Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application which seeks the demolition of the existing former cinema building and the construction of a 17 storey building comprising ground floor retail (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) and upper floors office space (B1), with plant and ancillary accommodation at basement level, at the Merrion Centre, Merrion Way, Leeds, LS2 8NG.

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application which sought the demolition of the existing former cinema building and the construction of a 17 storey building comprising ground floor retail (A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5) and upper floors office space (B1), with plant and ancillary accommodation at basement level at the Merrion Centre, Merrion Way, Leeds, LS2 8NG.

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

·  Former Cinema site

·  Proposed new building occupies the same footprint as the cinema

·  Construction of a 17 storey building

·  New ground floor retail unit

·  Ground floor reception lobby

·  Co-working (Flexible and shared) space at levels 2 – 4

·  Office floor space at floors 5 – 17

·  Ancillary accommodation and plant area would be set out at basement level

·  Materials/ design

·  Landscaping / public realm

·  New access route through to Wade Lane

·  To the rear of the new building it is proposed to create a new publicly accessible landscaped courtyard with entrances from the lobby of the new building and from the current access points to this area from Wade Lane

·  Impact on skyline

Members raised the following questions:

·  How would this building be serviced

·  How would any servicing of the building avoid conflict with pedestrian access arrangements

·  The proposed new open space did not appear to be very inviting, how would this be addressed

·  At the earlier pre application presentation Members suggested a more iconic design was required

·  How would the demolition of the existing building be managed

·  Would a wind survey be undertaken

·  Do the proposals aim to meet the requirements of planning polices EN1 and EN2

·  Referring to the “red line” Members queried if the submitted plan was correct

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

·  Members were informed that the existing service route would remain, with tunnels and servicing areas under the existing building still being intended to be used in the main

·  Members were informed that the intention was to provide high quality public realm which creates an attractive space and makes the area inviting as a through route

·  Finishing of the public realm space will be such that it will feel in its entirety to be a pedestrian area, so this will help to mitigate any conflict with the safety of pedestrians from servicing vehicles over the space – which will anyway be kept to a minimum

·  The City Centre Team Leader suggested the term “iconic” often referred to the design of a building that set it apart from others. It was suggested to Members that this building sits in the heart of a shopping centre and with a more limited footprint, so its design should be complementary with the other buildings in the area but it was still a high quality design. The Principal Officer (Planning & Sustainable Development) said the design before Members was a fine example of “Modernism” – discipline with control, the design of this building was real quality.

·  Members were informed that a construction management plan would be required as a condition of the planning consent

·  It was reported that a wind survey had already been undertaken and had also been reviewed by independent consultants, as a consequence localised wind mitigation measures may be required to the car park and landscaped areas but these measures are unlikely to affect the scale and form of the proposed building and the full details will be controlled by planning condition.

·  The applicant confirmed the development did meet those Council’s sustainable construction standards through the use of mechanical plant and design features. The City Centre Team Leader said that policies EN1 and EN2 were being applied to all developments so as to reduce carbon emissions below Building Regulation standards

·  The applicant expressed the view that, the very fact the building is still standing and operational after its creation and opening in the early 1960s, is evidence of its inherent sustainability credentials

·  The applicant suggested that the “red line” as indicated on the submitted plan may not be completely accurate and this can be amended to incorporate the areas that are of concern

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

·  A number of Members suggested that further work was required to the open space at the back of the building and appropriately managing the space to avoid any conflict with servicing provision required for the building

·  It was suggested that Birch Trees be used in the proposed public ream space

In summing up the Chair thanked all parties for their attendance and contributions, he suggested Members appeared to be supportive of the application but further work was required to the open space at the back of the building. This matter could be addressed further to the planning conditions

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and delegated to the

Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions specified in the Appendix 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:

·  Employment and training of local people

·  The provision of publicly accessible areas

·  A travel Plan fee of £10,297.00

·  A sustainable Travel Fund contribution of £9,134.00

·  A Management fee

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.