Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application which seeks the development of 322 Dwellings and ancillary flexible commercial space (use class A1, A2, A3, A4, B1 and D1) at land at Ellerby Road and East Street, Cross Green, Leeds.

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which sets out details of an application which sought the development of 322 Dwellings and ancillary flexible commercial space (use class A1, A2, A3, A4, B1 and D1) to land at Ellerby Road and East Street, Cross Green, Leeds.

Site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

The City Centre Team Leader addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  Site / location / context

·  Nature and scale of buildings within the City Centre

·  12m rise in levels East Street to Ellerby Road

·  Development cut into the hillside

·  Grade I Listed Building in vicinity - St Saviour Church which had a dominant presence in the area (Views of the church to be retained from East Street)

·  Relationship to Conservation Area

·  Proposed materials to reflect the Conservation Area, red brick with bronze detailing and full height glazing

·  Full depth recess to windows and recessed brick panels

·  Retention of pedestrian access through the site

·  Vehicular access to the site would be via Bow Street

·  The proposal is for 322 residential dwellings, comprising four blocks across the two sites, blocks ranging in height from 7 – 9 storeys

·  Size of the dwellings meet adopted space standards

·  Off-site greenspace contribution

·  Financial viability assessment undertaken – The District Valuer had confirmed that the provision of 8 affordable units was achievable

The City Centre Team Leader reported the receipt of two further letters of objection from local residents since the panel report was written, raising concerns about the loss of greenspace, the height of the residential blocks and noise during the construction period.

Members raised the following questions:

·  Could clarification be provided about the greenspace provision

·  Could officers comment on the levels of the site

·  Were there any nearby shopping facilities

·  The District Valuer’s opinion that there are exceptional costs associated with this development, could further clarification be provided

·  How far away from the site was the centre of Leeds

·  The elevational treatment appears to be a priority over the affordable housing provision, why was this strategy been pursued

·  There appears to be no provision for solar panels, electric vehicle charging points, and what was the fuel source of the development

·  Who would be responsible for the maintenance of the greenspace

In responding to the issues raised, officers said:

·  The proposal delivers less than the required greenspace provision on site but Council policy allows for  any deficit in on-site provision to be mitigated by an off-site financial contribution which will be used to enhance the nearby Bow Street recreation ground in this case 

·  Members were informed that the proposal complied with landscape standards for accessibility

·  The proposal provides an opportunity for commercial space (shops), other existing local shopping is located at the Leeds Docks or is planned for at the Copperfield site

·  The District Valuer said the development was in a sensitive heritage setting and construction costs were high due to the type of materials to be used and the approach to detailing (Red brick). Similar Private Rented Schemes (PRS) in other areas use composite panelling resulting in lower build costs

·  Members were informed the site was just outside the core of the city centre, Leeds Docks and the Ibis Hotel junction were a 10 minute walk away

·  The City Centre Team Leader explained that the elevational treatment was not being prioritised over affordable housing provision. There were other costs associated with the development that were also affecting the financial viability position. However the quality and approach to the elevational treatment was welcomed and considered necessary to preserve the heritage setting

·  The applicant explained that in addition to the costs associated with building in a heritage setting, there were a number of significant other costs: the diversion of two large public sewers, gas fired combination heat source and power for the common areas, possible connection to the district heating system (subject to further negotiations) that’s why solar panels had not been included, looking at the scheme as a whole. 31 electric vehicle charging points were already proposed, difficult to increase this number because additional electricity sub stations would be necessary resulting in the reduction of car parking spaces and rental levels

·  Members were informed that the developers would be responsible for the maintenance of the on-site greenspace

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

·  Some Members welcomed the use of red brick in a heritage setting

·  A number of Members expressed concern that the proposed elevational treatment had no distinct character, the design and approach to the courtyard parking was under whelming and more greening of the site was required particularly to the East Street frontage

·  Members were of the view that this was a rapidly changing area which would look very different in a few years-time and as a result a different design approach could be considered to improve the financial viability position

·  Members welcomed the principle of development, but alternative design solutions were required including the use of different materials, the provision of more greenspace and more affordable housing 

It was moved and seconded that the application be deferred to allow further discussions to take place around alternative design solutions including; the use of different materials, the provision of more greenspace and more affordable housing.

Upon being put to the vote the motion was passed 12 votes to 1

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred to allow further discussions to take place around alternative design solutions including; the use of different materials, the provision of more greenspace and more affordable housing.