Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the re-development of a site to form a religious community centre, sports hall and catering business.

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. A ward member or a nominated community representative has a maximum of 15 minutes to present their comments. 

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

  Officers presented the report which related to pre-application proposals for a religious community centre, sports hall and catering business at 49 Barkly Road LS11

  Members were informed that the character of the surrounding area was predominantly residential, although other uses including industrial use, workshops and a primary school surrounded the site

  In terms of car parking, 74 car parking spaces at the front of the site were proposed together with 3 coach parking bays

  The proposed catering unit would be a self-contained unit and have a separate access

  In respect of the design of the proposals, discussions had taken place on this and some revisions had been made.  A particular feature of the main building would be the erection of a 16m high minaret, although this would be for decorative purposes only.  For information, Members were informed that the highest point of the existing buildings measured 13.5m

  Highways issues remained a concern, particularly in view of the proposed mix of uses on the site and the implications this could have for on- street parking.  Further information was being sought from the applicants to enable a full assessment to be undertaken of the highways issues involved

  The impact of the proposals on residential amenity would also need to be considered.  The previous factory use on the site had generated complaints about operating hours and delivery vehicles waiting to off load, causing noise and disturbance to local residents.  The proposals would need to be assessed to establish whether the intended uses would generate similar or different problems.  In respect of the catering unit there was the potential for noise and odour from extraction equipment

  Officers reported the receipt of 33 additional letters of representation which had been received following publication of the report, with issues relating to impact on existing businesses; an intensification of uses on the site; possible longer operating hours and that a residential scheme which would provide affordable housing was more suitable in this location

  The Panel received a presentation on the proposals from the applicant who provided the following information:

·  that the charity Aspiring Communities, was behind the application.  This organisation was run by volunteers and its aim was to improve communities, tackle prejudices and stereotypes, with community cohesion being a priority.  The charity catered for all aspects of society and had members in over 30 towns and cities

·  that Beeston was a multi-cultural part of the city; that it lacked investment; that it benefitted from the presence of a large number of faiths and that it was a sustainable location, with good public transport links to the wider area

·  that the proposed uses would be a community hall; sports and recreation hall; Islamic learning centre, incorporating a multi-faith centre and a catering unit.  A charity drop-in centre would also be provided for use by other charities

·  that the proposals represented a ground-breaking scheme and that both positive and negative feedback had been received to them

·  that the scale of the development had been reduced from its original idea, to enable the massing of the building not to increase its impact on the nearby residential dwellings

·  that extensive parking was being provided on the site but that one or two large scale events, for up to 1500, would take place annually, which would require considerable additional parking, with the possibility of using an area off site for parking and then providing a shuttle service to the venue.  The timing of these largescale events would be arranged so as not to coincide with a Leeds United home game at Elland Road

·  that a phased approach would be taken to the development and occupation, with the offices being retained as a temporary centre

·  that a traffic assessment for all of the proposed uses had been carried out by a reputable, independent company which had been submitted to Officers

·  regarding numbers using the venue, that this would be managed through a booking system; that a range of uses could be accommodated for, although the capacity of the function room would be for 400 and that the cost of using the facilities would be subsidised for low income families.  With the exception of the large annual events, in general, large numbers would not be catered for

·  that greater function hire was likely to take place at weekends, with a function possibly taking place once a week

·  that a Board had been formed two years ago for this community stakeholder project

·  that 8 paid posts would be created through the scheme, with one of these being a sustainability manager, to manage the centre on a day to day basis and that the jobs created would be for local people

·  that a significant investment of £4-5m was being made for this innovative scheme

Members then heard from a representative of Beeston Forum who

provided the following information:

·  that Beeston Forum opposed the proposals due to concerns about highways and disturbance to residential amenity as from the plans it was clear that a large number of people would be visiting the site

·  that lengthy opening hours were being proposed

·  the proximity of the school to the site, with concerns that this was closer than shown on the submitted plans

·  the likelihood of on-street parking occurring from people visiting the premises and the increased traffic generation the development would create

