Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which provides a position statement in respect of the following applications:

 

Application Number 12/03886/OT – Outline application for mixed use development comprising offices (Business Park) (B1A), (B) and (C), retail and bar/restaurant (A1,A2,A3,A4 and A5), hotel (C1), leisure facilities (D1, D2), multi-storey car park, together with internal roads, car parking, landscaping and drainage to land between Barrowby Lane and Manston Lane, Thorpe Park

 

Application Number 12/03887/FU – Detailed application for the Manston Lane Link Road (North- South Route) at land between Barrowby Lane and Manston Lane, Thorpe Park.

 

Application Number 12/03888/FU – Detailed application for the Manston Lane Link Road (East – West Route) at Manston Lane, Cross Gates

 

Application Number 12/05382/FU – Detailed application for the Manston Lane Link Road (East – West Route) at Manston Lane, Thorpe Park, Leeds 15.

 

Report attached)

  Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer relating to four applications in respect of a mixed use development at Thorpe Park, together with proposals for the Manston Lane Link Road (MLLR), north to south and east to west

  Plans, photographs, drawings and graphics were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day.  The Panel noted that the former Plans Panel East had considered a preapplication presentation on the proposals for Thorpe Park at its meeting on 9^th August 2012, with a copy of the minute detailing the discussions being appended to the report, for information

  Officers presented the report which outlined the proposals for an increase in the levels of B1 office space and introduce 22,100 sqm of retail, including a large supermarket of circa 12,000 sqm together with 17,800 sqm of leisure uses including hotels and 3,200 sqm of food and drink uses, together with delivery of the MLLR.  A large area – 30 acres - of POS would run through the centre of the site and be known as Central Park which would link to Green Park to the west of the site and Brown Moor to the east

  The large supermarket would be sited on the east side off the MLLR and on Brown Moor.   The centre of the site would see a mix of additional retail and leisure uses together with restaurants and the multi-storey car park.  Paragraph 10.6 of the submitted report outlined that the principle of a large scale office-based business park was considered acceptable but that the current proposal included additional non-office uses that were not considered to be ancillary, therefore further consideration of these uses was required

  Members were informed that Thorpe Park was a business park of its day and that the new owners were seeking to create a heart to the development, increased usage of the site and greater job opportunties

  The delivery of the MLLR was a key feature of the scheme.  On the north/south route, the MLLR would bridge the existing Leeds-York railway line, with the Council having an agreement up to March 2015, to bridge the railway line.  This key date was one which the developer was working back from in terms of drawing up their proposals

  Retail assessments had been undertaken by consultants both for the Council and the developer.  Whilst it was accepted that the proposals would have some impact on nearby centres, the extent of this was in dispute

  As well as the impact on local centres of introducing the amount of proposed retail on the site, the impact on the city centre had also to be considered with a late representation having been received from John Lewis which would form one of the anchor stores of the forthcoming Eastgate and Harewood Quarter development

  The S106 considerations were outlined, with these being:

 

·  delivery of Green Park

·  delivery of the MLLR as far as necessary for this development, with the cost of works over and above being recovered from other developers who would benefit from the MLLR

·  retail mitigation impact

·  public transport contribution

·  public access

·  local employment, jobs and skills

 

Members were informed that a number of issues remained in respect of the current proposals, with these being outlined in the submitted report

  Officers had put forward alternative proposals which sought to overcome some of these problems, these included a scheme providing a similar level of office use to that proposed but locating the supermarket into the heart of the development and providing a smaller level of retail use and introducing housing into the site.  This proposal would remove the need for an extra roundabout which Officers were concerned about and would also have less of an impact on Brown Moor.  A second, similar scheme had been drawn up by Officers which was similar to the first one but had reduced office space with this being replaced by increased housing, including the possibility of introducing some sheltered housing on the site

The Chief Planning Officer provided further clarification of the issues associated with the proposals

·  in terms of the retail position, this was currently subject to debate and the applicant’s consultant was of the view that the impact of the scheme would be less than that suggested by the Council’s consultant.  Employment was a key consideration and the amount of jobs created through the scheme and possibly lost through its impact on existing centres and potential development in the City Centre had to be fully considered

·  that the high-end retail proposed for the site had drawn representations from Crown Point Retail Park, Hammersons and John Lewis

·  that the two proposals drawn up by Officers reduced the level of retail in the scheme, so there would be less of an impact.  These proposals also helped address housing land supply

·  that currently office development on the site had stalled and there was a need for the MLLR

·  that in terms of traffic issues, that an evaluation of the impact of the scheme on Cross Gates and around the motorway junctions had not been completed, but that with the suggested alternative schemes there was better integration

·  that in drawing up alternative proposals, Officers were seeking a way to reign back all of the development whilst still providing a scheme which delivered the MLLR but without serious impacts elsewhere

 

Members were then given the opportunity to ask questions on the information which had been provided and raised the following points:

·  the retail impact mitigation, who would be offered compensation and the level of this

·  the introduction of sheltered housing on the site and where this would be located in view of the likely noise and disturbance from the retail uses

·  whether the Supermarket at Colton was overtrading

·  public transport and whether there were proposals for a rail halt in this location

·  if some housing was accepted on the site, how the phasing would work to ensure this did not become just a shopping centre with some offices

·  whether other facilities would be included to support the sheltered housing which was being proposed

·  that in 18 years, only one third of the proposed offices had been constructed on the site, whether if retail was accepted in this location, further requests for more retail would come forward

·  where the profits were from the development which had already taken place on the site

·  whether the additional office space proposed by the developer would be built in view of the surplus office space which existed citywide, including some on Thorpe Park

·  the route of the MLLR and the cost of this

 

Officers provided the following responses:

