Agenda item

 

The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out an application for partial demolition of structures and the erection of two buildings ranging from five to eleven storeys, comprising 245 residential apartments (use class C3) with flexible commercial uses at ground floor level (use class A1, A2, A3, D2 and/or B1), retention and alteration to the wall fronting globe road, hard and soft landscaping, access, servicing and other associated works at Tower Works Globe Road, Holbeck, Leeds LS11 5QG

 

(Report attached)

 

 

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which sets out details of an application which sought the partial demolition and the erection of two buildings ranging from 5 to 11 storey’s comprising 245 residential apartments with flexible commercial uses at ground floor level (use class A1, A2, A3, D2 and/or B1), hard and soft landscaping and other associated works at Tower Works, Globe Road, Leeds LS11 5QG

 

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

·  Located in the Holbeck Conservation Area – Industrial Heritage including 3 Listed towers and a Listed Engine Shed

·  Consented scheme for scale and layout approved 2016

·  This application uses same development principles as previous consent

·  The importance to retain views of the landmark buildings

·  Landscaping, soft planting, semi-formal space, pedestrian links

·  Service arrangements, hardstanding for service vehicles

·  No car parking except for the provision of 3 disabled bays

·  Communal terraces

·  All apartments meet space and accessibility standards

·  Materials; red brick/ glazing to complement Listed buildings

 

The City Centre Team Leader reported the receipt of a representation from Councillor A Scopes of Beeston and Holbeck ward who had raised two comments. Firstly he was of the view that the contribution towards off-site affordable housing provision was too low and did not reflect the value of the affordable housing that would be required to be provided on site. Secondly Councillor Scopes stated that insufficient car parking is proposed which would result in increased parking pressure on the surrounding area.

 

The City Centre Team Leader provided an explanation for Members in responding to these points. The calculation of the off-site affordable housing contribution was based on the difference in value between the units to be provided as affordable housing and the value of those same units as general market housing and reflects the cost that the developer avoids by not providing the affordable units on site. The calculation complies with the approach required by the Council’s adopted policy. The Council’s parking policies do not require provision of a minimum level of car parking in the city centre provided it can be demonstrated that there would be no adverse impact on highway safety and amenity. In this particular case there are widespread on-street parking controls, the site is with walkable distance of public transport facilities and a wide range of city centre services and the  applicant has committed to providing £20,000 for implementing further on street traffic control measures in the event of on-street parking problems arising from the development. As a result the proposals are highly unlikely to cause parking problems in the area.

 

The Chair requested that a detailed response be provided to the Ward Member concerned.

 

Members raised the following questions to officers/ applicant’s representatives

 

·  The landscaping/ outside space, was there sufficient greenery

·  More balance was required between the green space and the hardstanding areas

·  The Listed Buildings; Engine Shed and 3 towers do they fall within the red line of the site and who will have ongoing responsibility for them

·  Some of the Listed Buildings had extensive foundations, how would access be achieved to undertake repair maintenance works

·  How would pedestrian movement and the service routes be controlled so as to avoid undue conflict between the two and possible resultant danger to pedestrians from vehicle movements

·  Could more 3 bedroom apartments be provided

·  The suggestion that there was no demand for 3 bed apartments was wrong, many students now preferred 3 bed apartments

·  It was suggested that many city centre developments did not achieve the necessary housing mix, could statistics around the housing mix be provided

·  The apartment buildings appeared to be a little bland, could more detail be provided

·  Was there a desire to restore and bring back into use the Listed Buildings

·  What species of trees were to be planted

·  What heating source would be provided within the apartments

·  Was pedestrian safety, particularly at night, was designed into the development

 

In responding to the issues raised, Planning Officers/ the applicant’s representatives said:

 

·  The City Centre Team Leader said the outside spaces had to fulfil different functions (vehicle servicing routes, outdoor seating areas to serve the adjacent commercial uses, pedestrian routes as well as greenspaces to dwell). These areas were very large spaces (comparisons were made for Members with Victoria Gardens and Sovereign Square) and although the proportion of soft greenspace was relatively smaller when compared to the hardstanding areas, they would due to their size provide meaningful and useable planting and green amenity spaces.

·  The City Centre Team Leader clarified that a certain amount of hard standing did have to be provided for events, servicing, outside seating and pedestrian access

·  The applicant’s representative confirmed the Listed buildings were outside the red line of the site and were in the ownership of LCC, but discussions were ongoing between the applicant and LCC regarding future proposals for the listed buildings – with the hope that their return to active use could proceed in conjunction with the scheme’s development

·  Members were informed that access to undertake repair works/ maintenance work to the Listed Buildings would be achieved through a formal agreement between LCC and the land owners, but this was outside the Panel’s consideration of planning matters

·  It was reported that movement around the site would be managed by the owner/ operator

·  LCC policy regarding mix of 1, 2 and 3 bed-units is applied City-wide, with the intention that its application reflects the surrounding area and location.  This is such that any requirement for 20% provision of 3-bed units is rarely achieved within the City Centre. 

