Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application for the erection of 100 apartments in two buildings between 5 and 7 storeys, 3 commercial units (A1,A2,A3,B1,D1), 3 no. car parking spaces on land located between Melbourne Street and Lower Brunswick Street, Leeds

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application for the erection of 100 apartments in two buildings between 5 and 7 storeys, 3 commercial units (A1,A2,A3, B1 and D1), 3 car parking spaces on land located between Melbourne Street and Lower Brunswick Street, Leeds.

Members visited the site prior to the Meeting. Site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

Planning Officers together with the applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  Site/ location/ context

·  Site layout

·  The erection of 2 buildings between 5 and 7 storeys in height, separated by a central area of open space

·  100 apartments in total all meet the requirements of the Nationally Described Space Standards with the exception of a single studio apartment (33 sqm)

·  3 commercial units located at ground floor level

·  Rooftop garden areas

·  Areas of public realm throughout the site

·  Public open space

·  Footpaths widened/ tactile paving

·  Car parking/ cycle parking / refuge storage areas

·  Materials – Brick / light coloured masonry cladding/ glass

·  5% affordable housing controlled through a Section 106 Agreement along with the standard fallback clauses

Members raised the following questions:

·  Referring to the affordable housing provision, Members sought clarification with regard “the standard fall back clauses”

·  As part of the proposal could Lower Brunswick Street be resurfaced with cobble sets

·  Referring to the plant room at ground floor level, Members queried how this would appear at street level

·  The provision of 11 trees across the site, could assurances be provided that planters would not be used and what species of trees were to be used

·  Would it be possible to increase the size of the studio apartment on the 5^th floor studio to make it compliant with space standards

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

·  Members were informed that applicants were required through the legal agreement to work with a registered provider to deliver the affordable housing provision on site. If a registered provider could not be attracted to deliver the affordable units on site then a commuted sum would be sought to deliver off site affordable housing, this was known as the fall back position 

·  Referring to the possible resurfacing of Lower Brunswick Street the Planning case officer said that “missing cobble sets” would be replaced and this would be agreed/ controlled through the use of a 278 Agreement 

·  Members were informed that “dummy glass” would be used to screen the plant room at the lower levels

·  Members were informed that the full landscaping details were to be controlled by planning condition but the views of Members about the use of planters would be made known to the applicant. Details of tree species would be notified to Members in due course.

·  The Architect confirmed that attempts had been made to make all apartments space standard complaint but it could not be achieved in one instance

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

·  It was the general view of Members that this was a good scheme

·  One Member suggested this was an imaginative design

·  One Member said that one of the apartments was below the required space standards, the Council had a policy and it should adhere to that policy

Commenting on the latter point the Chief Planning Officer said the application was for 100 apartments with only one of those apartments being below the national space standards and the reasons for this were set out in the submitted report. In this case the officer advice was that the benefits of the proposal outweighed this short fall and the application should be supported.

In summing up the Chair thanked all parties for their attendance and contributions, he suggested the majority of Members appeared to be supportive of the application.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions specified in the submitted report (and any others which he might consider appropriate) and following the completion of a Section 106 agreement to include the following obligations:

·  Provision of 5% (5 units) affordable housing units with standard fall back clauses

·  £24,750 Residential Travel Plan fund

·  £2,500 Travel Plan Review Fee

·  £10,000 for new bus stop on North Street

·  £8,000 for amendment to existing ‘No Waiting’ TRO’s in the area.

·  Control over public realm maintenance and 24 hour accessibility

·  Local Employment Initiatives

·  Any other obligations which arise as part of the application process.

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.

(Under the provision of Council Procedure rule 16.5 Councillor Campbell required it to be recoded that he was not supportive of the application)