Agenda item

The report of the Chief Planning Officer sets out a position statement for the demolition of the nave and aisles of the church, to be replaced with a six story extension; the chancel, transept areas and altars will be retained and restored to contain 62 apartments. The presbytery will also be demolished and replaced with a 5 storey apartment block of 113 No. apartments (total residential development comprising of 175 units). Other works to include new access, proposed ECVP parking, cycle storage and landscaping works at St Marys Church, Church Road, Richmond Hill, Leeds, LS9 8LA

 

(Report attached)

 

 

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a position statement for a proposed development at St Marys Church, Church Road, Richmond Hill, Leeds, LS9 8L.

 

The report informed Members that the proposal was for the demolition of the Nave and Aisles of the church, replaced with a six story extension; the Chancel, Transept areas and Altars to be retained and restored to contain 62 apartments. The Presbytery would also be demolished and replaced with a 5 storey apartment block of 113 No. apartments with a total residential development comprising of 175 units. Other works including new access, proposed EVCP parking, cycle storage and landscaping works.

 

Slides and photographs were shown throughout the presentation.

 

Members were informed of the following points:

·  The church and the presbytery were listed as grade II buildings;

·  Proposed access to the site would be from Richmond Hill Approach. Local ward members had suggested an access point from Places Road, however it was noted that this access would not be suitable due to visibility;

·  The site is currently in a poor state of repair, the church last being used in 1989. There had been a previous application for an extension to the church and the presbytery but this had lapsed in 2014;

·  Bespoke viability studies had been undertaken, with four options considered, this proposal presented the best option in terms of viability  although this proposal would still result in a deficit;

·  The proposal included parking spaces and also a public right of way from the site to the city centre;

·  Building materials would consist of a zinc copper cladding and buff colour cladding to complement the existing church;

·  It was noted that the proposal did not include provision of any planning obligations, such as affordable housing, public open space or any Section 106 monetary contributions;

·  These would be residential properties which meet the space standards policy;

·  Negotiations are ongoing in relation to parking permits for Richmond Hill Close;

·  There would be parking and a cycle store on site.

 

In attendance at the meeting were representatives for the applicant:

·  Waqar Hussain

·  Mark Henderson

·  Mark Finch

·  Jeremy Sokel

 

Mr Brian Maguire, District Valuer also attended for this item.

 

The Panel were informed of the following points:

·  This is a challenging and complex site to develop, but it looks to retain important elements of the building and  bring some elements of the church back into use;

·  The proposal links to the city centre via a public rights of way to Saxton Gardens, and the newer development on Marsh Lane and Richmond Hill;

·  The site has been dormant and undeveloped for many years and so there is now a great desire to bring this into use as a viable asset, with the expertise the design team would bring allowing a valuable housing and a community asset to come to an iconic building;

·  Work has been undertaken with Historic England, the Civic Trust and with Leeds City Council Conservation Team.

·  The developers were of the view that they had addressed all the points raised whilst in negotiations including highways access, public rights of way and design;

·  Some elements of the church would need to be demolished but they would hope to retain the Chancel;

·  In the past there had been two successful planning applications both of a similar scale and massing, but unfortunately not been delivered by other developers. They were hopeful that with an improving housing market and no constraints in relation to Sec. 106 obligations they would be able to deliver the scheme presented.

·  Due to the potential costs in relation to this site the applicant would be unable to provide a contribution towards sec.106 obligations that would ‘usually’ be required under relevant planning policies;

·  The developers had also been working with East Street Creative Arts and negotiations had been taking place to let a number of units to this group. It was also noted that there was the possibility of a future working relationship with the group, providing a working arts hub.

 

Responding to questions from Members the Panel were provided with the following information:

·  It was the intention to save the stained glass windows and specialist contractors would be brought in to do this and other specialist works;

·  Which parts of the building were to be saved and which are expected to be lost was clarified, but with the applicant confirming that the footprint of the main new-build element will remain what has received permission under previous applications to panel;

·  Land surveys and ground investigation works would be conducted to ensure that the foundations were in good order;

·  The funds for the development was being provided by the developers themselves. The developers are looking to act philanthropically with regards to the site’s development, but also hope that the housing market would improve over the next 3-4 years, they would also be looking to attract financial partners and other organisations to aid in redevelopment / rejuvenation of the site and area;

·  The apartments would be for sale but they may rent some, East Street Arts would use all the units within the church;

·  It was noted that the viability of the site had been calculated on the worst case scenario. An amount of money had already been spent on this development especially in relation to the foundations as this was an ex mining site;

·  The developers said that they wanted to ensure that the building was preserved as much as possible;

·  Members noted that the developers were working with Rushbonds who had a representative in attendance at the meeting. It was also noted that the developers required planning permission before there was a release of finances;

·  Consultation had taken place with two of the local ward members and there had been consultation with the local community via websites and letter drops, but there had been no public consultation held due to the restrictions of the pandemic. It was noted that there had been 7 or 8 objections to date. The developers said that they would be happy to engage further if planning were to be approved.

