Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of a hybrid planning application for a phased development on land at Globe Road and Water Lane, Holbeck, Leeds comprising:

 

1)  Demolition of all existing buildings and structures other than the listed bridge crossing Hol Beck and the main part of the Print Works, and preparatory works;

 

2)  Detailed planning permission for erection of two office buildings (use class B1) with ground floor uses comprising any or all of retail, office and leisure (use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1 and/or D2) totalling up to 26,100sqm gross external area and associated means of access, parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure works; and

 

3)  Outline planning permission with all detailed matters reserved, to be implemented in phases, for mixed use development totalling up to 103,900 sqm gross external area comprising residential use (C3); business floor space (B1 a/b/c); and other uses including all or some of the following; retail, leisure, hotel, health and community uses (use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, C1, D1 and D2); car parking (that may include a multi-storey car park); new public spaces; hard and soft landscaping; cycle parking; access; servicing; and other associated infrastructure and engineering works.

 

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of a hybrid planning application for a phased development on land at Globe Road and Water Lane, Holbeck, Leeds.

 

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

 

The Planning Case Officer addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

 

·  Demolition of all existing buildings and structures other than the listed bridge crossing Hol Beck and the main part of the Print Works, and preparatory works;

 

·  Detailed planning permission for erection of two office buildings (use class B1) with ground floor uses comprising any or all of retail, office and leisure (use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1 and/or D2) totalling up to 26,100sqm gross external area and associated means of access, parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure works; and

 

·  Outline planning permission with all detailed matters reserved, to be implemented in phases, for mixed use development totalling up to 103,900 sqm gross external area comprising residential use (C3); business floor space (B1 a/b/c); and other uses including all or some of the following; retail, leisure, hotel, health and community uses (use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, C1, D1 and D2); car parking (that may include a multi-storey car park); new public spaces; hard and soft landscaping; cycle parking; access; servicing; and other associated infrastructure and engineering works.

 

·  The scheme contains five development parcels (Globe Point, Globe Square, Globe Arches, Globe Waterside and Beck Court), each of which forms a separate character area. Design principles had been produced to ensure the design of each building on each site was complementary, and linked by homogenous new public realm. The public realm, providing new public spaces and a series of pedestrian routes through the site would be supplemented by four new footbridges over the Hol Beck, 5 new pedestrian crossings and narrowing of carriageways on both Globe Road and Water Lane, the flow of the Water Lane becoming solely one way from Globe Road to Bath Road.

 

Members raised the following questions:

 

·  Would there be dedicated cycling provision along Globe Road

·  What was the distance between the buildings GP.01 and GP.02

·  Could more details be provided about roof top plant for buildings GP.01 and GP.02, also were photo-voltaic cells being considered

·  Why was this application submitted as a hybrid application

·  Once the whole of the development was completed, approximately how many people would occupy the site.

·  Was there sufficient highway capacity given the levels of occupancy and what were the implications for public transport, were other developments in the area contributing to the highway/ transportation network

·  Was the listed bridge going to be retained

·  Were there any proposals for the cleaning of the viaduct

·  Had discussions taken place with Network Rail to negotiate passage through the railway arches

·  Could consideration be given to repositioning the tall building (GW.01) into Globe Square

·  Could hedges, green walls, benches (not concreate) and a children’s play space be included within the landscape proposals 

·  The proposal included family apartments, was there adequate school provision in the area

·  What retail facilities were being proposed for the scheme     

 

In responding to the issues raised, the applicant’s representative and council officers said:

 

·  Highway officers confirmed there was no dedicated cycling provision proposed, Globe Road would be narrowed but it would be wide enough to accommodate two way traffic including cycles

·  Members were informed that the distance between the buildings GP.01 and GP.02 was 9.5m

·  Roof top plant would be screened with tolerances being built into the vertical parameters of the building. Photo-voltaic cells were being considered as part of the projects energy requirements

·  The applicant advised that the area of development was the subject of a Masterplan and the submission of the hybrid application was to provide greater assurance to the local planning authority as to what was being brought forward. 

