To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an hybrid application for full planning consent for the erection of one building for residential accommodation (Class C3) with two ground floor commercial units (Class E); one building for student accommodation (Class Sui Generis); one building for hotel accommodation (Class C1) and co-working office accommodation (Class E); modifications to existing vehicular, cycling, and pedestrian infrastructure and outline planning consent for erection of one building for office accommodation (Class E), including basement car parking, access, landscaping with all matters reserved for future consideration with exception of access to land at former Swimming Pool Site, Lisbon Street, Leeds, LS1 4PH.
The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which sets out details of an hybrid application for full planning consent for the erection of one building for residential accommodation (Class C3) with two ground floor commercial units (Class E); one building for student accommodation (Class Sui Generis); one building for hotel accommodation (Class C1) and co-working office accommodation (Class E); modifications to existing vehicular, cycling, and pedestrian infrastructure and outline planning consent for erection of one building for office accommodation (Class E), including basement car parking, access, landscaping with all matters reserved for future consideration with
exception of access to land at former Swimming Pool Site, Lisbon Street, Leeds, LS1 4PH.
Site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.
The Planning Case Officer addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:
· Site/ Location/ Context
· Former International Swimming Pool site, currently used for car parking
· Constraints of the site, some protected trees
· Located on the site is a footbridge ramp and steps to the north western boundary and connects to the opposite side of the Leeds Inner Ring Road to Duncombe Street.
· The proposal, the construction of 5 buildings on site ranging in height from 11 to 33 storeys.
· Building 1 - Two residential towers providing up to 629 Build to Rent (BTR) C3 residential units, of 33 and 22 storeys, with a ground/podium level link and two commercial units (Class E) at ground floor level.
· Building 2 - Student residential building providing 548 purpose-built
student bedspaces of 24 storeys in height and 714 sqm of dedicated internal and external amenity space.
· Building 3 - Mixed use part aparthotel building (C1) providing approximately 120 rooms and part office accommodation providing 3,128 sqm (GEA) floorspace (Class E), of 14 storeys, ground floor to include active ground floor Class E use
· Building 4 – (Outline Planning Permission) - Office building of up to 13,108 sqm (GEA) sqm (Class E) 11 storeys, including ground floor and basement car parking (providing up to 50 car parking spaces).
· Enhancements to the existing pedestrian/cycle bridge’s south eastern
access, where it ‘lands’ in the site.
· Landscaping scheme including lawned area the provision of 84 new trees and character planting areas
· Public Art/ play features
· External cycle spaces
· Affordable Housing Provision (7%) via an off-site commuted sum
· Wind mitigation measures (Further wind assessment to be undertaken to determine the acceptability of the wind conditions on the footbridge over the A58)
Members raised the following questions to officers:
· The landscape/ greenspace areas had the potential to look untidy if not properly maintained, could assurances be provided that regular maintenance would be undertaken
· Could Officer comment on the concerns raised by the Leeds Civic Trust
· The site would allow public access throughout the site, had public safety been a consideration during the design stage.
· Would wind mitigation be controlled by condition
· The footbridge over the ring road, who was responsible for its maintenance
· How long was the building period for the development, would it be done in phases
· The proposed student cluster bedrooms appear to be very small at 13 sqm
· The proposed barrier along the pedestrian route (adjacent to the ring road) could a green wall treatment be considered
In responding to the issues raised, officers and representatives of the applicant said:
· Members were informed that the site would remain in the ownership of the developer and it would be in their best interests for the site to remain tidy. The LCC Legal Officer said that an obligation within the Section 106 Agreement would also provide further reassurance in terms of securing continued maintenance of the landscape/ greenspace areas
· The LCC Conservation Officer said there was no harm to the Listed Buildings but there was harm to views of heritage assets in terms of the tall buildings breaking the skyline (Park Square was provided as an example). It was suggested that by aligning colour tones with existing buildings, this offered mitigation on the skyline. Also the public benefits of regenerating a large brownfield site outweighed the less than substantial harm identified to the setting of heritage assets.
· Members were informed that adequate lighting would be provided throughout the public areas and also high-definition CCTV, this together with on site management would achieve good natural surveillance
· The Planning Case Officer reported that maintenance of the footbridge was the responsibility of the local authority
· The applicant’s representative said the build period would comprise 2 phases with an anticipated timescale of 3 years from the grant of planning permission for the first phase and a further 18 months for the second office development phase
· The applicant’s representative confirmed the affordable housing provision would be provided by an off-site commuted sum which was an option under Council Policy H5 of the Leeds Core Strategy. In terms of choosing the off-site commuted sum option, it was suggested that operating different tenure types was a difficult management issue
· Members were informed that the cluster bedrooms met the required standard in the emerging SPD for student housing space standards, but the cluster flats also had communal areas for wellbeing purposes
· The LCC Highways Officer suggested that any materials selected for the barrier structure would need to be vandal proof and the screen needed to be demountable for access and maintenance purposes to the inner ring road retaining wall. There it would not be possible to provide a green wall.
In offering comments Members stated the following:
· In general Members were of the view that this was an attractive, well designed scheme and could regenerate this part of the city
· One Member had concern that the height of some of the buildings impacted on the heritage views
· A number of Members expressed concern about natural survelllance and the pedestrian safety implications of the proposed screen structure to the A58 and requested it be looked at further in consultation with the Police and that the matter be controlled by planning condition
In drawing the discussion to a conclusion, the Chair suggested that the scheme had improved significantly since last presented.
It was moved and seconded that the application be approved in accordance with the report recommendation subject to a further planning condition to control pedestrian safety measures in relation to the impact of the A58 screen.
Upon being put to the vote, the motion was passed; 12 votes in favour, and 1 abstention.
(i) That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions specified in Appendix 1 of the submitted report (or as amended or added to as considered appropriate by the Chief Planning Officer) a further planning condition to control pedestrian safety measures in relation to the impact of the A58 screen and subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement to deliver the following planning obligations:
· Offsite Affordable Housing contribution equivalent to the full policy compliant position for 7% of the total residential units
· Controls on the proposed student housing and apart hotel use to ensure compliance with the Council’s policies
· Provision of public access rights through the site
· Management and maintenance of footbridge landing steps
· Residential Travel Fund for residential use (£160,866.75)
· Car Club Trial provision for office use (£8440)
· Travel Plans and Travel Plan monitoring fees (£14,840)
· Cooperation with local jobs and skills initiatives during
· Provision of a Section 106 Agreement management fee
(ii) In the event 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.