Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a hybrid application for full planning permission for the erection of new residential dwellings with ancillary commercial uses (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1 and D2) and landscaped public realm; outline application for an associated ‘hub’ building in a flexible commercial use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1 and D2).

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a hybrid application for full planning permission for the erection of new residential dwellings with ancillary commercial uses (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1 and D2) and landscaped public realm; outline application for an associated ‘hub’ building in a flexible commercial use (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1 and D2) on land at Whitehall Road and Globe Road, Leeds.

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

The following was highlighted:

·  The application was in two parts.  Full permission was sought for 8 buildings with a total of 783 apartments and 3,000 square metres of ancillary, commercial and leisure space.  Outline permission was sought for a standalone building (‘The Hub’) and 3,000 square metres of commercial and leisure space.

·  The site covered 2 hectares in total.  There had been considerable development activity in the surrounding area.

·  An image was displayed showing the massing and building types that were proposed.  Further images showed the proposed layout, façade treatments, boundary treatments and materials to be used.

·  Improvements and widening of footpaths and installation of a pedestrian crossing were proposed.

·  Extensive wind tunnel testing had been carried out – temporary mitigation measures would need to be installed until the adjacent site was developed.

·  Public space, landscaping, biodiversity features.

·  Provision of communal spaces.

·  Land would be reserved for a footbridge to the canal towpath, but this did not form part of the current scheme proposed.

·  Graphics displaying views from and around the site were shown.

·  Provision of the full affordable housing requirement was not viable.  There could either be 27 units or 80 units at 20% discount.

In response to Members questions, the following was discussed:

·  Whitehall Road would still have an austere appearance – different iterations had been considered and safety issues have to be considered for widening of footpaths and putting in cycle lanes.  A conscious decision had been made for the design to reflect the ‘harsher’ nature of the city scape along Whitehall Road.  However if there was opportunity for greening and softening the space at street level this would be considered.

·  It was envisaged that the connection with Globe Road would be the element that would feel most pedestrianised and ‘user friendly’ with greenery etc. incorporated as part of the design.

·  There would be conditions agreed with the Canal and River Trust to ensure there would be no adverse impact on the canal, either during construction or post-development.

·  There would be conditions to ensure that lighting did not adversely affect the railway, i.e. causing glare or dazzling for drivers.

·  There would be some informal play areas within the site, with it very much being part of the scheme’s overall ethos to create a new community as a result of the development coming forward.

·  It was not felt that there could be any more provision of affordable housing.  A representative of the District Valuer explained the process that had been applied to reach the existing position.

·  It was intended to start the development within eighteen months.

·  The main focus was to provide residential accommodation and that would support the other uses on the site.

·  The Hub building will not form the focus of the development at this point in time, but is envisaged as coming forward in due course.

·  The Canal and River Trust had been supportive and had not objected to the proposals.

·  Taxi drop off points and parking for disabled people – there would be lay-bys on Globe Road for pick up and drop off and an internal service road that could be used. However, overall it was envisaged that this would be a pedestrian-orientated development and the whole site has been designed to be fully accessible.

·  Policy does not require new developments to connect into the district heating system.  However, the applicant was engaged with the Council regarding possible connectivity with the system in the future.

·  Gas boilers would be used on the development, to provide its own power energy centre.

·  There was opportunity for more planting and greenery along Globe Road.

·  There had not been any comments made by Public Health in relation to the proposals, such as regarding provision of further health facilities to cater for the residents.  Such additional infrastructure requirements as this were not required as part of the allocation for the site.

Members were invited to comment on the application. The following was highlighted:

·  The area had been a wasteland for too long and this was a good proposition. It opened up the canal area and was a modern design. It would be good to see more green infrastructure.

·  More outdoor amenity space would be an improvement.

·  It was preferred to see a policy compliant application but there was an acceptance to the reasons for not meeting the full allocation for affordable housing.

·  Some concern regarding future health provision.

·  The provision of a bridge should be highlighted as essential.

·  Further consideration could be given to colour schemes used in the appearance and materials.

The Area Planning Manager summarised the discussion.  Reference was made to the following:

·  Members broadly supported the proposal

·  Amenity space – more than 50% of the main site would be public open space that had no vehicular space.

·  More greenery and different brickwork could be negotiated further and dealt with by condition.

·  Public Health could be consulted as to see whether more GP/Health Services would be needed or whether any health facility could be sited in this location.

·  Affordable housing – there was not choice between the options but the Panels views would be considered when finalising the Section 106 agreement.

RESOLVED - That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the draft conditions set out in Appendix 1 (and any amendments to the draft conditions and other additional conditions which he might consider appropriate); the completion of a revised Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and designers response to the same; and the completion of a Section 106 agreement to include the following obligations:

• Affordable Housing: accept 3.44% (benchmark levels) or 10.21% (20% discount levels) as on-site affordable housing provision to be managed directly by the PRS provider as detailed in Para’s 3.14-3.15 & 9.25-9.28 of the report.

• Reassess the viability of the scheme when the reserved matters application for The Hub comes forward to establish whether Affordable Housing should be increased.

• £200,000 off-site highway works contribution (or £100,000 with tunnel infilling and regrading works to be carried out by the applicant)

• £20,000 Traffic Regulation Order amendments

• £195,945.75 Residential Travel Plan Fund (option to use up to £100,000 to contribute to the canal bridge)

• £46,000 Bus shelter improvements

• £7,098 Travel Plan Review fee

• Compliance with Travel Plan requirements including Travel Plan Coordinator

• Provision of 2 car club spaces

• Access to and maintenance of public open space areas

• Provision of-land for the canal bridge landing

• Dedication of land to be used for highways improvements

• Employment and Training for Local People

In the circumstances where the Section 106 Agreement has 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.