parking in the area with Officers stating that there were existing problems due to the location of St James’ Hospital and the proximity of the city centre, although there were residents’ parking schemes in the area

  In respect of S106 contributions, the equivalent of the market value of 66 units (ie 15%) was being provided as an off-site affordable housing contribution and a significant contribution - £687,513 – towards greenspace was being proposed together with highways contributions and travel plan monitoring fee

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

  The Panel commented on the following matters:

·  the need for further information on what constituted a crash pad

·  the lack of public consultation on the proposals

·  who the scheme would be marketed to and concerns that the impression was being given that the accommodation would be taken up largely by medical staff from the nearby hospital

·  the level of car parking being provided and concerns this was insufficient

·  the adopted Tall Buildings SPD; whether the requirements for the siting of tall buildings applied to out of city centre sites and the need for more information on how the scheme related to the SPD

·  that the building was incongruous in size and shape and that the type of accommodation it would provide could add to problems in the area

·  the need for evidence of the demand for this type of accommodation in this area

·  that the scheme should be welcomed; that it could provide community benefits and was an adventurous and exciting building in an area which had suffered from deprivation for many years

·  that the accommodation should be thought of as studios rather than crash pads and that the growth in the population in Leeds was increasingly young, single people who were being attracted into professions in the city and that this development catered for them

·  that the revisions had merit compared to the bulk of the previous scheme but that a city centre location was more suitable to a such a building

  Concerns were expressed that a position statement had not been presented to Members to enable early sight of the proposals

  Members considered how to proceed

  The Panel’s Lead Officer stated that if minded to refuse the application then an appeal against non-determination could be lodged which the Planning Inspectorate might accept.  In order to ensure that the Council was in a position to identify reasons for refusal which could be relied on at appeal without delay, the Lead Officer requested that Members should defer and delegate the refusal to the Chief Planning Officer


i)  That the refusal of the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer based upon the concerns raised by Members in relation to:

·  the scale and height of the development in relation to the size of the plot and that the resultant development would be inappropriate in its context causing harm to the character of the area

·  inadequate car parking provision causing harm to highways safety

·  lack of public consultation if a reason for refusal on this ground could be sustained on appeal following legal advice


Supporting documents: