Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer and to receive a pre-application presentation in relation to the proposed development of a new greenspace at Sovereign Street, Leeds.

This is a pre-application presentation and no formal decision on the development will be taken, however it is an opportunity for Panel Members to ask questions, raise issues, seek clarification and comment on the proposals at this stage. There is no opportunity for public speaking about the proposals outlined in the presentation.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer introduced a pre-application presentation in relation to a proposed development of a new greenspace at Sovereign Street, Leeds.

The following representatives attended and addressed the meeting:-

-  Christine Addison, City Development (Applicant)

-  Guy Denton, re-form

Members were shown detailed plans and photographs of the scheme.

The presentation highlighted the following key areas:-

• Sovereign Street – An opportunity
• Audit of greenspace in the City Centre
• South Bank – Urban Design Principles
• Sovereign Street – Development Site Framework
• Synopsis
• Sovereign Street with reference to the Public Realm; key gateways; key connections (east/west); scale; design development around green space, north/south/link and key connections
• Sovereign Street – Introducing water, soft areas to be protected, planting and rain gardens
• Sovereign Street – Design Version 1 (informal) and Design Version 2 (formal)
• Sovereign Square – River Aire

The Chair then invited questions and comments from Members on the specific proposals of the pre-application.

In summary, specific reference was made to the following issues and the applicant team duly responded:-

• Clarification as to why water fountains had been omitted from the proposals

(The applicant confirmed that the concept of water would be explored, including water jets)

• The need for the applicant to look at introducing a water feature that worked

(The applicant confirmed that that they would look at a fairly simple quality water feature within the scheme which would be reliable and would be sustainable within the budget)

• The importance of employing people with the relevant qualifications to maintain water features within the city
• Clarification if discussions had been undertaken with Parks and Countryside with regards to the park and whether those staff who achieved gold status at the Chelsea Flower show had been consulted on the proposals

(The applicant confirmed that discussions had taken place with Parks and Countryside and that officers with the relevant Chelsea experience were on the Project Board)

• The view expressed that Park Square was an excellent and desirable area for public seating, but that in some thoroughfare areas i.e. Trevelyn Square there was no public seating and of the fact that Leeds should be adopting a ‘café culture’ in all future city planning applications

(The applicant stated that the use of more kiosks in thoroughfare areas was not ruled out and that they would also allow a range of other uses in such public areas)

• The view expressed that there should be enough greenspace for people to enjoy and that sustainability was the key
• Clarification if wind modelling had been undertaken for recreational spaces

(The applicant stated that wind modelling was more applicable around buildings, but tree planting would help to mitigate any potential adverse impact)

• The need for more greenspace to be evident with less hard standing connectivity and servicing requirements
• The possibility of opening up the route of the goit
• Clarification of how deep the goit would be on a rainy day
• Clarification if the goit was a cut off the River Aire and for this element to be addressed when the application comes back for determination
• A desire for the scheme to be a new greenspace and not a concrete space
• Clarification if Leeds City Council would be taking on the management of the greenspace and the need for a clear accountability procedure to be in place

(The applicant confirmed that Leeds City Council would be responsible for the management of the greenspace and would put in appropriate

measures to mange the process effectively)

• Clarification of the timing of the proposals in relation to plot C and that this should be kept as a greenspace and the paths connecting to plot C should not be put in until it was developed
• Clarification of what consultations had been undertaken to date and the need for more people and business users to be provided with a place of tranquility in the city

(The applicant confirmed that consultation was undertaken in relation to a planning brief for the site which was adopted last summer and that all the respondents to this would be replied to as part of the comprehensive consultation programme)

• The need for more work to be undertaken to address the deficiency of  greenspace provision in the city centre, particularly in view of the growing residential population
• Clarification of the landscaping design and the need to compliment the structure of the scheme with appropriate planting i.e. pleeched trees etc

At this point in the proceedings, the Chair invited a general debate from Members on those matters requiring specific consideration.

In summary, specific reference was made to the following issues:-

• The need to re-examine the goit that comes off the River Aire as opposed to an artificial route
• The need to look at architectural planting to mirror the image of the city and not to plant ‘lollipop’ trees
• The need to encourage more of a café culture in Leeds and to think more like a European culture
• The need to explore the extent of all service routes in order to reduce the impact on the greenspace
• The need for Elected Members to be kept informed throughout the process
• The need to acknowledge that greenspace in relation to surrounding areas was a very important issue
• The need to ensure that there was a proper functioning relationship in place around future equipment maintenance for those bringing forward the formal planning application
• The need for the scheme to be more strategic and to address the future challenges
• The need to plant the appropriate species of tree i.e. hornbeam etc, but not yew trees
• The need to compliment the plans for building plot A and to engage into a dialogue with the people who had been responsible for the design of plot A

RESOLVED –

a)  That the report and pre-application presentation be noted.

b)  That in view of this being an emerging proposal, this Panel confirms’ their support for the broad concept for the greenspace and proposals for enhanced connections.