Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of a pre application proposal for a mixed use development comprising five blocks housing 1032 residential dwelling including live-work units, with communal spaces, commercial units (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and B1 Uses), co-working space and car parking, set in a landscape scheme at the former Goods Yard, Marsh Lane and Shannon Street, Leeds.

(Report attached)

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

pre-application proposal for a mixed use development comprising five blocks housing 1032 residential dwellings including live-work units with communal spaces, commercial units (A1,A2,A3,A4,A5 and B1 uses), co-working space and car parking, set in a landscape scheme at the former Goods Yard, Marsh Lane and Shannon 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.

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

·  Site / location/ context

·  City Village, East Bank location

·  Key design principles connecting to Marsh Lane with key views

·  The proposal seeks to develop 1032 residential dwellings across five stepped blocks ranging in height from 9 to 22 storeys

·  Apartment mix; one bedroom 48%, two bedroom 44%, 3 bedroom 7.5%

·  All apartments exceed National Space Standards

·  Live work units, with communal space, commercial units and  co-working space

·  Basement level car parking (202 spaces)

·  Opportunity to provide City Car Club spaces within the site

·  Cycle parking

·  Landscaping / public realm provision, public open spaces, green routes and squares

·  Nearby railway arches could provide public realm / commercial opportunity but not in ownership of the developer

·  The old Marsh Lane Railway Station was in close proximity but not in ownership of the developer

Members raised the following questions:

·  Would residents be charged for use of the communal areas

·  Could more details be provide about co-working space

·  Would the development include any play areas for children

·  Would a wind assessment be undertaken

·  Had any discussions taken place with Network Rail, as adjoining land owners

·  The old Marsh Lane Railway Station, were there any proposals to bring it (and / or the disused railways arches) back into use.

·  The development would result in the loss of car parking spaces within the area – where would these vehicles be displaced to

·  Referring to the landscape proposals could full hedges be provided, not shrubs and also could interactive play areas / edible beds be created and noise attenuation measures be included as part of the landscaping provision

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

·  Members were informed that the intention was for the communal spaces to be well used and get people into the site. There was no charge for use of the communal space.

·  Members were informed that co-working space was flexible work space for start - up businesses or for people working from home. Meeting rooms and other work spaces are intended to be available for hire.

·  The development did include some family accommodation but as yet, there were no proposals for a children’s play area.

·  It is envisaged that the commercial space could include some pharmaceutical and medical surgery provision, as it is known that there is need within the wider area.

·  It was confirmed that a wind study would accompany any formal application.

·  It was understood Network Rail were supportive of the development because it would enhance their land.

·  Members were informed that the use of the old Marsh Lane Railway Station had not been considered because it was not in the ownership of the developers. The City Centre Team Leader said it was for Network Rail to determine if it was feasible to reopen the station; However, the proposal would be subject to a transport assessment  which would inform the nature and need for any public transport improvements to serve the site.

·  The LCC Highways officer confirmed that a traffic impact assessment had not been undertaken at this stage but suggested pay & display parking and resident permit parking may be considered if a need was identified.  This will also incorporate some consideration of plans for access and egress from the site onto the surrounding main arterial roads to the City Centre.

·  Members were informed that landscape measures could include full hedges and edible beds, as an innovative approach is envisaged for the development as a whole.

·  The development was located within the City Centre so noise would be an issue and mechanical ventilation was being considered.

·  It is intended to work towards achieving carbon neutrality as part of the development as far as possible.

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

·  Members welcomed the further regeneration of Richmond Hill

·  Members welcomed a potential opportunity for a rail holt

·  Could proposals for carbon reduction be included in any subsequent planning application 

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

·  Members were supportive of the principles of the development

·  Members were supportive of the emerging scale, massing and design of the proposals

·  Members were generally supportive of the emerging landscape scheme but also requested the provision of: hedges, child friendly areas, handrails to the stepped areas and wheelchair accessibility.

·  Subject to the submission of a Transport Assessment, Members were supportive of the approach to car and cycle parking provision.

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