Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application which seeks the demolition of existing buildings and structures and redevelopment of the site for a mixed-use development comprising up to 263 residential units (Use Class C3) and flexible commercial floorspace (Use Class A1, A2 or B1a); together with associated vehicular access, car and cycle parking spaces, bin stores, plant, landscaping, amenity space and associated infrastructure and engineering works on land at Kirkstall Hill, Kirkstall, Leeds LS5 3BH.

 

 

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out a Position Statement in respect of an application which sought the demolition of existing buildings and structures and redevelopment of the site for a mixed-use development comprising up to 263 residential units (Use Class C3) and flexible commercial floor space (Use Class A1, A2 and B1a) together with associated vehicular access, car and cycle parking spaces, bin stores, plant, landscaping amenity space and associated infrastructure and engineering works, on land at Kirkstall Hill, Kirkstall, Leeds, LS5 3BH.

 

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

·  Site currently occupied by a large retail unit together with some vacant buildings which are in a state of disrepair

·  Key issues include: highway implications and viability issues

·  The development proposes 263 dwellings: 183 apartments and 80 townhouses (Residential blocks are 3 storey’s in height)

·  The scheme creates a stepped design responding to the change in levels across the site

·  Access into the development to be taken from Beecroft Street via 3 separate access roads

·  231 car parking spaces (Including 16 disabled spaces) and 25 visitor spaces

·  Materials: red brick with stone accents to some elevations to provide character, roof material grey slate

·  Affordable housing provision

·  The area of land identified as Area 5 was outside the red line of the site

·  The site would require 20% greenspace provision to be policy compliant (Policy G4), but that that this could not be  provided in the way required by policy otherwise this would adversely impact on the viability of the proposal

·  An additional highways contribution would be required which had not yet been taken into account as part of the viability calculations.  This would potentially be for use on junction improvements (Hot spots), bridge widening, provision of 2 metre-wide footpaths and other highway works.  This was likely to be required as part of emerging policy however, so can only be afforded limited weight.

·  Controlled parking zone contribution was being sought commensurate with policy requirements

·  Sustainability features, first passive design, possible connection to district heating system and electric vehicle charging points

·  The site is designated in the Site Allocations Plan for mixed-use development, comprising residential, commercial and with some element of office use.  The office-use has not been brought forward as part of the proposals, but there does remain a mixed-use element to the scheme proposed.

 

The application was being brought to Panel at this stage by way of a Position Statement, such as to allow Planning Officers to present the scheme to Members and for Members to consider and comment on the proposals.  Members would therefore be involved in decision-making in respect of the application at a later Panel, but at this stage were to focus on discussion of the matters outlined in the Chief Planning Officer’s report.

 

The Panel then heard from Councillor J Illingworth, local Ward Member who spoke in opposition to the proposed development.

 

Councillor Illingworth informed Members that at the earlier consultations on the pre-application proposals the local community was informed that the development would meet all necessary planning obligations required by the Core Strategy and as a result received full support from all 3 Ward Members. This latest proposal falls far short and Ward Members are no longer able to support it. It was his view and that of his Ward colleagues that consultation on the scheme should be undertaken again, as what was now presented to Panel comprised an entirely different scheme from that previously submitted. The revised scheme did not comply with the affordable housing requirements; the piece of land identified as Area 5 was in the ownership of the local authority; there was a deficiency in the greenspace provision; the development would create a lot of additional vehicle movements per day adding further congestion to the area; the highway mitigation works and monetary contributions would be insufficient; there was very little public benefit from the scheme proposed, which would be likely to decrease as the scheme progresses and additional costs are incurred; and all the original benefits from the earlier scheme should be restored.

 

Questions to Councillor J Illingworth:

 

·  Had the local community and Ward Members been consulted on elements such as provision of commercial units, materials and the housing mix

·  How do the local community view the revised scheme

·  Were there any public transport and air quality problems in the area

 

In responding Councillor J Illingworth said:

 

·  The local community were supportive of the earlier scheme, the revised scheme does not have that support and they now feel cheated

·  The air quality for the area is poor, and there was constant traffic congestion in the area leading to long tailbacks and reduced traffic movements through the traffic lights

·  The local community and Ward Members want to ensure that any development on this site is positive, as this is the last major development site in the area and therefore any development proposal here needs to be strong and policy compliant

 

The Panel then heard from the applicant’s representative who spoke in support of the proposed development.

