Agenda item

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

(Report attached)

With reference to the meeting of 22^nd October 2020 when Members deferred consideration of this item to allow further discussions to take place around alternative design solutions, including; the use of different materials, improved appearance of the central parking area and greenspace, provision of increased electric vehicle charging points and more affordable housing. It was also reported that this application had been discussed and views expressed at a Members informal design workshop held on 7^th April 2021.

The Chief Planning Officer now submitted a further report stating that the applicant had submitted revised plans in response to the comments received previously, a summary of the amendments was set out in paragraph 1.6 of the submitted report.

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

The Planning Group Manager addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal but with a focus on the elements of the proposal that had been amended or altered since the meeting of October 2020 (as per the Officer report).  The Planning Group Manager thereby highlighted the following:

·  Site / location / context

·  Site identified for housing development in the Local Plan

·  Site history

·  Nearby Heritage Assets

·  Character of the surrounding area

·  Views from inside and outside the proposed development

·  The proposal - Residential development (345 flats) and ancillary flexible commercial space (use class A1, A2, A3, A4, B1 and D1)

·  The inclusion of 2 additional floors

·  Revisions to the façade

·  Improved relationship with East Street

·  Enhanced Courtyard area

·  124 car parking spaces

·  31 electric vehicle charging points with infrastructure to facilitate provision for a further 72 electric vehicles charging points on completion (Total 103 electric vehicle charging points)

·  Greenspace provision, 40 new trees

·  New pedestrian route from Ellerby Road

·  18 discounted rental flats

·  Materials: red brick, with stack bond and corbel detailing, and an alternative light brick façade (More variety less uniformity)

·  Ground floor active frontages

The Planning Group Manager reported the receipt of a late objection from a local resident who was of the view that the previous concerns had not been satisfactorily addressed, the design was architecturally uninspiring, the appearance of the car park was not acceptable, there would be a loss of views, daylight and sunlight to adjacent flats, there would be an adverse impact on the setting of St Saviours Church, there had been a lack of consultation from the developer and there was still insufficient affordable housing.

In responding to the matters raised, Members were advisedthat – although block B would be sited only 10m away from the adjacent apartment development of ‘Public Haus’ and would increase in height by one storey – it would be of a similar height to ’Public Haus’ due to the lower site levels and would be sited to the north side of ‘Public Haus’, leaving a mostly open westerly aspect to the proposed central courtyard from ‘Public Haus’. As a result, officers are of the view that there will not be an unacceptable loss of daylight and sunlight to the existing residential windows.  The loss of uninterrupted views across a vacant allocated development site is not a material planning consideration.  The key view from East Street of St. Saviours Church through the site would be retained. Other concerns relating to the appearance of the car park, architecture and affordable housing and viability have been addressed in the report and presentation.

The Planning Group Manager also reported receipt of comments from a Leeds resident who grew up in the area and still had many friends in the area. They want to see the site tidied up and ask that the greenspace contribution was ring fenced to be spent on the Bow Street recreation ground. In response Members were advised that implementation of the development would realise a regeneration of the site and the greenspace contribution will be directed to the local recreation ground.

Members raised the following questions to officers:

·  Could the car park be tarmacked, the use of grasscrete could look untidy and is only intended for use where there will be occasional car parking. Another Member commented that, in the winter months, grasscrete could become muddy and suggested more robust paving as an alternative.

·  The additional electric vehicle charging infrastructure, how would this be brought into use.

·  Could more greenery be introduced around the building, possible green walls

In responding to the issues raised, officers and the scheme architect said:

·  The use of grasscrete was intended to soften the car park area. The Architect said the intention was to keep the area green but, alternative materials could be considered

·  Members were informed that there had been the commitment at this stage from the developer to provide a minimum number of electric vehicle points.  Any need for further electric vehicle points would be monitored and reviewed via the Travel plan obligation

·  The Architect suggested it may be possible to reposition the entrance and introduce more planters, but green walls were not in keeping with the design

·  Further, any significant alteration to the East Street façade and frontage could lead to loss of accommodation, which was much needed, as part of the proposal

·  Surface treatment and provision of surrounding greenery would all come forward as part of the detailed proposals and were to be decided on in future, so the Members’ suggestions may be incorporated

In offering comments Members stated the following:

·  Members welcomed the proposals suggesting considerable progress had been made.

·  It was suggested that this Panel had a number of Members who had extensive knowledge of landscaping and horticulture, developers should note the comments on the appropriateness of grasscrete for the central car park.

In summing up, the Planning Group Manager noted the Member concerns about the use of grasscrete and advised that this will be considered further with the applicant to ensure the surfacing treatment would be robust and appropriate for the car park use. 

In drawing the discussion to a conclusion, the Chair suggested there appeared to be a lot of support for this development.

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved in accordance with the report recommendation.

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was passed unanimously.

RESOLVED –

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

·  Affordable housing provision of 18 discounted rent (80% market rent) flats on-site subject to an overage clause upon practical completion of the development

·  On-site publicly accessible greenspace at the northern part of the site

·  Off-site greenspace contribution for improvements to Bow Street

  Recreation Ground £295,635.21

·  Mitigation for removal of on-street, car parking space £6000

·  Residential Travel Fund £80,580.50

·  Enhancement to local TROs if necessary, as a direct result of the development

·  Travel plan monitoring fee £4332

·  Cooperation with local jobs and skill initiatives

(ii)  In the event of the Section 106 Agreement not having 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.