The report of the Chief Planning Officer set
out an application for the demolition of the Nave and Aisles of the
church, to be replaced with a six story extension; the Chancel,
Transept and Altar areas to be retained and restored to contain 62
no. apartments. The Presbytery would also be demolished and
replaced with a 5 storey apartment block of 113 no. apartments
(total residential development comprising of 175 units); other
works include a new access, proposed EVCP parking, cycle storage
and landscaping works at Mount St Marys Church, Church Road,
Richmond Hill, Leeds, LS9 8LA.
Slides and photographs were shown throughout
the presentation by officers.
Members were informed of the following
points:
- This application had been presented
as a position statement at the Panel meeting on 3rd
December 2020;
- The application site has had a
number of previously approved planning permissions for the
residential re-development of the site which are similar to that
proposed now. None of these had been implemented and all have since
expired. The last permissions expired in September 2014;
- The building has not been occupied
since 1989 and is currently in a state of disrepair;
- The site is close to residential
properties on Richmond Hill Approach and Richmond Hill Close and is
close to St Mary’s School;
- The applications proposed to
redevelop the Mount St Mary’s Church (Grade ll* listed) and Presbytery (Grade ll listed) site to provide a residential
development comprising of 175 apartments in two buildings,
including 62 residential units within the existing and extended
church, and 113 residential units within the proposed separate
apartment block. The units would be 1,2 and 3 bedroom units;
- Materials for the extension to the
church were proposed to be a metal (bronze coloured) cladding
system. The 5 storey, flat roofed residential block is proposed as
grey/silver cladding as well as white render, buff brick;
- Proposal for 138 cycle parking
spaces, and 51 standard car parking spaces with Electric Vehicle
(EV) charging, 3 disabled parking spaces with EV charging, and 2
car club spaces with EV charging are shown with vehicular access
provided direct from Richmond Hill Approach;
- The site would be landscaped with a
pedestrian link to the city centre
which would see the reinstating of the existing Public Right of Way
(PROW);
- The developers proposed no
contributions to affordable housing or public open space. A
financial appraisal from the District Valuer was appended to the report. It was noted
that previous discussions at Panel had sought for possible
inclusion of a viability review clause such that contributions
could be sought if the viability situation altered and this had
been included in the conditions outlined within the report with a 3
phase review process proposed. The District Valuer - Brian Maguire, was in attendance at the
meeting;
- Discussions had taken place with the
applicant and the Ward Members should the viability clause come
into effect as to what the Ward Members would want
prioritising;
- It was noted that the housing mix
proposed did not fit with the housing needs of the area. However,
it was advised that if the developer was to achieve a viable and
deliverable scheme the proposal for 1,2, and 3 bed apartments was
the most viable option;
- It was noted that an objector was in
attendance at the meeting who had raised concerns that the new
apartment block would have a significant impact on her property,
located on Richmond Hill Close. Members were advised that the
apartment block and the current residential properties had 18
metres between them which exceeded the
measurements stated as guidelines to ensure appropriate residential
amenity. It was also noted that this distancing is the same as in
the previous permissions which were approved;
- Members were advised that the
residential properties are sited to the north east of the proposed
apartment block and may cause some overshadowing during the late
afternoon and in early evening;
- The PROW falls outside the
application site. It was noted that the path leads into the city
centre and has been in existence since 1888, it would be accessed
by steep steps from the development. There are also other access
points south west of the development site for disabled users.
Ms Julia McHale an objector to the application
informed the Plans Panel of the following concerns that she
had:
·
She had lived at her property for 32 years on Richmond Hill Close
which would look onto the rear of the proposed new apartment block.
She had concerns that the new block would take away her privacy and
right to light and also undermine air quality;
·
She also raised concerns that the height of the proposed apartment
block would cause an issue with wind. She said that this area in
Richmond Hill, being located high, already suffered when it was
windy;
·
Ms McHale was of the view that saving the church was a good idea,
however, there was already a number of flats in Burmantofts with plans for more to be built nearby.
It was her view that there was a need for more family homes in the
area, creation of a neighbourhood / community and a need for more
green space;
·
She said that the houses that her and her neighbours lived in did
not have big windows and that the loss of light would affect
residents wellbeing;
·
In addition, Ms McHale was concerned that the existing value of
homes in the area would be adversely affected if the development
went ahead;
·
Ms McHale said that the area does not feel like it is located on
the edge of the city centre, there was a good community-feel and it
was a quiet street, but she had concerns that the development would
increase traffic on the road and also thereby increase night time
noise;
·
She also raised concern that not only was the proposed apartment
block 5 storeys high but was also the length of the church.
In response to questions from Members, Ms
McHale provided the following information:
- Flats would not enhance the
area;
- There had been no contact from the
developers directly but she had voiced her opinions when able
to;
- From her property she would only be
able to see a brick wall, she was of the view that a 2 storey block
would be better. Her concerns were that a high building in this
location would cause a wind tunnel;
- Ms McHale said that keeping and
repairing the church would mean a lot to the people of Richmond
Hill;
- She noted though that developers are
not just proposing this development to ensure the church is
‘saved’, but will be making a profit and that this
meant they were not providing the appropriate housing on the site
(focusing on provision of apartments) as there is a wish to make
money from the development.
