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 office building 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 the proposed development of a new office building at Sovereign Street, Leeds.

The following representative attended and addressed the meeting:-

Darren Comber, Scott Brownrigg (Architect)

Members were shown detailed plans and photographs of the scheme.

The presentation highlighted the following key areas:-

• Work in progress
• Site history
• Future development
• Masterplan concept
• Concept – Constraints
• Development Potential
• Urban Context
• Massing
• Floor Layouts
• Sections
• Sovereign Square entrance
• Animated Façade
• From Sovereign Square
• Facade Study
• View from Neville Street Junction

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 duly responded:-

• Clarification as to why the building was limited to only four storeys

(The architect confirmed that KMPG (the intended occupants) were in agreement with a four storey building and the design suited it’s purpose. Also the scale was still considered suitable for its context)

• Clarification whether the building proposal would be linked to the delivery of the proposed bridge over the River Aire

(The architect welcomed the increased connectivity that would be delivered by the proposed bridge, but it did not form part of the remit of this development)

• Clarification of the delivery process for the bridge
  (The Chief Planning Officer responded that realising the aspirations for a  bridge in this location was dependent upon utilising 3^rd party land and putting in place the required funding)
• The need to introduce a water feature, either internally or externally that would tie up with the greenspace proposals

(The architect agreed to consider this issue further)

• Clarification of how many people would be employed in the building; details of the restaurant facilities available and the need for reassurances to be given that the restaurant use would not compete with aspirations for a vibrant square

(The architect informed the meeting that 700 people would occupy the building and that the restaurant was necessary to cater for the needs of a 24/7 office function, but it would be an ancillary element to the office use and would not compete with the future use of the greenspace)

• The need to consider solar panels and for more information to be supplied in this regard

(The architect commented that solar panels would not provide sufficient energy for the building and as an alternative he preferred high performance glazing. He agreed to have further discussions on this issue)

• Clarification if Scott Brownrigg would be the architects on the other two sites

(The architect welcomed the opportunity to be involved, subject to the Council protocols)

• Clarification if the applicant had taken greentravel plans into consideration

(The architect confirmed that plans were in place)

• Concern that there was no mention of the collection of rain/grey water within the outline proposals

(The architect welcomed this suggestion. Sustainable design was a key consideration for the proposals. If rainwater recycling was beneficial and not energy hungry then it can be considered)

• The need for the plant on the top of the building to be obscured as much as possible

(The architect confirmed that the design team would seek to minimise its visual impact)

In concluding discussions, the Chair put forward the following specific matters for Members consideration:-

• was the general form of the building acceptable?
• does the building address Sovereign Street and the new greenspace successfully?
• was the rooftop plant resolved successfully within the roof-form of the building?

It was the consensus of the meeting that the above matters were acceptable, subject to screening and reducing the visual impact of the rooftop plant as much as possible.

The Panel were keen for the applicant to work very closely with the Greenspace officers on the details of the scheme and to see sight of the proposals for building plots B and C as soon as possible.

The Panel also stated that should there be any delays with regards to the proposals for building plots B and C, the applicant should take into account a requirement for the land to be grassed over in the meantime.

RESOLVED – That the report and pre-application presentation be noted.

(Councillor S Hamilton left the meeting at 3.30pm at the conclusion of this item)