Agenda item

PREAPP/18/00316 - PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION FOR FULL PLANNING APPLICATION FOR 348 APARTMENTS WITH ANCILLARY OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES AT QUARRY HILL/SAINT CECILIA ST, LEEDS.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of a pre application proposal for full planning consent for 348 apartments with ancillary office and commercial uses at Quarry Hill/ Saint Cecilia Street, Leeds.

 

 

(Report attached)

 

 

Minutes:

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

pre-application proposal for full planning consent for 348 apartments with ancillary office and commercial uses at Quarry Hill / Saint Cecilia 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 Centre location

·  The proposal was to construct three towers ranging in height from 16 to 21 storeys

·  Residential development for 348 apartments (Built to Rent)

·  Apartment mix: 33 studios (9.5%), 143 one bed (41.1%), 151 two bed (43.4%) and 21 three bed (6%) apartments.

·  Ancillary office and commercial space use (Ground floor on three levels)

·  Building form, proportions and materials influenced by adjacent buildings

·  Plinth element to base

·  78 car parking spaces (21%)

·  Cycle parking, one space per apartment

·  Potential to link to Leeds District Heating System

·  Access and public realm arrangements

·  Landscaping, dense landscape buffer, links to Leeds habitat network

 

Members raised the following questions:

 

·  The proposed habitat network link appeared to be a thin piece of currently unused land

·  The base-ground appears to currently comprise rubble and so is the ground actually suitable to be built on for residential purposes

·  The development was alongside an urban motorway, would a noise survey be commissioned

·  Would the pedestrian bridge across the A64 to Mabgate be improved

·  Could an air quality survey be undertaken

·  Could Ward Members be consulted about the parking implications for the area

·  It was suggested that light penetration at the lower levels may be an issue

·  A number of Members considered the proposed red brick was too dark / bland, could lighter materials be considered

·  The design of the towers, could more of a “feature building” be created such as using terracotta dressings to the brickwork

·  The development would still generate car parking requirements and some potential displacement of parking within the area – where would these vehicles be displaced to

·  There is no provision of real amenity or green space, but needs to be space that residents can use in a meaningful way

 

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

 

·  Members were informed that, with the appropriate treatment and tree planting, the area would be more sustainable as a wildlife habitat

·  It was confirmed that a noise survey would be undertaken, it was also intended that the building would be sealed and incorporate a mechanical ventilation system to reduce outside noise

·  Members were informed that the developers were “keen” to enhance the arrival experience and improvements to the bridge would be considered

·  The developers confirmed that an air quality survey would be undertaken and mitigation measures to decrease pollution at higher levels considered as part of the detailed design stage

·  The developer confirmed that a parking assessment would be undertaken to determine parking levels in the area

·  The developer confirmed that the first level of residential units were above road level

·  The developer confirmed that over 400sqm of amenity space is planned within the building, as well as commercial spaces which could incorporate a café / deli or similar to generate a real sense of “community” – all of which will be confirmed in further detail at the later design stage

·  Members were informed that a mix of materials was proposed, red brick was selected because it “weathered well” but given the comments made by Members other lighter materials could be considered

·  The Environment & Design Officer, LCC suggested that the concept of the towers was good, it may be possible to work with the architect and make subtle changes and work up the hierarchy of the space

 

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

 

·  Members were generally not supportive of the red brick and suggested the use of lighter materials

·  Proposals for carbon reduction should be exemplar in any subsequent planning application

·  The Panel were of the view that, in general, tall buildings required a quality design

·  One Member suggested the site was too small for the amount of proposed development

·  Further details were required in respect of the landscape proposals

·  Further details were required in respect of the amenity space

·  More clarification was required around suggestions of “unusable space”

 

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

 

·  Members were supportive with the principle of a primary residential development on this site, with secondary office and commercial uses

·  The majority of Members were generally supportive of the appearance and scale of the proposed buildings.

·  Members suggested making the  exterior of the building lighter in appearance and also made the general comment that tall buildings required a quality design

·  In respect of the landscaping proposals, Members suggested that further information was required

·  Members considered that more details were required in respect of the level of residential and neighbour amenity proposed. Further details were also required around noise mitigation measures

·  Members were of the view that the proposed housing density and mix was acceptable for the site

·  Members were supportive of the proposed level of parking provision and the approach to sustainable transport

 

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

 

Supporting documents: