To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which seeks a variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of approval 17/02666/FU for design alterations including an additional floor level at Land at 16 - 18 Manor Road, Holbeck, Leeds LS11 9AH
With reference to the meeting of 2nd November 2017 and the decision to grant planning permission subject to the conditions specified in the submitted report and following the completion of a Section 106 Agreement. The Chief Planning Officer now submitted a report which sought a variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of approval 17/02666/FU for design alterations including an additional floor level to land at 16-18 Manor Road, Holbeck, Leeds, LS11 9AH.
Members visited the site prior to the meeting. Site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.
Planning Officers addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:
· Site/ location/context
· The variation would include the addition of one floor consisting of 9 additional flats. The total number of flats would be increased to 110.
· The building height would be increased by 2925mm, taking the overall height from the approval of 29.950m to 32.875m (now comprising 11 storeys in height).
· Removal of opening shutters to windows.
· Addition of punched metal vertical screens to windows.
· Lowering of ground floor level.
· Amendments to entrance ramp.
In providing a verbal update the Planning Case officer reported that no adverse comments had been received in respect of wind conditions at the site in light of the amended proposals. The City Council’s independent wind consultants were of the view that the updated scheme and report drew reasonable conclusions and any outstanding wind issues would be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval following satisfactory negotiations with the applicant. In respect of the affordable housing provision, it was reported that would now be provided at 7%.
Members raised the following questions to officers:
· Would further contributions be made to the Section 106 Agreement following the inclusion of an additional floor
· If this was a new application the applicants would be asked for further contributions. The area around the development appears to be very sterile so could a contribution towards greenspace be provided
· Could an adaptable flat be provided on the new floor
· What works are proposed to undertake works on the footpath and ensure deliverability of connectivity routes previously proposed
· The provision of shutters was a welcome design feature, however, it was disappointing to note that shutters would now not be included in the final design
In responding to the issues raised, Planning Officers/ applicant representatives said:
· Members were informed that the proposed units on the additional floor were larger in size to reflect the new policy, but that there were restrictions in terms of the size of units that could be achieved throughout the development now due to mechanical design features above and below the ‘new’ floor that were already in place as part of the consented scheme and that a number of flats had been sold off-plan.
· The City Centre Team Leader said that contributions towards off site greenspace could not be sought because it was not within the policy, however, the walking network within the area was being enhanced together with some greenspace provision. Planning decision-making must be plan and policy-led, such that Members were strongly advised against requesting an increased greenspace contribution, due to there being no policy-basis for this.
· The City Centre Team Leader said affordable housing had been provided. An adaptable flat could be pursued but the priority and focus in this instance has been to ensure that affordable housing provision had been secured.
· The Architect informed Members that detailed work and changes had been undertaken in the design to get as close as possible to provision of adaptable units. Further work could be undertaken with officers to deliver this if required.
· The Architect informed Members that the manufacturers of the shutter system had ceased trading. There was concern that future warranty and replacement / repair issues could therefore be problematic. This had led to the decision to alter the design and replace the proposed shutters with punched metal vertical screens.
· The path referenced was not within the redline of the application and was on council land. Necessary highway works would be secured by way of a Section 278 Agreement.
· The area around the development site was acknowledged as being a somewhat hard and sterile landscape. The applicant’s team would work as far as possible to ‘soften-up’ the area in the landscaping work that is undertaken.
In offering comments Members raised the following issues:
· In general, Members were disappointed that the shutters had been removed from the design, but were generally supportive of the variation to the application and that the proposed screens would still give detail to the window apertures.
· Could the provision of an adaptive flat be pursued together with careful and sensitive landscaping provision on the development site
The Chair thanked the developers for their attendance and presentation suggesting that Members appeared to be generally supportive of the variation.
(i) That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions specified in appendix 1 of the submitted report (and any others which he might consider appropriate) and following the completion of a Deed of Variation to the original Section 106 Agreement.
(ii) In the event of the Deed of Variation 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.