Agenda item

To receive a report of the Chief Planning Officer which details an application for a residential development of 501 houses, conversion of former hospital administration block, demolition of Villa building, associated infrastructure including two new vehicle access points to A64, public open space and retention of Clock Tower on land at Seacroft Hospital, York Road, Leeds, LS14 6UH.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which detailed an application for a residential development of 501 houses, conversion of former hospital administration block, demolition of Villa building, associated infrastructure including two new vehicle access points to A64, public open space and retention of Clock Tower on land at Seacroft Hospital, York Road, Leeds, LS14 6UH.

Site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

• The Villa building had been discussed at length with officers and the developer and it had been considered better to replace it;
• The Manston block would have a book end feature which related to the existing Victorian administration block;
• The apartment building would form part of the affordable housing mix;
• The development was compliant with the Core Strategy and featured an increase in two bedroomed units;
• Air quality in the area had been considered and addressed; and
• Drainage had been assessed and the existing surface run off was 234 litres per second which through a storage system would be reduced to 120 litres per second.

The Panel heard from Councillor Selby whose comments included:

• A request that if the developer attempted to reduce the amount of affordable housing on site that this should be returned to the Panel for consideration; and
• That consultation with shop owners on York Road should take place due to the extensive highway works which are proposed.

The Head of Planning Services confirmed that if there was any change to the amount of affordable housing on the site it would be referred to the Panel and that the highway works would be subject to consultation.

The Panel heard from Richard Bickers from Arup on behalf of the developer. Information put forward included:

• The site was a strategically important site allocated for residential development which contributed to the Council’s five year land supply;
• The site had the potential to deliver a secondary school and had been carefully designed taking that possibility into account;
• The grade two listed clock tower would be enhanced; and
• That designs had been developed in consultation with council officers, the views of the Panel and of local residents.

In response to Members comments and questions, the following was discussed:

·  That there was a lack of chimneys and that the design didn’t reflect previous Panel discussion, particularly the apartment block (block 01). Members also did not like the colour and massing of the beige street scenes in the visualisations and felt that further consideration should be given to the placement of doors on the houses and the possibility of adding bay windows;

·  Disappointment at the loss of the villa building by some;

·  The design of the apartment building (block 01) and in particular the pyramid roof to the corner tower and the use of render;

·  That a condition be inserted to include a repair and maintenance plan for the clock tower;

·  Members asked questions about housing for the elderly, the shortage of green space for amenity and also the possible drainage problems caused by the development.

The Panel heard from a representative from Children’s Services who updated Members on the possibility of building a secondary school on land set aside next to the development.

The architect for the site addressed the Panel commenting that further work would be done to incorporate chimneys. Members were informed that the turret design of the apartment building reflected the design of the clock tower. The loss of the villa was also addressed in that it did not respond positively to the development of the site and the clock tower and that removing the villa would create better public open space.

Generally the Panel felt that more work needed to be done to address the concerns raised by Members as set out above. However on balance Members felt it acceptable for the Villa building to be demolished and replaced.

The Chief Planning Officer noted the views of Members and that further work would be done with the architect to ensure Members views were incorporated into the design of the development.

RESOLVED –

To defer the application for further design improvements to the house types and streetscenes and apartment block 01, as set out above and for the application to come back to the Panel for final approval.