·  that at this stage it was not known the level of retail impact mitigation and to whom this would be paid, that agreement would need to be reached on the retail impacts after which detailed discussions could commence on where the money was to be directed

·  that the introduction of housing on the site was an Officer proposal and had been presented to see if there was an appetite to pursue these options.  In terms of location, the sheltered housing was likely to be in the central area where people could easily access the greenspace and shops

·  that the Supermarket at Colton was overtrading as were other operators in the area

·  in terms of public transport, discussions were continuing with Metro and that a consistent approach would be adopted.  That the possibility of a new railway station at Micklefield was being looked at and when the Thorpe Park proposals were presented to Plans Panel East, that Panel favoured a park and ride scheme

·  in relation to phasing, it was expected that the first phase of the scheme would be the delivery of the food store and other retail which would provide the funding for early delivery of the MLLR and Green Park

·  that inclusion of sheltered housing was indicative at this stage but that there would be other facilities provided in the heart of the development e.g; cafes and restaurants and that if residential use was accepted on the site, then other facilities e.g. medical and community facilities would be expected to be provided and there would also be facilities in the nearby Northern Quadrant scheme

·  that Officers could not account for where site owners put their profits and that it was not possible to say with any certainty what the future demand would be for office use but that currently, on business parks, this was stagnant, although it was important to retain office capacity in attractive locations close to the motorway network.   On the original scheme, the trigger for the delivery of the MLLR was when 93,000 sqm of the office development was occupied and this was a long way off being met, therefore an alternative way of securing the MLLR had been put forward that would ensure delivery in the first phase of development.  Officers were suggesting there might be a case for an exception to the retail policy, but care had to be taken and that a pragmatic approach which would provide something which would be acceptable, should be explored.  The inclusion of residential uses on the options drawn up by Officers also addressed the shortfall of housing in the Garforth area due to the likely impact of HS2

·  in terms of costs already incurred by the developer, £6m had been spent on providing the dumbbell roundabouts within Thorpe Park, J46 signals and works to the ‘cracked egg’ roundabout

·  that the cost of the MLLR had been quoted by the developer as being £11m

 

Members then discussed the proposals and commented on the following matters:

·  the need for sheltered housing to be located at the centre of a community and to be in easy reach of local facilities and shops but not next to a 24 hour large supermarket

·  the need for a mix of uses and opportunities on the site was important but that the level of retail on the site must be addressed

·  the proposed increase in office accommodation which was also seen as a town and city centre use in the NPPF, as was retail, leisure and food and drink uses

·  the possibility of discussing an extension to the March 2015 deadline with Network Rail in respect of the bridge

·  that this development could have a detrimental impact on the delivery of the whole of the Eastgate and Harewood Quarter scheme

·  that the retail assessments showed the proposals would have a significant impact on existing retail centres with concerns that a domino effect could take place if shops in local centres began to close and that the offer to pay compensation was too vague

·  that the site would be an appropriate location for housing and that a smaller retail centre might not be as damaging as the current proposals could be

·  concerns that if the scheme was allowed in its current form, it could set a damaging precedent and was likely to result in further applications for retail use coming forward on the site in the future

·  that the MLLR had to come forward at an early stage

·  that the position of the developers could be understood if they had recently acquired the site and were not fully aware of issues connected with it

·  the view that a different offer in terms of supermarket might be acceptable, i.e. on the lines of a French hypermarket, or even a flagship store for a local supermarket, but that what was currently being proposed could not be supported

·  that a more modest retail scheme together with residential use, including sheltered housing should be considered and the need to ensure the scheme did not become a second White Rose Centre

·  that more detail was needed, particularly on the impact of the scheme on Cross Gates and Garforth

·  the possibility of increasing the level of residential use on the site by also decreasing the level of additional offices proposed and that siting residential dwellings overlooking the park would be an excellent location

·  an acceptance that some level of retail use was needed

·  that 2015 was a critical year for the scheme, in view of the complex discussions which were had with Network Rail to agree this date

·  that the suggestions put forward by Officers were interesting but that ultimately it would be the developer’s application which Panel would consider and it was hoped that they had listened to Members’ comments

In addressing the specific points raised in the report, Panel provided the following responses:

·  that Members shared Officers’ concerns regarding the retail impact on local centre, Colton and the wider planning objectives for the Centre City and East Leeds, although some Members were willing to see a smaller retail scheme on the site.  The Chief Planning Officer stated that Officers were trying to steer a careful line between the impact of the development on viability and the delivery of the road and that more work was required on these issues

·  that Members shared Officers’ concerns regarding the impact of the proposals on the highway network including the areas in and around Cross Gates, the A63 ‘cracked egg’ roundabout and junction 46 of the M1.  Members also stated that the entire MLLR was required and that there was concern about piecemeal development

·  that Members were supportive of the introduction of the MLLR to help alleviate traffic congestion in the area and the delivery of the rail brige by March 2015

·  regarding the new masterplan layout and maximum building heights, that little discussion had been given to this as the location of the proposed supermarket had raised many concerns, particularly it being sited on stilts and the impact of this location on Brown Moor

·  concerning the exploration with the application of an alternative location for the foodstore, closer to the commercial uses, that if a smaller store was proposed and relocated, this could be brought back for further discussion

·  that Members supported the principles set out in the S106 offer, particularly those relating to jobs and training

·  that a viability assessment should be provided by the applicant in relation to the mix and quantum of development proposed (and alternatives) and the likely capital receipts for adjoining development sites and to the costs and timing of the delivery of the MLLR

·  that Members support Officers in continuing discussions with the applicant to further consider the alternative proposals with reduced retail and traffic impacts, new housing provision and better integration of land uses

RESOLVED -  To note the report and the comments now made