Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of a Pre Application Proposal for Reserved Matters (Scale, appearance and landscaping) for new Multi Storey Car Park and impact on extent outline permission at Quarry Hill, Phase 2 (SOYO) Leeds.

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of a

pre-application proposal for Reserved Matters (Scale, appearance and landscaping) for new Multi Storey Car Park and impact on external outline permission at Quarry Hill, Phase 2 (SOYO) Leeds.

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

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  Site / location/ context

·  City Centre location

·  SOYO Masterplan (Caddick Development)

·  The appearance, scale and landscaping in relation to the Multi Storey Car Park on phase 2 of the Quarry Hill Development

·  Proposed changes to the existing Section 106 Agreement in respect of the operation of the car park( Variation on the use of short stay spaces and removal of post 6.00pm requirements)

·  A proposed increase in the number of vehicle spaces from 578 to 610

·  It was reported that the Leeds Playhouse were supportive of the proposals

·  Commercial units located at ground level

·  Car park façade, diamond motif with natural ventilation

·  Plinth element of base (Darker in colour)

·  Proposals for public realm / landscaping works

·  Lighting scheme – Low level lighting to landscaped areas, security lighting and street lighting

Members raised the following questions:

·  Were there any contractual car parking arrangements in place between the West Yorkshire Playhouse and the Victoria Gate  multi – storey car park

·  Would there be sufficient evening car parking within the Quarry Hill car park given the level of contractual car parking

·  How do you discourage work space commuter parking

·  The dark coloured base plinth, could this create dark spaces and create areas of unsafety for users and passers-byes 

·  What would the experience be like for users of the car park generally, particularly considering user safety

·  If limitations had previously been placed on the car parking arrangements, why were these deemed to be no longer required

·  How had the alterations made to block layout (i.e. folding-plate approach) and internal floorspace altered car parking capacity

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

·  Members were informed that there is no contractual link between the West Yorkshire Playhouse and the Victoria Gate  multi – storey car park

·  The applicant reported that 250 spaces were proposed for contractual car parking, which in their opinion was considered to be sufficient and there was currently no intension to increase that number.

·  Members were informed that a full day charge would apply after 5 hours and so punitive charges would be the intended approach to discourage work space commuter parking, which would be monitored over time.

·  Members were informed that the base and landscaped areas would be well lit using low level lighting to landscaped areas, security lighting and street lighting. This would be in accordance with acceptable lighting standards.

·  It was also reported that CCTV would be operational which required good levels of lighting.

·  In offering a comment, the Chief Planning Officer noted that it would always be difficult to control car parking behaviour. However, punitive measures and inclusion of appropriate conditions / s106 obligations could act as a disincentive to commuter parking.

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

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

·  The proposed removal of the post 6.00pm requirements was a concern for the majority of Members

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

·  Members considered that the appearance of the Car Park was acceptable

·  Members were supportive of the approach to the landscaping around the Multi – Storey Car Park (MSCP)

·  Members were supportive of the proposal to increase the number of spaces available in the MSCP

·  Members were supportive of the proposed amendments to the short-stay car parking restrictions but were not supportive of the removal of post 6.00pm requirements

·  It was the view of Members that the Reserved Matters application for the MSCP, the non-material amendment application and the associated Section 106 Agreement revisions be brought back to Panel for further consideration

The Chair thanked the developers for their attendance and presentation suggesting that Members appeared to be generally supportive of the scheme

RESOLVED –

(i)  To note the details contained in the pre-application presentation

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