Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application for two residential blocks at 17 and 21 storey’s high, comprising of 463 flats with linked podium, car parking, landscaping and associated facilities at Doncaster Monk Bridge Whitehall Road, Lower Wortley Leeds LS12 1BE

(Report attached – Please note Appendix 2 contains confidential information and will be considered in closed session)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application for two residential blocks at 17 and 21 storey’s high, comprising of 463 flats with linked podium, car parking, landscaping and associated facilities at Doncaster Monk Bridge, Whitehall Road, Lower Wortley, Leeds, LS12 1BE.

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

Planning Officers addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  Site/ location/ context

·  Masterplan

·  The erection of two residential blocks; 17 and 21 storeys in height, 463 residential apartments specifically built for rental purposes (PRS)

·  Accommodation to include: 70 Studio Apartments, 162 X 1 bedroom apartments, 208 X 2 bedroom apartments and 23 X 3 bedroom apartments (All in accordance with National Space Standards)

·  102 car parking spaces available at ground floor and basement level, 448 cycle parking spaces and 48 motor cycle spaces

·  Access off Whitehall Road

·  Entrance areas/drop off areas/ loading bays/ refuse strategy

·  Landscaping/ public realm areas

·  Communal amenity space

·  Materials – brick/ glazing

·  Wind mitigation measures

(At this point the meeting went into closed session to receive information about the financial viability of the scheme)

The meeting returned to open session

The Panel then heard from Andrew Steer (Director, for and on behalf of City Island Management Limited) who were objecting to the scheme.

Mr Steer informed Members that the City Island development was 14 storeys in height, the proposed Monk Bridge development was far higher ranging in height between 17 and 21 storeys. The proposed new development was not in keeping with the surrounding area, residents occupying City Island would experience a loss of; light, privacy and views over the city.

Mr Steer suggested the submitted report did not grapple with the issues raised in a meaningful way and the proposal would impact significantly on the residents of City Island who were of the view this was a gross overdevelopment of a small site.

Questions to Mr Steer - None

Members raised the following questions:

·  Had adequate consultation taken place

·  Were Officers aware of the sunlight study that had been produced

·  Was there a need for a sustainable travel plan fund contribution for this particular application

·  What was the distance between this development and the City Island development

·  The proposed development would include 23 x 3 bedroom apartments (Family accommodation) what was the nearest school provision

·  In this case could the sustainable travel plan fund be used to fund more affordable housing provision

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

·  Members were informed that adequate consultation had taken place, the proposal had been advertised  by site notice and in the press as per the statutory requirements

·  The City Centre Team Leader was aware of the sunlight assessment undertaken by the applicant looking at potential impact throughout the year concluding that there was no effect to City Island. At a distance of 110m from City Island officers had no reason to question the conclusion.

·  The City Centre Team Leader said the inclusion of a sustainable travel plan fund contribution was a crucial part of the City Council’s overall transport strategy

·  Members were informed that the distance between this development and the City Island development was 110m

·  The City Centre Team Leader confirmed that the Ruth Gorse Academy was the nearest secondary school provision to the development. It was also stated that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contribution would be the appropriate way to fund further  education provision in this case

·  The Chief Planning Officer confirmed that affordable housing provision could be “topped up” by using the sustainable travel plan fund in this case. Members would be making a recommendation to apply the council’s planning policies in a flexible manner due the financial viability considerations in this particular case. This would not signal an intention to change the policy. Officers could consider with the applicant whether additional affordable housing provision can be achieved on site in this way.

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

·  Members were generally supportive of the application suggesting that it was a good scheme

In summing up the Chair thanked all parties for their attendance and contributions suggesting 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 Appendix 1 of the submitted report (and any others which he might consider appropriate) and with a recommendation that funding from the sustainable travel fund be used to provide affordable housing units on site if possible, and following the completion of a Section 106 agreement to include the following obligations:

·  Provision of 16 affordable units (3.45%) plus a commuted sum of £132,063 (subject to further consideration as resolved above)

·  Sustainable Travel Plan Fund contribution of £94,592.50 (subject to further consideration as resolved above)

·  Travel Plan together with monitoring fee of £4,315;

·  City Car Club contribution of £20,000 to create car club space within the site;

·  Traffic Regulation Order contribution £7,500

·  Use of local employment skills in construction

In the event of the Section 106 Agreement 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.