·  concerns about the proposed catering unit and the potential for nuisance to the residential dwellings sited near by

·  that a previously approved residential scheme was more appropriate for the site and that the scale of the proposals were too large for this area

The Panel then had the opportunity to ask questions of the two

speakers and then comment on the proposals

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  that further information on the membership of the Board and the sustainability of the organisation was requested

·  concerns about possible numbers using the site for functions.  On this matter the Panel noted Mr Rahman’s comments that there was not an intention to let the premises as a commercial venture and that he was willing to accept a condition preventing wedding functions from taking place on the premises

·  the use of the premises for funerals and the possibility of a large number of car borne visitors attending these, with concerns about highways and parking issues.  The Panel again noted Mr Rahman’s statement that the organisation would accept conditions relating to these issues, if it was felt appropriate

·  the facilities available for young Muslims in the area, particularly primary school children.  Members were informed that all age groups were catered for and along with sports facilities there would be evening classes, health and career advice and support for a range of issues, including language

·  the prayer facilities; the peak time for their use and the likely method of travel, with mixed views about this

At this point Councillor Akhtar drew Panel’s attention to the fact that he was a practising Muslim, as he felt it was in the public interest to do so

·  the possibility of pressure being put on the organisation to hold larger events more frequently than was intended.  The non-profit nature of the scheme was reiterated, with the possibility of conditioning event use being suggested by Mr Rahman

·  the Governance arrangements, with Members being informed that operational sub-committees would be established which would be made up of local people

·  the need for further consultation to be undertaken within the local area, particularly with the local faith communities, Beeston Forum and other groups which were not part of the Aspiring Communities organisation

·  the particular problems of on-street parking in this area due to the proximity of Elland Road and the potential for this to worsen if the parking issues associated with the scheme were not properly addressed from the outset

·  whether were was a demand in the area for affordable housing and the need for details to be provided of the number of sites in the Beeston and Holbeck Ward designated for future housing development

·  the scale of the development, which for context, was slightly larger than the proposals for a new supermarket being considered later on the agenda, and also for context, the level of car parking being proposed in the two supermarket developments before Panel, i.e. 164 and 195 spaces respectively, and whilst accepting the use was different, that only 74 car parking spaces were being proposed for this scheme for uses where people could be expected to park for several hours

·  that the proposals represented a extremely large, community facility

·  the need for any traffic management plan to be robust and sound, be submitted to Panel and include details about how it would be controlled and enforced

·  concerns about the design of the building; how the different areas would be used and whether, from the drawings provided, sufficient light would be available for the various intended uses

·  that the decorative minaret should not exceed the height of the highest point of the building; that the diversity of brickwork on the frontage was welcomed but that further design improvements were needed to the front elevation

·  that further conditions should be considered regarding no music outside the building; no marquees to be erected or outdoor events held and possible noise restrictions at the boundary, in the interests of protecting residential amenity

·  that local Ward Members and residents felt strongly there should be no access to the catering facility from the rear entry to the site, as the use of this access had led to issues of noise and nuisance from the former occupier of the site.  A condition in respect of the size of vehicles to the catering unit should be included and that this should specify no HGVs

·  the need for the catering unit to be properly conditioned to prevent noise and odour nuisance

·  the hours of operation of the sports hall which should be reduced from 10.00pm to 9.00pm and that some sound insulation to this area should be required

·  that the principle of this development could be beneficial, particularly the principle of community cohesion but that much more information on how this could be achieved was required

·  the scale and design of the existing development, with concerns that the current material of the large, modern unit on the site was unacceptable and that better cladding of this should be required as part of the proposed scheme

In respect of the specific issues in the report where Members’

comments were sought, the Panel’s Lead Officer summarised these from the comments made and noted that whilst there was support in principle for the scheme, concerns remained in respect of:

·  scale and design

·  highways and parking

·  impact of the proposals on residential amenity

and that further information was required on these matters and the other issues raised by Members, including details about the community cohesion the scheme could bring to the area

RESOLVED -  To note the report, the presentation and the comments

now made