·  The applicants representative said that the demand was for 1 & 2 bed apartments in this area and particularly where the Build to Rent approach was being used, with any inclusion of more 3 bed apartments having the potential to raise viability issues

·  The applicant suggested that the proposed housing mix reflected the local demand and that more people preferred 1 & 2 bed apartments in the city centre, noting that Panel had been supportive of the proposed mix on this application at pre-application stage and little had changed in relation to the proposed mix since then

·  Further explanation was provided to Members by the applicant regarding the apartment mix, clarifying that there would be 15 no. different apartment types available within the development and with a rationalisation to the design having been undertaken since pre-application stage to ensure that all meet the Nationally Described Space Standards

·  The Chair requested that the issue of housing mix be referred to the Development Plans Panel

·  With regard to the design of the buildings, The City Centre Team Leader said a significant amount of detail had been provided but did not stand out on the CGI’s. The detailing and different proportions would add interest, such that the design was not considered to be bland but subtle and elegant

·  It was suggested that the balance of soft landscape/ hardstanding proposals would be discussed further with the applicant and that the final details would be brought back to Panel at condition discharge stage.

·  The Group Manager, Environment Design, said nothing should be ruled out with regard to future reuse of the historic buildings and the buildings certainly needs to be looked after, but a viable use had to be sought and there was no immediate indication that the buildings were in any way immediately at risk or requiring money to be spent thereon.  Any decision on future spending of LCC funds with regards to the listed buildings would need to come from Asset Management and be followed by a decision being made to spend monies at Executive level

·  Species of trees would include: hornbeam and silver birch

·  The Architect said electric radiators would provide heat to the apartments

·  The Architect said the building had been designed to reduce dark spaces, a lighting scheme was also incorporated within the scheme and it was anticipated that the large public realm space would keep the area busy.

·  As the area is developed, there will be an increase in natural surveillance that will help to ensure pedestrian safety.

 

In offering comments Members raised the following matters:

 

• The majority of Members welcomed the scheme suggesting it was much improved following the pre-application proposal

• A number of Members expressed the view that the affordable housing provision should be provided on-site, regardless of the housing model being used by the applicant as part of the scheme – as the provision of affordable housing is a core policy that cannot be set aside simply where it creates an adverse impact on applicants’ profit margins
• It was the view of all Members that the greenspace / hardstanding mix be revisited, the hardstanding areas appeared to be over dominant and a ‘softening’ of some areas would be welcomed
• A number of Members expressed the view that more 3 bed properties should be provided, as more diversity was required in the City Centre and provision of appropriate accommodation to encourage families to reside in the City Centre
• A number of Members suggested that the CGI’s did not provide a true representation of the design detail and colour of the buildings
• A number of Members expressed a desire to see the Listed Buildings (Engine shed and 3 towers brought back into use) but accepted these buildings were not in the ownership of the applicant
• One Member expressed the general view that Section 106 Agreements should be completed within 3 months

 

In offering comment the Chair said a report reviewing the time period for the completion of Section 106 Agreements together with a review of policy for housing mix within the City Centre would be considered further at Development Plans Panel.

 

Commenting on the affordable housing provision, the City Centre Team Leader said that in September 2019 the affordable housing policy for Build to Rent properties changed, such that the proposal to provide an off-site contribution was policy compliant due to affordable housing in instances of Build to Rent developments not specifically being required to be provided

on-site.

 

Following a motion to support the officer recommendation, the majority of Members voted in favour of the proposals with a requirement to reconsider the landscaping balance between greenspace and hardstanding.

 

The Chair thanked the developers for their attendance and presentation, commenting that Members appeared to be supportive of the application but the greenspace / hardstanding mix be looked at again.

 

RESOLVED –

 

(i)  That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions specified in Appendix 2 of the submitted report (and any others which he might consider appropriate) and the completion of a Section 106 agreement to include the following obligations:

 

·  The provision of a commuted sum of £1,679,000 in lieu of on-site affordable housing;

·  £20,000 for implementing traffic control measures to be provided in the event

·  Compliance with agreed Green Travel Plan measures and a review fee of £3,870;

·  2 car club spaces to be provided on-street outside the site;

·  Contribution of £6,000 per pay and display space lost as a result of alterations to the highway outside the site;

·  A Residential Travel Plan Fund contribution of £61,311.25 to encourage the use of sustainable travel modes by the residents of the apartments;

·  24 hour public access through the site;

·  Local employment and training initiatives;

·  Section 106 management fee (£2,250).

 

(ii)  In the event of the Section 106 Agreement 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.