 

Member’s discussions included:

·  The lack of Sec.106 contributions especially if the market improved significantly to provide a profit. It was recognised that this was one of the poorer areas of the city;

·  The public right of way leading to the city centre would be via the original steps from the church. It was noted that the steps were outside the boundary of the proposed site and that the steps would need consideration in relation to accessibility for all as the steps were steep and there were a number of steps.

·  Members also raised concerns in relation to the maintenance of the steps and accessibility of the site overall to comply with relevant standards.

·  Need for greater and more sustained engagement with local residents and local Ward Members as he plans develop.

 

Brian Maguire from the District Valuers Office provided the Plans Panel with information in relation to the viability of the scheme. It was recognised that one of the major costs would be to make safe and retain parts of the site. It was noted that the proposal was for East Street Arts to have control of the space within the communal area and it was to be confirmed if they would pay rent for use of the communal area, but that this could change the viability of commercial use and income generation position compared to that previously understood by the District Valuer.

 

Members were advised that the best case scenario was for a £7m loss with a worst case scenario being a £12m loss. The District Valuer expressed a view that it was difficult to see how the scheme could ‘emerge from the ground’ at this stage.

 

As a position statement Members were requested to provide comments to a number of questions set out in the submitted report, to aid the developers and planners in the progression of the application.

 

RESOLVED - Members made the following comments in respect of the questions set out in the report:

 

·  Do Members wish to comment on the housing mix and density advanced by the applicant?

o  Members requested further information in respect of housing needs in this locality and how the accommodation proposed as part of this application sits against the identified need.

o  Members also requested a more detailed explanation as to why the numbers of units proposed as part of the application is greater than that set out in the housing allocation for the site.

·  Do Members wish to comment on the acceptability of the demolition as proposed, or the viability of the scheme advanced by the applicant?

o  Significant concerns were raised about the proposed demolition and the loss the listed buildings.

o  However, balanced against this Members acknowledged that the viability evidence submitted indicated that such demolition appeared necessary to save the retained Grade II* element of the church building.

·  Do Members wish to comment on the acceptability of the conversion and the new building(s) proposed?and,

·  Do Members wish to comment on the formative designs proposed at this stage by the applicant?

o  In light of the viability evidence Members were generally supportive of the proposed new build and conversion and of the design approach.

o  Some concern was raised in respect of the palette of materials for the new build apartment block and that, consequentially, the building might visually dominate and detract from the church. 

·  Do Members wish to comment on the failure to deliver the required planning obligations?

o  Significant concerns were expressed about the failure to deliver on any of the planning policy obligations that a development of this nature and scale would normally expect to generate.

o  Members questioned the applicant and his representatives on the profitability and long term viability of the scheme.

o  In light of this Members requested that officers and the applicant discuss the possibility of entering into an agreement that links delivery of appropriate obligations on an appropriate phased basis if and when the development delivers a reasonable level of profit.

·  Do Members wish to comment on the scheme’s impact on existing residential amenity and the future residential amenity of occupiers advanced by the applicant?

o  The relationship between the new build apartments to neighbouring dwellings was noted. The degree of separation between the two was noted and, in light of the council’s residential design guidance, no significant concerns were raised.

o  Members wanted re-assurance that policy requirements in respect of internal space standards and accessible housing would be met.

·  Do Members wish to comment on the impact on highway safety and amenity, including the access as proposed by the applicant?

o  Panel noted ward Members’ concerns over the proposed vehicular access to the development and the suggested alternative access proposal. However, Members considered that the proposed vehicular access arrangements contained within the application to be the best of the available options.

o  Concerns were raised over pedestrian accessibility to the site and whether the proposals provided suitable and appropriate access for all.

o  Members requested that further information be provided about the existing steps that provide access to the site. Particularly who has responsibility for the maintenance of the steps, their usability and heritage value/importance.

 

In addition to the above the Panel made the following general comments:

 

·  Members also asked officers to explore and set out how the proposed retention and conversion of the Pugin designed element Grade II* listed building can be secured and delivered as part of any planning permission granted.

 

·  Members also requested that the officers and the applicant explore alternative avenues of funding including from heritage grants from the Irish Government due to the link between the building’s history and Leeds’ Irish community.