Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an Outline Planning Application for Redevelopment of Land at Meadow Road for Uses within the following classes B1, D2, C1, C3 (Up to 296 Residential Units) and Ancillary A1, A3, A4 and A5 Uses, including associated works for the formation of Site Access Roads at Land Bounded by Meadow Road, Jack Lane, Bowling Green Terrace and Trent Street, Leeds 11.

(Appendix 1 to follow)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an outline planning application for redevelopment of land at Meadow Road for uses within the following classes B1, D2, C1, C3 (up to 296 residential units) and Ancillary A1, A3, A4 and A5 Uses, including associated works for the formation of Site Access Roads at Land Bounded by Meadow Road, Jack Lane, Bowling Green Terrace and Trent Street, Leeds 11.

Appended to the report were copies of the following documents for the information/comment of the meeting:-

• 10/00923/OT – Conditions (Appendix 1 refers)
• Extract of the Plans Panel (City Centre) minutes of the meeting held on 1^st July 2010 (Appendix 2 refers)

Members were shown detailed plans and photographs of the site and had previously visited the site prior to the meeting.

Officers briefly outlined the proposals contained in the submitted report.

In his presentation, the Senior Planner referred to a Plans Panel Members workshop which had taken place on 16^th September 2010 and informed Members that the completion of the Section 106 agreement remained outstanding as at today’s date. Specific reference was also made to reserved matters in this regard which would be addressed at a later stage in order to give the developer some flexibility as the scheme develops.

At the request of the Chair, the Principal Engineer, City Development briefly outlined the highway implications, works and access arrangements to the site with specific reference to the cycle routes and travel plan.

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

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

• Concerns expressed about the height of the tall building within the parameters of the site; the relationship of the said building with Bridgewater Place and that the outline permission was lacking detail and was based on trust

(The Senior Planner responded and outlined the following variations which would be dealt with individually:-

-  The scale of buildings would need to reflect the parameter plan

-  the application could have varied storey heights within the limits of the parameter plans

-  new parameter plans would be supplied with each reserved matters application which would be brought to Panel for agreement 

-  the design code provides further information regarding the scale and form of the tall building and would inform the details of the proposals at reserved matters stage

-  Bridgewater Place was 30 storeys in height and was located on the north-south ridge of tall buildings which characterised the city centre and was referred to in the Council’s tall building guidance which would be reflected by the proposed tall building on this site

• Clarification if the proposal could have a super casino; the need for ward members to be involved in the recruitment process of the Section 106 Jobs and Employment clause which should focus on the City & Hunslet and Beeston & Holbeck wards ; where affordable housing would be on the site

(The Senior Planner responded and outlined the following issues-

-  The proposal did not include a super casino

-  Local ward members would be involved in the Section 106 recruitment process

-  Reserved matters would determine the location of affordable housing)

• Clarification if a wind study had been undertaken on the site

(The Senior Planner responded and confirmed that a wind study had been submitted with specific detail to be addressed through reserved matters)

• Concerns that the tall building had no relationship with the buildings below it; the blocks provided do not work and cast a shadow over the development; the development should not be pepper potted; clarification as to why Section 106 monies should be spent to create local jobs

(The Head of Planning Services responded and confirmed that in accordance with the policy requirements of Section 106 monies, local ward members would be consulted on where Section 106 monies was to be spent.

The Chief Planning Officer confirmed that the developer was meeting the Section 106 policies in full and that any variations would be brought back to Plans Panel.

In concluding, the Senior Planner informed the meeting that a full daylight and sunlight assessment had been undertaken with regards to the shadow effect. In relation to pepper potting across the site, phasing plans would be required by condition to control the timing of development across the site )

• Concerns that the site was within a high crime area and that crime levels should be addressed as a matter of urgency; Metro’s concerns regarding the level of car parking; that education provision should be addressed and that a phased approach should be introduced periodically

(The Chief Planning Officer responded and confirmed that ongoing discussions were been held with Children’s Services in relation to where the monies would be spent around Inner City/Education priorities.

The Deputy Area Planning Manager informed the meeting that at this stage Members were being requested to agree the principles of the development as defined by the use and parameter plans within the outline scheme. The specific details of the proposals  would come back to Panel at reserved matters stage and adequate controls to achieve a secure environment and design would be discussed at that stage.

The Senior Planner informed the meeting that a second city bus was not being sought by Metro. and does not form part of the list of public transport contributions identified in the SPD.

In concluding, the Head of Planning Services referred to brownfield sites across the city and confirmed that the parameters had been looked at carefully and in a planned way. In relation to this proposal he recommended that the following two conditions should be attached to the application:-

- the need to address the maximum amount of floor space on the site for each  use

- the need to implement a clear phased approach and master plan for each aspect of  the development required to ensure flexibility and consistency)

• Clarification if the scale of public art had been addressed by the developer

(The Senior Planner responded and confirmed that a large piece of art work would be undertaken and work on this matter had already commenced as a result of one of the conditions added to the temporary car park approval.)

• The need for progress on this site in view of the previous history and delays; the need for additional green space on the site
• Clarification of when the landscaping would commence and whom would be in charge of this issue

(The Senior Planner responded and informed the meeting of the extent of landscaping that would be delivered with each phase of the development.

The Deputy Area Planning Manager confirmed that the developer would provide the landscaping)

• Reference to the multi-storey car park building and the need to ensure that no ginnells and allyway space is provided by the side of the building

In concluding, the Chair sought further comments on the proposals prior to making a decision on the application.

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

• The need for the meeting to acknowledge that the high crime rate in the City and Hunslet ward was mainly as a result of shoplifting and pick pocketing; the fact that there was no children in the City and Hunslet ward, apart from pre-school children, together with a need for money to be spent on pre-school/nursery provision within the area
• To welcome the development, but to acknowledge that a degree of flexibility was being sought for the quantum of proposed development but that adequate controls were in place to inform the design of the full details through the parameter plans and design code.

RESOLVED –

a) That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions specified in Appendix 1 and the completion of a Section 106 agreement to include the following obligations;

- public transport contribution (£1,101,310);

- education contribution (equating to £2980.42 for each 3+ bed dwelling if more than fifty 3 bed dwellings are provided);

Securing the travel plan, car club contribution and travel plan monitoring fee

(£15,000);

- penalties (including financial) if the travel plan targets are not met;

- delivery of 5% affordable housing (or the percentage required by the affordable housing policy adopted at the time);

- public access arrangements to ensure 24 hour access is provided through the site

- securing the car park management plan;

- £20,000 on-street car parking mitigation fund if it is found that the development creates on-street parking problems in nearby streets;

- £6,000 for each of the pay and display parking bays removed from Trent Street, Bowling Green Terrace and Jack Lane (54 spaces = £324,000);

- ability to submit a viability appraisal if the developer believes the scheme and current contributions to be unviable;

- training and employment initiatives to ensure local people are involved in the

delivery of the scheme;

- section 106 management fee (£5250);

b) That in the circumstances where the Section 106 has not been completed within 3 months of the resolution to grant planning permission, the final determination of the application shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer.

c) That arising from discussions at the meeting, the following extra conditions be attached to the application:-

- the need to address the maximum amount of floor space on the site;

- the need to implement a clear phased approach for each aspect of the development required to ensure flexibility and consistency

(Councillor R Procter left the meeting at 3.00pm during discussions of the above item)