Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of an application which seeks planning consent for two residential blocks at 26 and 31 storey's high, with car parking, landscaping and associated facilities to land at former Doncaster Monk Bridge Works, Whitehall Road, Leeds, LS12 1BE

 

 

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which sets out detail of an

application which sought planning consent for two residential blocks

at 26 and 31 storey's high, with car parking, landscaping and associated facilities to land at former Doncaster Monk Bridge Works, Whitehall

Road, Leeds, LS12 1BE

 

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

 

The City Centre Manager addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal which included the following issues:

 

·  Site/ Location/ Context

·  The site is located approximately 1km to the southwest of Leeds City Centre, within the designated City Centre boundary as defined by the Site Allocations Plan (SAP) and forms part of the wide former Doncaster Monk Bridge Works land, to the north of Whitehall Road and measures 0.38 ha in area.

·  The site is located to the east of the elevated Leeds – Bradford railway line and west of the River Aire and Leeds – Liverpool Canal.

·  There is a Grade II listed viaduct to the north which has not been in use since the 1960s. It is in separate ownership but programmed for redevelopment as a public route and park with access points onto it from both the CDL Doncaster Monkbridge Site to the north and MEPC Wellington Place site to the east.

·  The whole site is identified as being within Flood Zone 2.

·  The proposal - Planning permission is sought for two residential towers of 26 and 31 storeys comprising a total of 488 apartments (Mixture of 1,2 and 3 bed units arranged around a central core).

·  The two towers would be linked via a double storey height podium level providing rooftop amenity space for residents at 506sqm.

·  Parking for 21 cars (all to be Electrical Vehicle Charging Point enabled) and 376 cycles would be located at a ground floor level (418 spaces across the scheme in total with 386 long stay and 32 short stay spaces). Ramped access and egress into the cycle store would be taken from the adjacent north-south axis road between this site and that of the approved Latitude Purple Phase B site to the west.

·  Connectivity through the site / strong interface with the north south

  pedestrian route under the viaduct and onwards north towards the CDL

Doncaster Monkbridge development.

Public realm/ public open space

·  Land scape proposals including tree lined public realm

·  Materials – Two distinct sections of brickwork; vertical and horizontal, floor to ceiling windows, 33 balconies and 164 Juliette balconies

 

The Panel then heard from Andrew Steer, City Island Management who was objecting to the proposals.

 

Mr Steer said he was representing the views of 404 leaseholders and 711 residents at the City Island development which was only 80m away. He said the Management company had taken a keen interest in this application and had provided constructive feedback, but despite the lengthy consultation none of our views have been taken in account in the final planning application.

 

Mr Steer said he had 4 primary concerns:

 

1. The proposed height of the building, a whopping 31 storeys, which will be head and shoulders above other buildings in the surrounding area. He said you need to travel over 1km to Bridge Water place to find a building of similar height, a building of this magnitude cannot be justified in this area and would present an over-bearing feature when viewed from City Island, he would respectfully request this Panel to limit the height of the building to 26 storeys.

 

2. The building is out of character with the existing buildings and the Panel, as the decision makers, need to weigh up the potential impact to any Listed Buildings. The Chief Planning Officers reports states that the proposed buildings would cause harm to the Grade II Listed Viaduct.  Architecturally the proposal would not sit well with surrounding buildings, the proposed design of these new buildings is a missed opportunity and lacking in creative vision

 

3. A lack of attempt to integrate with the surrounding area, there is a fundamental lack of facilities associated with this development which will not attract families into the area. There is also no direct access across the canal included in the final plans and as a result the development will be self-contained.

 

4. In the Chief Planning Officers report there is a recognition of construction noise and disturbance during construction. Could we therefore respectfully request that a condition be included to restrict construction noise and disturbance to the hours of 9.00am and 6.00pm

 

Questions to Mr Steer

 

·  Could you tell us what difference it would make to the residents of City Island by reducing the height of the building

 

In responding Mr Steer said:

 

·  The building would more seamlessly integrate, not just with the existing buildings but with other buildings in the wider area. There is also another development on the other side of the viaduct which would be 21 storeys high and again we would like to see a similar alignment of the buildings

 

The Chair thanked Mr Steer for his attendance and contributions

 

The Chair then invited Damien Sharkey (Applicant) to speak in support of the application.