 

Mr O Freer, Planning Consultant, explained that the developers had been working with the Local Planning Authority for the previous 18 months on this proposal. The attendance at Panel was to ensure that Members’ comments could be heard and taken into account in advance of the application coming back to Panel for a decision to be made, with previous comments made by Members at Pre-Application stage already having been received and taken into account.  Mr Freer said this was an island site with a difficult topography and, as a consequence, there were some challenges – particularly for the highway network and in terms of greenspace provision. A lengthy process was currently ongoing to prepare the transport statement, with discussions currently taking place about the cumulative impact policy and how the Council’s emerging policy could now be factored into the proposal. Members were informed that “gifted land” would be able to deliver additions to the scheme. Parking for the site was considered sufficient and all spaces to be provided would be enabled as potential electric vehicle charging points.  The applicant was aware of, and understands, the concerns of local residents regarding impact on the surrounding highway and parking – such that a contribution to and introduction of controlled parking areas could be considered.  However, given this is an island site, it is seen as a low impact site and traffic movements arising from it would be spread across the network and would thereby have a relatively low overall impact.The uses proposed would also be likely to lead to reduced trip-generation compared to that which would have arisen from other uses previously proposed for the site.

 

Questions to the Developers:

 

·  The proposal includes the provision of commercial units (Shops), why have you included shops when there are already shops in the area.

·  With no passing traffic, the likelihood is that these shops will fail

·  What would the positives and benefits be from the scheme

 

In responding to questions the Developer and applicant’s representatives said:

 

·  The topography of the site meant that the ground floor areas needed to be built-out, but these would not be suitable for residential occupation – hence it was felt they could be developed as a useable commercial space.

·  The inclusion of commercial units will provide the focus to create a community space. The commercial units will be flexible in use, so able to respond to commercial challenges and community needs as required.

 

·  Members were informed the site had been vacant for 15 years, the proposed use was a low impact scheme and would provide links through the site to bring existing neighbourhoods together. The scheme would deliver a strong housing mix and would also create new jobs (both during construction and operation). The design of the scheme also responds well to the wider townscape.

 

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

 

·  There is already traffic congestion in the area. The scheme may generate a moderate amount of journeys, but we don’t want to add to an already bad situation.

·  Previous developments in the surrounding area had been approved on the basis that they would only generate a moderate amount of traffic, but this had been proved incorrect and already significantly worsened congestion problems.

·  Even a small amount of additional traffic could add considerably to  journey time, in what was already a finely-balanced traffic situation.

·  The site does need redevelopment and the principle of development on the site is already accepted (as reflected in the Site Allocation Plan designation) but this is not the right scheme.

·  The District Valuer’s Report suggests the scheme is not fully compliant and is deficient on a number of significant issues that are strategic matters, so which need to be addressed.

·  The policy on Affordable Housing needs to be maintained.

·  The proposal must reflect the approach taken by all Council Panels now to encouraging green design, as well as addressing air quality and climate change issues.

·  Attention should be given to how the viability of the commercial units will be ensured, as they are only likely to be successful and viable in the long-term if there is passing trade.

·  Further attention should be paid to the materials to be used, as these appear to have changed compared to those presented at the Pre-Application stage. The use of stone should be considered.

 

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

 

·  While taking into account comments made by the District Valuer in relation to profit margins and viability valuations, Members were of the view that the amount of the affordable housing proposed was not acceptable

·  Members expressed the view that the proposal to not provide on-site or in-lieu greenspace due to the viability of the proposal was not acceptable

·  The proposed landscaping scheme was insufficient to provide informal space, visual amenity and climate mitigation

·  Members were supportive of the proposed parking provision along with the proposed mitigation works

·  Members were of the view that more information was required in respect of materials and design

·  In terms of the proposals for reducing carbon emissions on the site, Members requested that further information was required

·  In addition, Members noted that there also needed to be a focus on air quality issues more widely and a design-first approach in terms of reducing carbon emissions on the site would be welcomed

·  Members expressed a preference for more houses and less apartments.

·  Further details of the traffic circulation for the area should also be provided.

 

The Chair thanked the developers and the Ward Member for their attendance and contributions, suggesting there was a lot more discussion required.

 

RESOLVED –

 

(i)  To note the details contained in the Position Statement

 

(ii)  That the developers be thanked for their attendance and presentation.