Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application which seeks outline planning consent (Access, layout and scale) for residential led scheme for 272 units with ancillary ground floor commercial uses (450 sqm) and undercroft car parking at the corner of Kirkstall Road and Viaduct Road, former Thyssenkrupp Industrial site.

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application which sought outline planning consent (Access, layout and scale) for a residential led scheme for 272 units with ancillary ground floor commercial uses (450 sqm) and undercroft car parking to land at 177 Kirkstall Road (former Thyssenkrupp Industrial site) corner of Kirkstall Road and Viaduct Road.

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

·  Erection of 4 buildings between 4 and 9 storeys in height

·  272 residential units (127 x 1 bedroom units, 140 x 2 bedroom units and 5 x 3 bedroom units)

·  Provision of 3 commercial units

·  The site access point is located on Viaduct Road

·  Large open space within the site

·  Series of pedestrian routes through the site with links to footpaths outside the site

·  Landscape proposals/ water features

·  Undercroft car parking

·  Refuse and cycle storage

·  Some sections of the curved boundary wall along Kirkstall Road would be retained

Members raised the following questions:

·  The “L” shaped area of land in close proximity to the river, was it in the ownership of the City Council 

·  Was there connectivity to the river and the canal through the site. 

·  The Kirkstall Road/ Viaduct Road junction was heavily congested with traffic resulting in poor air quality, could more greenery / hedges be planted near that junction

·  How would the car parking at ground level be screened 

·  It was suggested that some of the pavements appeared narrow and in close proximity to the road, could some of these pavements be widened

·  Were Highways Officer’s satisfied with the access onto Viaduct Road 

·  Were the refuse storage areas large enough to cater for future recycling systems and appropriately orientated within the site

·  Would access for refuse vehicles be sufficient 

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

·  Members were informed that the “L” shaped area of land as identified on the submitted plan was in the ownership of the City Council and it was understood that there were ongoing discussions with Asset Management with regard to its future use.

·  Members were informed that access to both the river and the canal was only achieved by Viaduct Road

·  Members were informed that part of the retained boundary wall ran along  the Kirkstall Road/ Viaduct Road junction, however, it may be possible to include more greenery/ hedges behind the boundary wall

·  Members were informed that all residential car parking would be at ground level and under the buildings (Undercroft parking) and would be screened by the use of artistic louvers

·  Officers reported that that there may be potential to widen some of the footpaths

·  Highways Officer’s confirmed there were no issues with the access point on Viaduct Road and they were satisfied with the proposed arrangements

·  The City Centre Team Leader said that servicing requirements and design elements of the development would be considered more in detail at the Reserved Matters stage.

·  In offering a comment, the Chief Planning Officer reported that the waste services industry had produced a Guidance Note on Waste Collection Schemes for developers to follow. Combined working with Refuse Services within the Council would also ensure suitable refuse and recycling provision was made.

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

·  It was the general view of Members that this was a good scheme with many positive features

·  The majority of Members supported the retention of the curved boundary wall, but queried whether an increase in height to 1.5m (from the proposed 1.2m) could be considered by the applicant.

·  There was a desire for more greenery to be incorporated within the scheme

·  Could careful consideration be given to the relationship with the Chinese Christian Church and the design of Block D

·  Flat sizes should be in accordance with the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS)

·  Could further details be provided regarding the number of cycle parking spaces to be provided

·  Cycle parking should not be located outside

·  Could elements of the scheme reflect some of the design features from the nearby viaduct

In summing up the Chair thanked all parties for their attendance and contributions, he suggested 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 subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to include the following obligations:

·  Provision of 5% of units on-site as affordable housing with standard clause for provision of an off-site commuted sum if required as a fallback position;

·  Residential Travel Plan Fund of £67,320 (£20,650 of which is to be expended on a Leeds City Council Car Club free trial membership and usage package);

·  Travel Plan Review fee of £4,032;

·  Contribution to off-site highway works with possible bus stop upgrade, to be agreed

·  £30,000 for amendment to existing TRO’s in the area;

·  Control over public realm maintenance and 24 hour accessibility;

·  Local Employment Initiatives; and

·  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.