Agenda item

To receive the report of the Chief Planning Officer for the Demolition of 16 apartments and 6 houses and erection of 85 apartments across two buildings comprising of 51 sheltered housing apartments and 34 general needs apartments with communal car parking and landscaping on land at land off Queenshill Avenue and Queenshill View, Moortown.

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out an application for the Demolition of 16 apartments and 6 houses and erection of 85 apartments across two buildings comprising of 51 sheltered housing apartments and 34 general needs apartments with communal car parking and landscaping on land at land off Queenshill Avenue and Queenshill View, Moortown.

The application is made by the Leeds Jewish Housing Association (LJHA).

The proposal sought to develop two apartment blocks, Block A that will run perpendicular to King Lane and will house the 51 No. proposed sheltered housing units over 4 floors and Block B will provide the 34 general needs (C3) units and will run perpendicular to King Lane and Block A.

Members had attended a site visit earlier in the day. Photographs and slides were shown throughout the presentation.

Prior to Members consideration, the Principal Planner informed the Panel that a unilateral undertaking had not yet being verified and as a result, the proposed resolution had been changed to DEFER AND DELEGATE approval to the Chief Planning Officer.

The Panel were informed of the following key points:

·  Access to the site from Queenshill Drive

·  The nature of the main accommodation would house occupiers 55+, and the general accommodation would be apartments

·  The developer is a social landlord and is offering social housing at affordable rents, making the development 100% affordable accommodation

·  62 car parking spaces are proposed with space for 4 No. Motorcycle spaces

·  There is a connecting pedestrian link to Stonegate Building, with a No. of rooms for social activities for tenants to benefit from those facilities.

·  Both blocks will be of similar design, finished in brick and render and a metal standing seam roof is proposed

·  Block B would have a break in levels, adding to the visuals along King Lane

·  There will be no greenspace provided on site, however a sum has been offered to contribute towards the improvement and maintenance of other existing open space/greenspace provision

·  A number of trees and shrubs are proposed to be removed, none of which are protected; an outstanding objection remains from Landscape. The applicants have agreed to replace those trees on land owned by them

·  All of the 84 units are not compliant to meet the requirements of the M4 (3) Building regulation standards. The applicant has stated there is not a demand for wheelchair accessibility, however is prepared to adapt during construction should there be a need

·  Objections had been received from residents on Stonegate Road due to Block A being perpendicular to King Lane

·  An assessment had been carried out in regard to the cross section and distances to those residents on Stonegate Road, and the position of the elevation exceeded the minimum space standards

A local resident attended the meeting, representing the properties on Stonegate Road. Members heard that the proposed development backed on to the affected properties and the local resident raised specific concern in regard to the height and mass of the proposed buildings, and queried whether parking could be re-located, should the proposed height not be restricted.

A Member queried the impact the existing Stonegate Building had on the properties in close proximity. In response, the local resident explained that his neighbours felt as though there were overlooking issues on some of the higher storeys due to the 8m gap.

The speaker in support of the application explained that he felt it wasn’t possible to move Block A any further towards Block B. Additionally, Members were informed that the nearest proposed block to the residents on Stonegate Road, was approximately 27 metres away, with sufficient space between the buildings.

Members wanted clarification as to why Block A couldn’t be moved further back, and clarity as to why the parking amenities had to be to the South of the development site. In response, it was clarified that the vehicular access point coming into the car park of Queenshill Avenue would be a joint car park and there would be a link corridor which would be jeopardised should the proposed layout change. It was confirmed that by placing the car park to the back of the development, removed green space for the occupiers. However, there would be minimal scope to move Block A, subject to the potential loss of car parking spaces.

Responding to Members questions, the Panel were informed of the following:

·  A plan of the cross section was circulated to Members, as submitted in the original application. Officers provided Members with information in regard to the distances of the buildings to the nearest affected property.  Members were informed that the separation distance would be 27 metres, and the scheme would be in excess of the guidance.

·  The positioning of the building would facilitate access to the MAS centre, and occupiers would be encouraged to use the facilities. There would be opportunities to serve food from the MAS centre, to the occupiers.

·  A Member suggested that the bus shelters on King Lane be moved to a suitable location to meet the needs of the occupiers. In responding, it was mentioned that the client would be paying a contribution to upgrade real time and the bus shelters, and that as part of the proposal the location of the bus shelters would be considered.

·  There would be pre-existing on site cycle storage that is intended to be utilised.

·  It was confirmed that motorcycle spaces would be limited to the staff, and provisions would be made for providing car charging points.

·  The Highways Officer confirmed that with the development being in a sustainable location, the 62 car parking spaces would be sufficient for the No. of units proposed and that due to the demand for on-street parking, a condition would be implemented for the car parking spaces to be unallocated.

·  An impact assessment had been undertaken in regard to noise nuisance, and it was confirmed that the sound insulation was adequate to mitigate noise nuisance from traffic generation.

·  Members discussed tree loss mitigation and the impacts this had on the climate emergency. The Group Manager explained that in general, planning officers are working alongside colleagues and attending various working groups, to look at maximising benefits in an attempt to mitigate issues from climate. In terms of the tree replacement in regard to the proposal, planning officers would be consulting with landscape officers in terms of mix and species.

·  The contribution of greenspace would be identified by Parks and Countryside officers, and expected to be allocated in the immediate locality.

·  There had been a change in policy regarding electric charging points. EN8 had been approved as part of the Core Strategy Selective Review (CSSR) that required 100% compliance on residential sites for charging points.

RESOLVED – To defer and delegate approval to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the final submission of the Unilateral Undertaking signed and sealed and following verification by the Chief Legal Officer regarding its contents. Should a suitable Unilateral Undertaking not be received and verified within a period of six months of the resolution to approve the scheme to delegate to the Chief Planning Officer the authority to determine the application as appropriate.

The Unilateral Undertaking to cover the following:

·  An off-site greenspace contribution of £86,268.56;

·  The provision of a commuted sum for the installation of two bus shelters in close proximity to the site at a cost of £13,000 [figure amended at Panel due to typographical error in report] each and real time installation displays at a cost of £10,000 each total amount being £46,000; and

·  The provision of replacement tree planting to mitigate the loss of trees on site at a ratio of 3:1 on land in close proximity to the application site under the control/ownership of the applicant.

And with the addition of the following:

·  To add a condition to require the parking areas to be laid with porous surfacing;

·  That the Landscape Team are to be consulted in respect of the replacement tree planting with particular regard to be had to the species of trees and nursery stock specification/maturity of the trees to be planted (the girth size of the tree e.g. standard, select standard and heavy standard);

·  That further discussions take place with the applicant in respect of the siting of Block A and that the objector’s plan be forwarded to the applicant for consideration/comment; and

·  That the rear elevation of Block A be finished in light coloured materials to make it appear less overbearing when viewed from the rear of 301 and 303 Stonegate Road.