Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on the current position in respect of an application for demolition of existing buildings and erection of A1 foodstore, five retail units (A1, A2, A3, A4 or A5), a new club building for the Leeds Postal Sports Association Club, a community centre, improved public realm and associated car parking, servicing, landscaping and access improvements

(report attached)

Councillor M Hamilton joined the meeting at this point

Plans, photographs and graphics were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

Officers presented the report which set out the current position for a major retail led development in Kirkstall.  Members were informed that the proposals had been presented to Plans Panel West in early September, which had generally supported the scheme

The previous scheme was shown to Panel for comparative purposes

The level changes across the site were highlighted as was the previous proposals to site the retail units on Kirkstall Hill

Members were informed that the current scheme brought the development to street level on the Commercial Road side.  The first level would comprise the retail units and a tower feature which would incorporate the lift and stairs which would give access to all levels.  The next level would include the Post Office Sports Club and the servicing arrangements for the development from a new road off Commercial Road; the next level would include the new supermarket, which could be accessed at ground level on Kirkstall Lane.  The final level would see the location of the car park

The proposed materials would be red brick, stone cladding and some bronze detailing

As a lower building was now being proposed, it would have less visual impact than previous proposals for the site

Officers reported the receipt of an objection from a local resident which was outlined for Members’ information.  Receipt of 7 e-mails in support of the proposals were also reported

Members were informed that the proposals provided the opportunity to develop the site in a different way and to bring forward a scheme on a site which was challenging due to the level changes.  The scheme would now provide two active frontages; better servicing and the retail elements at a lower level.  Local jobs would also be created

At this point, the Chair referred to the comments in the report made by the West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service, which was part of West Yorkshire Joint Services which he also chaired, but stated that he was not declaring in interest

Members discussed the proposals and commented on the following matters:

·  the effect of moving the bus stop which was located nearby on Kirkstall Lane.  The Panel’s highways representative stated that the bus stop would be moved to accommodate the junction changes, but would be retained

·  the need for more work to be done on the Beecroft Street elevation; that planting and design should be considered but that any signage on this corner would need to be carefully controlled.  Members were informed that discussions about the design of this elevation were continuing and that in respect of signage, this would require advertisement consent in its own right

·  that the design of the building should reach the highest environmental and sustainable standards

·  the amount of future development in this area and that this site should not be considered in isolation, particularly in terms of the traffic assessment which should be a cumulative assessment.  The Head of Planning Services stated that agreed development had been incorporated into the transport assessment

·  whether the active frontages were in the most appropriate location

·  that this was an important junction coming into the city centre and there should be a statement building on the site

·  concerns about the scale of the development and that a smaller scheme would be preferred, but recognising that the site was located in the heart of Kirkstall

·  that the site was located in the heart of Kirkstall and the development was too big for a densely populated, residential area and was in the wrong location

·  that a 24 hour use would need to be carefully considered in view of its impact on residents on Beecroft Street

·  that compared to previous schemes for the site, this was better, especially as it used the slope of the site rather than working against it and that it had to be accepted that this was a large site and that a large building could reasonably be expected

·  highways concerns as the size of the store was likely to attract shoppers from further away, leading to more traffic, together with concerns at the proposed junctions

·  the need for more information about the tower, especially how it would work; whether it would be used by shoppers and the need for this element to be of good design as it would be a focal point, with possibly an increase in height being considered to make it a feature.  The view was also expressed that a tower on the site was not appropriate

·  the need for improved landscaping

·  the impact on the views of Kirkstall Abbey, with the feeling that this was not now likely to be a significant consideration

·  ensuring that the proposals related to the rest of the S2 centre, rather than the Kirkstall District Centre and the need to ensure it fitted in with the BHS site and Morrisons Supermarket, with a network of pedestrian crossings being needed to achieve this

·  that the visual appearance of the supermarket from the Kirkstall Lane side was weak and that more was needed to make the roofline more positive and create a statement building

·  that if built, the scheme could result in the surrounding area, particularly the shops, looking tired

·  that the applicant was seeking a large store and that Panel could not redesign it but if, when the scheme came for determination, Members were minded to refuse it, the options needed to be considered

·  concerns about the consistency of advice from Officers in view of no retail impact assessment being referred to for this scheme, when on other retail schemes, this was considered to be necessary

·  that the applicant was Tesco, with concerns about the viability of other Tescos in the wider area, if this scheme was approved

In addressing the specific points raised in the report, Members

provided the following responses:

·  on the principle of development on the site, the majority of Panel recognised the need for development

·  in respect of the impact of the store on the character and appearance of the centre of Kirkstall, there were concerns about connectivity and the impact of the scheme on the wider area.  The Head of Planning Services stated that there would be some impact but that the aim was to bring forward a scheme which worked and was capable of being implemented

·  concerning the impact of the proposed development on the listed building on Beecroft Street, this had previously been commented on, however, Panel did have some concerns about the impact of 24 hour opening on nearby residents and that this needed to be considered further

·  to note Members’ comments about the design, scale and place making of the proposals

·  in relation to the impact of the development on residential amenity, to note the concerns about 24 hour opening

·  on the issue of the impact of the development on the local economy and the importance of the redevelopment of this site for the future of Kirkstall, it was accepted that the site needed developing but there were concerns about the impact this could have on retail in surrounding areas.  The Deputy Area Planning Manager explained that as the proposals were in a designated town centre, there was no requirement in this case for the applicant to provide a retail impact assessment

·  in terms of the proposals for pedestrian access to the development, further work on this element as well as public realm and sustainability were required.  Regarding integration of the scheme with the rest of the Kirkstall District Centre, the Chief Planning Officer suggested that Members may wish to consider whether S106 contributions for this should be sought

RESOLVED –  To note the report and the comments now made