Mark Henderson the applicant informed the
Members of the following points:
- Mount St Mary’s was a
challenging site, but an important one. This area needs investment
that leads back to the city centre and also so as to enable the
church to be brought back into a good state of repair;
- The site has laid dormant for
several years and could be a valuable housing asset;
- Consultation had taken place with a
number of representative bodies including Historic England,
LCC’s Conservation Team and Leeds Civic Trust.
- These consultations (and the
previous presentation of the Position Statement at Panel) had
raised a number of points of concern and consideration, which the
applicant felt had been appropriately responded to
subsequently;
- The PROW would provide an access to
the site;
- The plans, while being similar to
the two previous, successful planning permissions, had been amended
a number of times and included the retention of the Chancel. He was
of the view that if the proposal was not approved there would be a
risk to the church which was in a bad state of repair;
- The extension to the church has been
designed to be sympathetic, but also aesthetically striking so as
to reflect the church’s important focus point on the Leeds
skyline;
- Mr Henderson had noted the concerns
raised by Ms McHale in relation to wind but said that they had not
been asked to provide a wind study for this development.
Member’s discussions included:
- The proposed materials to be used
for the development, including reassurance that the cladding to be
used was non-flammable and within current legislation;
- Amenity distance between the
development site and the residential properties;
- Configuration of parking spaces and
landscaping;
- Amenity space for future residents
of the development and efforts to ensure that the maximum amount
has been provided on-site with considerable consideration going
into how this can be provided, appropriately landscaped etc.;
- Maintenance of the (approximately
2.5m high) wall between the residential properties and the proposed
development;
- Suggested that the apartment block
be moved closer to the church to provide more amenity space, but
balancing this against providing sufficient amenity space between
the church and the new-build for residents;
- Members raised concerns about
whether any potential wind tunnel effect would arise due to the
fact that the proposed apartment block would be five storeys high
and set on a hill. It was felt some clarity was required on this
issue in light of the minutes for the meeting held on 18th February
2021. Members asked if a wind survey
had been undertaken, but were advised that the height of the
apartment block as proposed is not such that it is deemed to be a
‘tall building’ under Council policy or supplementary
planning guidance. As such, this specific site did not hit the
triggers for a wind survey to be undertaken.
The Panel were advised that the site would not
be viable if there was instead to be built a two storey apartment
block or build houses on the site as this lesser volume of
residential units would not provide enough monetary profit to
restore the church.
The District Valuer, Brian Maguire, explained that as part of
his appraisal he had to assess the viability of the site and assess
whether the valuations put forward by a developer / applicant were
fair and reasonable. He had reviewed a number of scenarios which
had been submitted and this was a challenging site. In every
scenario proposed, the developer lost money. It was his view that the worst case scenario would
be that the developers would lose £7m and the best case would
be a loss of £1m. The appraisal had been provided in
consultation with other independent consultants employed by the
Council, but all were in agreement that there would be significant
losses in all scenarios.
It was noted that there would be a significant
cost to retaining the Chancel and these were to be regarded as
abnormal costs. The creation of
apartments and communal space does make the site more viable but
does not sufficient to provide affordable housing or other S106
contribution costs.
Responding to a question in relation to
approaching charitable organisations for contributions, the Panel
were advised that organisations would not start talks until there
was planning approval and construction details in
place.
Officers responded to Members questions with
the following information:
- Confirmed that the steps leading to
the PROW were outside the red line boundary. It was recognised that
the steps are steep and not easy to walk up. The Panel noted that
there was no further work proposed to the steps. The Panel were
advised that if the steps were dangerous this would be picked up by
Building Control and direction would be taken from PROW to
undertake remedial works;
- Officers were of the view that there
was not much scope to move the apartment block, though some thought
could be given to reconfiguration of the car parking area and
interspersing with landscaping so as to aid filtering and reduce
the ‘sense’ of density;
- The apartment block is not
considered to be a tall building and therefore did not fit the
criteria for a wind study;
- It was noted that the species of
trees and shrubs to be planted as part of the landscape would need
to be selected with care so as not to impact on space and
residential properties either for proposed future residents of the
development OR on the other side of the wall and existing
residents’ amenity;
- Officers will make checks on who
owns the wall but it was believed that it belonged to the applicant
and therefore would fall (in maintenance terms) within the proposed
condition relating to ongoing site maintenance / management.
RESOLVED - To defer and
delegate grant of planning permission and listed building consent
to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the
conditions specified in the report (and amendment of the same or
addition of any that the Chief Planning Officer deems necessary),
and the completion of a Section106 Agreement pursuant to the
planning permission, which will comprise the 3 phase Viability
Review Clause as specified in the report.
In addition:
- A clause is to be added to the
Sec.106 Agreement to require details of and the implementation of a
delivery plan.
- Conditions to be added to the
planning permission to require details of a scheme in respect of
and compliance with Core Strategy policies EN1 and EN2.
- Officers to contact PRoW in respect of the existing steps that form
part of the public footpath that is to be opened up and whether
they are safe to use and who is responsible for any remedial work
and maintenance.
- Officers to seek clarification over
ownership and maintenance responsibility for wall between
application site and rear gardens of properties of Richmond Hill
Close.
- Cleaning of existing stone work to
retained part of Church to be considered as part of restoration
works.
Cllr Barry Anderson left the meeting at 15:20,
the conclusion of this item.