The report of the Chief Planning Officer
presented an application and a listed buildings application for
conversion of mill buildings, demolition of listed buildings to
provide 30 dwellings and the construction of 82 new dwellings (112
dwellings in total) with associated access and landscaping at
Stonebridge Mills, Stonebridge Lane, Wortley, Leeds.
The applications had been presented to the
Panel in October 2018 as a position statement where Members had
been generally supportive of the scheme. Members visited the site prior to that
meeting. Site plans and photographs
were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the
applications.
Further issues highlighted in relation to the
applications included the following:
- Buildings to be
retained were highlighted on an aerial view photograph.
- There would be
partial retention of the mill pond.
- The site had extant
planning permission for a supermarket.
- Changes since the
application was initially submitted.
- There had been
objections from Local Ward Councillors.
These included the plans as being over intensive and that the mill
pond should be retained in its entirety. There had also been letters of objection from
neighbouring residents.
- The proposals had
received support from Leeds Civic Trust.
- The site had been
identified for housing under the emerging Site Allocation
Plan.
- The application
presented opportunity for the long term use of listed
buildings.
- The proposals were
supported by a full heritage salvage statement which included the
re-use of materials.
- Full retention of the
mill pond would mean that there would be 30 less units and this
would affect the viability of the proposed development. The approval for the supermarket involved partial
loss of the mill pond.
- On-site greenspace
exceeded policy requirements.
- There would be a new
access to the site from Stoebridge Lane
and there had been no highways objections. The proposals net all accessibility
standards.
- There was a viability
issue and this had been assessed by the District Valuer. There would be
a reduction in the provision of affordable housing. It was acknowledged that there was a high cost of
development and constraints on the site.
- The applicant was
prepared to commence development in August 2019.
- It was felt
appropriate to have an overage clause for provision of affordable
housing should property sales and monies allow to do so.
- The applications were
recommended for approval.
A local resident and Ward Councillor addressed
the Panel with concerns and objections to the
applications. These included the
following:
- The application
proposed more units than stated in the Site Allocation Plan.
- It was requested that
local Ward Councillor be involved at every stage should the
application be approved.
- All the mill pond
should be retained.
- Concern regarding the
impact on wildlife.
The applicant’s representative addressed
the Panel. The following as
highlighted:
- This was a complex
site due to the heritage aspects, wildlife and highways.
- The site had been
vacant for over 20 years.
- The proposals had
been shaped following comments received after presentation of the
position statement.
- The proposals would
deliver over 100 new quality homes.
- Heritage and wildlife
featured in the proposals.
- There would be
provision of a new public nature park.
- The scheme would get
historical buildings back into beneficial use.
- In response to
questions, the following was discussed:
o
A detailed cost estimate had been provided for the District
Valuer. It
was an expensive project and cost of building on this site was
higher than typical for the area.
o
There were unusual added costs which included work due the site
been on the flood plain, level differences, drainage needs, costs
relating to heritage and work on the mill pond.
o
Provision of affordable housing – this may be levied on the
new build and re-evaluated throughout the project.
In response to comments and questions, the
following was discussed:
- The District
Valuer report had not been brought to
Panel. It had been decided to present
the report with the benefits of the proposals and on balance that
the solution for an overage clause which could be reviewed at
various stages of the development was sufficient.
- The applicant had
expressed a desire for new building to commence at the same time as
the restoration works. There would be
further discussion with the applicant.
- Concern regarding the
lack of affordable housing and that it was a risk based on future
evaluation.
- Concern that any
affordable housing would be provided elsewhere. It should be on this site.
- It was suggested that
the application be deferred for the Panel to see the report of the
District Valuer.
- House types –
it was against policy to have garages at ground floor levels of
properties and that these should be removed. It was reported that these had been kept to a
minimum on the site and had not been raised as an issue for concern
when the position statement was presented.
RESOLVED – That the
applications be deferred to allow the District Valuer to present to Panel to fully understand
variance of opinion between the District Valuer and the applicants with regards to the
affordability of the scheme. Also to
re-consider the design of properties with integral garages.