·  Members were informed that once complete up to 10,000 people may occupy the site (7,500 office workers and 2,500 residents). It was suggested that if a Call Centre was to occupy part of the site, this may increase the level of occupancy and could also include 24 hour working

·  Highway officers reported that narrowing the width of Globe Road would accommodate expected traffic movements but further discussions were ongoing. As yet there was no proposals for improved public transport for the area, existing alternative bus stops were considered to be at an acceptable walking distance.

·  It was confirmed that the bridge was of great historic interest and importance and would be retained and repaired (for pedestrian use only, not traffic)

·  The applicant confirmed that the viaduct would be cleaned as part of a local training initiative subject to the agreement of Network Rail

·  In terms of passageway through the viaduct arches it was confirmed that discussions were ongoing with Network Rail who appeared to be willing to support routes through the arches

·  It was reported that extensive discussions had taken place as to the location of each of the proposed buildings and it was considered that the tallest building (GW.01) was located in the most suitable location.

·  In terms of the landscape proposals it was reported that further details would be provided in the reserved matters application but the points raised by Members would be considered.

·  It was understood the nearest primary school was in Holbeck and the nearest secondary school was at Black Bull Street. Discussions were ongoing with the Ruth Gorse Academy with regard further primary provision in the area.

·  In terms of retail provision, this would be ancillary to meet the needs of the Holbeck Urban Village and would not be competing with the city centre provision.

 

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

 

·  Members welcomed the application commenting that it was an excellent design, quality materials were proposed, the project as a whole was bold and striking and it was apparent a lot of thought and planning had taken place.

·  A lot more information was still required in respect of the reserved matters application especially around the public realm provision to create a “soft environment”.

·  Members requested that consideration be given to the use of hedges and green walls as part of the landscape proposals

·  Members emphasised the importance of connectivity through the development and to link with other pedestrian routes 

·  Members welcomed the mixed residential use

·  A small number of Members expressed a slight concern about the proposed 40 storey building.

·  One Member requested if further consideration could be given to the “fluting detail” at the top of the GP.02 building

·  Not specific to this application, but a number of Members raised concerns about the Council’s vision for Highways and Transportation for the city. Members were of the view that there was a lot of development planned for the south of the city and the cumulative impact on the highway and transport network would be substantial, was there a vision for the highways and transport network and was the necessary oversight being provided

 

(Concerning the Council’s vision for Highways and Transportation the Chief Planning Officer confirmed that there was a significant amount of activity taking place now and in the near future in the city centre including: the South Bank Regeneration, HS2, Highways England junction improvements, Public Transport provision and issues around air quality. It was suggested that at an appropriate time Members would receive a briefing/ training on the city’s vision for Highway and Transportation)

 

Members welcomed the suggestion put forward by the Chief Planning Officer and requested that the necessary arrangements be made when appropriate.

 

 

 In summing up the Chair thanked all parties for their attendance and contributions commenting that this was a very impressive scheme and once completed would bring substantial regeneration to this area of the city.

 

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to no objections being raised by the Environment Agency in respect of flooding issues, and the specified conditions identified in Appendix 3 of the submitted report (and any others which he might consider appropriate) and also the completion of a Section 106 agreement to include the following obligations:

 

·  Leeds City Council Travel Plan Review fee of £20,000

·  Provision of 3 Leeds City Council Car Club parking spaces

·  Business Car Club Contribution = £12,600+(B1area -14000) x 0.22 (where B1 area is the area in sqm of B1 use class)

·  Residential Travel Plan Fund contribution of £245.50 per dwelling

·  Contribution towards operation of the flood gates within the site and along Water Lane fronting the site (amount to be agreed)

·  Off-site canalside towpath and biodiversity habitat improvements

·  Provision of 5% affordable housing

·  Provision for public rights of access to the public access areas across the site

·  Contribution for loss of revenue from on-street car parking bays (amount to be agreed)

·  Contribution towards Whitehall Road / Globe Road junction improvement works (scope of improvements and amount to be agreed)

·  Provision of the easternmost bridge over Holbeck as part of the next phase of development following completion of the detailed office led phase

·  Local employment and training initiatives

·  Section 106 management fee (£4,500).

 

In the event of the Section 106 having 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.