Agenda item

The report of the Chief Planning Officer asks Members to consider the demolition of vacant depot building; construction of a new primary/secondary school; footbridge crossing barrack road; multi-use game areas (MUGA), sports pitches, hard and soft landscaping, car/cycle parking, alterations to site access; landscaping and boundary treatments at Dixons Trinity Chapeltown Leopold Street, Chapeltown, Leeds,LS7 4AW.

(Report attached)

Further to minute 29 of the meeting held on 9^th August 2018 the report of the Chief Planning Officer set out an application for the demolition of vacant deport building; construction of a new primary / secondary school; footbridge crossing Barrack Road, multi-use game areas (MUGA), sports pitches, hard and soft landscaping, car/ cycle parking, alterations to site access; landscaping and boundary treatments.

Photographs and maps were shown throughout the presentation.

Members were informed that the developers had taken on the comments received from the Panel and had provided 4 options during negotiations with officers. Members heard an overview of all the options proposed with officers saying that option 4 was the preferred option.

Option 4 would see the building block move 3 metres to the west; car parking extending to provide 136 spaces; layby for parent drop off point to the southern side of the development; the provision of an acoustic fence and landscape buffer to the south eastern boundary; proposal of pedestrian crossing points. Members were advised this option would see the removal of the lift from the proposed bridge access.

Members also noted the addition of the following conditions:

·  Design of boundary enclosure to prevent future openings onto Barrack Road

·  Details of gates and access controls to be agreed

·  Details and provision of acoustic fence

Mr Phelps of Chapeltown Cohousing attended the meeting to speak against the recommendations he informed the panel of the following points:

·  The residents would prefer a proposal for separate primary and secondary schools rather than trying to cram both on to a site too small.

·  Removal of a third of the playing field.

·  Congestion along Spencer Place.

·  Many of the local road users and pedestrians in the vicinity were likely to be vulnerable and there was already significant traffic and parking issues in the area. It was noted that there were 3 primary schools in the area. It was also noted that on Friday the road becomes increasing busy due to the there being 3 mosques located nearby.

·  Parking on Leopold Street was already busy particularly at the start and end of the school day with no notice taken of the double yellow lines.

·  Green space was limited in this area.

·  Overshadowing of gardens at nearby houses.

·  A three storey building was out of proportion to the residential character of the neighbourhood.

·  Of the view that this type of development would not be tolerated in wealthy parts of the city.

·  No access for residents to use the proposed footbridge over this busy road.

·  No further consultation had been given for new proposals.

Ms Plant the applicant’s representative addressed the Panel saying that the applicant had carefully considered the comments of the Members and was of the view that the proposal in front of Members was the best option and best design addressing most of the issues raised by the Members.

Members were informed of the following points:

·  The bridge design would be conditioned;

·  Improved additional landscaping to the immediate boundary;

·  Addition of acoustic measures to reduce playground noise;

·  Additional pick up/drop off at Roundhay Road to distribute traffic;

·  Sustainability – Efficient design; Energy Statement;

·  The bridge would be used mainly by secondary school pupils to access the pitches

·  The bridge would not have lift access as previously proposed, pupils / visitors with disability would be escorted to the pitches by a vehicle;

·  The bridge would have high walls, access would be controlled for security reasons;

·  Design of the school was similar to other academies;

·  A travel plan had been considered in conjunction with Metro and the Travel Authority and disabled groups.

In response to Members questions the following points were noted:

·  No further local consultation had taken place since the last meeting. However, discussion had taken place with Mr Phelps after the last meeting;

·  Condition 31 would provide community access to the MUGA and the pitches;

·  The design of the bridge had not been finalised and given Members concerns an enclosed bridge would be considered;

·  A notice in relation to highways had been posted on the public access system and discussions had taken place with Metro and the Traffic Authority;

·  There had only been 1 reported accident on Leopold Street within the 5 year period. Traffic impact on Roundhay was acceptable and there was parking on both sides of the road in Leopold Street.

·  The proposed move of the building to the west would not cause direct over shadowing as properties would be 17 metres away

Members requested that the impact of traffic on the area should be monitored.

Members still had concerns in relation to:

·  disabled access to the bridge in the absence of a lift; 

·  openness of the bridge;

·  appearance and dominance of the building;

·  impact on traffic congestion.

RESOLVED – To defer and delegate approval of planning permission to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the completion of a S106 agreement requiring a travel plan monitoring fee, bus stop improvements and subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report.

Additional conditions:

·  Design of boundary enclosure to prevent future openings onto Barrack Road

·  Details of gates and access controls to be agreed

·  Details and design and location of acoustic fence

·  Enclosure of bridge

·  Provision of lift to bridge

·  Monitoring of local parking/traffic impact and agreement of remedial measures

·  Parking scheme to be discussed with applicant and Ward Members prior to formal advertisement of works.

Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16.5 Councillor Nash required it to be recorded that she abstained from the vote.