Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the construction of 143 apartments with associated car parking ancillary spaces and landscaping.

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which provided a Position Statement in respect of an application for the construction of 143 apartments with associated car parking, ancillary spaces and landscaping to land at Former Burley Community Sports and Social Club at Burley Road, Burley, 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 addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  Site/ location/ context

·  The proposal was for the construction of 143 apartments (1,2 and 3 bedroom apartments) built in two blocks, each block 6 storeys in height.

·  The buildings would be formed as two interlocking “L” shaped buildings.

·  There would be modest amenity and circulation space separating the 2 buildings

·  Materials – Brick finish

·  Greenspace and car parking provision

·  It was proposed to extend the site into the Greenspace to accommodate further car parking provision

·  Further consideration was required on the adequacy of the on-site open space provision for future residents and the proposed provision of Greenspace through a financial contribution to upgrade existing Greenspace elsewhere

·  7% affordable housing provision

·  The scheme would be marketed as Private Rented Sector development (PRS)

·  It was reported that local residents had expressed concern at the proposed access arrangements. Councillor J Illingworth had commented that he considered the site to be not suitable for housing, the sports pitches on site had in the past been frequently used

The Chair invited the applicant’s architect to speak in support of the application

Councillor Campbell reminded Panel that the report before Members was a Position Statement and suggested that under the existing protocol representations should not be permitted. The Lead Planning Officer to the Panel confirmed the Council’s speaking protocol provided for speaking rights in relation to Position Statements. Councillor Campbell suggested that the Protocol be further considered by the Joint Plans Panel for a review.

The Chair suggested that the architect may be able to provide information which was not included in the report and which may be beneficial to Panel in progressing the application

The Chair called upon architect to address the Panel

The architect informed Members that the proposal had received full support from Local Ward Members and LCC Design Officers, he was not aware of any objections to the proposal. Members were informed that 35% of the site would be used for car parking provision. Members were also made aware that some land had been sacrificed to provide road junction improvements. Commenting on the Greenspace provision the architect said that any agreement would be subject to condition. In terms of distance from nearby properties Members were informed that the nearest dwellings were located at a distance of 30m away from the development

Members raised the following questions:

·  What would be the planning benefits and would there be any benefits to the local community

·  The proposal only provides for 10% of the units to be 3 bedroom accommodation, this is below the Council’s Policy, could consideration be given to increasing the number of 3 bedroom apartments

·  There appears to be a significant amount of car parking proposed given the site was located in close proximity to good bus and rail provision. Was the amount of car parking proposed really necessary 

·  The financial contribution to upgrade existing Greenspace elsewhere, where was it envisaged these monies would be used

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

·  Some land from the site would be sacrificed to allow junction improvements works to be undertaken, and development of the area would prevent unauthorised  occupation of  the site from recurring.

There was a housing benefit need in the area. The scheme was targeted at young professionals who would be able to walk into the city centre from the site. Other similar schemes were less generous with Greenspace provision

·  The housing mix (Adopted Policy H4) required a minimum of 20% of 3 bed houses but the local needs suggest smaller units are required, the scheme is targeted at young professionals and marketed at the Private Rented Sector

·  It was confirmed that the level of car parking was generous but this was at the request of LCC Highways. The Highways officer in attendance confirmed that the level of parking was within parking guidance; 1 space for each of the 1 and 2 bedroom apartments. The intention was not to create overspill parking onto nearby streets

·  Further discussions would be required with Ward Members and the Parks and Countryside Service to identify where upgrades to existing Greenspace was required

In offering comments the following views were expressed:

·  This was a small site surrounded by low key housing, something more in keeping with the area was required

·  The proposed housing mix was contrary to adopted Policy H4

·  Extending into the protected Greenspace designation for further parking provision was not acceptable to the majority of Members

·  The amount of car parking was generous but it was in keeping with policy

·  Given the issues raised by Members, the scheme may not be feasible

In drawing the discussion to a conclusion Members provided the following feedback;

·  Members expressed the view that there was no reason for the application to be extended onto an area of protected Greenspace. A number of Members considered that they had fought long and hard to retain that provision through Development Plans Panel and Site Allocations Plan.  Other Members stated that they would want this removing from the application and consequently the scale and massing and footprint needed to be reduced as did parking areas.  It was the view of Members that they would require significant justification to even consider the use of the area of Greenspace proposed.

·  Members considered the Amenity Greenspace provision was inadequate.  There was some support for a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision, but surety was required that the proposed sum was calculated correctly, the applicant would accept it and precisely where it could be spent.

·  Members expressed the view that the building was too tall and required reducing by one storey. The massing was over dominant and not appropriate for area in terms of scale. Members were disappointed at the design, the footprint was too large, there was not enough amenity space around the base and there was too much parking provided in a sustainable location.  It was suggested that by taking out The Greenspace area out of the application the applicant would have to significantly revise the scheme and the aforementioned concerns may be overcome as a consequence.

·  Members were not supportive of the proposed housing mix comprising 10% provision of 3 bedroom units, they required the site to be Policy compliant providing more 3 bed units.

In summing up the Chair thanked all parties for their attendance and contributions suggesting that were a number of significant issues which required further consideration.

RESOLVED –

(i)  To note the details contained in the Position Statement

(ii)  That the developers be thanked for their attendance and contribution