 

Mr Sharkey explained the proposal was to deliver 488 homes as part of the Latitude Blue development. If planning permission was granted later today the intention was to begin work on the site later this year.

 

He said over the last 12 months his team had worked closely with Leeds City Council and other partners to draw up proposals for Latitude Blue which had included online and in person consultation events, including presentations to Leeds City Council, Leeds Civic Trust, the Canal and Rivers Trust and Historic England. Members were informed that a significant number of comments/ feedback had been received and amendments to the plans had been made accordingly.

 

Members were informed that all homes would be energy efficient and fit for future generations (Including the use of over 240 solar panels and a heat recovery system). Over 400 cycle parking spaces would be provided (in line with Leeds City Council’s Climate Emergency agenda). Extensive residential amenity space was also being provided, Building No.2 being reconfigured to create additional open space.

 

In summary, Mr Sharkey said Latitude Blue would bring much needed housing to the city and add to the vibrancy of the area already in transition and bring forward development in a prime brownfield site which has stood derelict since 2005. He said, we believe we have responded positively to all comments and hope Members will support this application.

 

Questions to the Developers:

 

·  The podium, why was it positioned lower than the viaduct

·  Was there any further development works planned for the viaduct

·  Could further clarification be provided around security and safety in and around the site

·  Could you comment on the objection from City Island Developments about the construction disturbance and noise

·  Are there any proposals for formal play areas

·  Could clarification on the mix of flat sizes be provided

·  How many flats would have access to balconies

·  Justification for the level of car parking

 

In responding the Developers said:

 

·  Members were informed that the podium was positioned to provide views of the canal and not compete with the listed viaduct

·  Members were informed that a staircase, lift access and landscaping was being provided but the viaduct was not in the ownership or control of the applicant

·  Members were informed that a Management Team would be on-site (24 hours each day). The development would include a CCTV system, outside areas would be well lit, there would be active uses on the ground floor, there would be controlled building access, drop-off and pick-up areas would be well lit at night

·  The applicant said we are keen to work with City Island and want a positive relationship and we would be prepared to sign up to city centre working hours

·  The applicant suggested the intention was to create informal play space within the public realm avoiding the need for formal gated playground space

·  There would be 220 x 1-beds; 223 x 2-beds and 45 x 3-beds.

·  40% of the total flats would have access to an external or “Juliette” type balcony

·  The level of car parking reflected the need to encourage people not to use the car; the good level of cycle provision and the relocation of the buildings further away from the canal and the viaduct

 

The Chair thanked the Developers for their attendance and contributions

 

Members raised the following questions to officers:

 

·  How large are the balconies (width and depth) and could they be increased in number

·  What restrictions would be put on hours of construction, would they be similar to adjacent construction sites

·  The proposed housing mix, there is a significant number of one bed accommodation (44.9%) is there evidence to support this demand

·  There is a significant amount of cycle parking (418 spaces) – Does more cycle parking spaces mean that more journeys are made using bicycles

·  Could the amount of green space be increased

 

In responding to the issues raised:

 

·  The Architect confirmed the dimensions of the balconies were 2.75m x 1.8m. The City Centre Manager advised that the number of balconies was limited in part by the wind microclimate impact at higher levels of the building

·  The City Centre Manager said the hours of construction were often restricted to: 8.00am - 6.00pm on weekdays and Saturday mornings only

·  The applicant said a housing needs assessment had been prepared which demonstrated there was a clear demand for 1 bed units from the 18 - 34 age group

·  The LCC Highways officer said good cycle parking facilities is likely to encourage greater cycle usage, but there was no direct link to the number of cycle journeys undertaken. (It was pointed out that bicycle sales had increased significantly during the pandemic).

·  The City Centre Manager explained that within the city centre the requirement for a minimum level of green space provision only applied to large sites over 0.5 ha in area. For the reasons stated in the report this was effectively a smaller development site. However, the development was providing 1,400 sq.m. of public open space. In addition, future residents would have access to the public assessable space to be provided on the viaduct and other nearby development sites.

·  The buildings had already been moved further away from the canal and the viaduct in response to Members comments at pre-application stage. The potential to gain more public realm is limited without a significant redesign of the building proposals.

 

In offering comments Members provided the following:

 

·  The majority of Members were generally supportive of the application.

·  The hours of construction should be the same as the adjacent site

·  Some Members considered that more consideration should be given to the appearance of the podium element

·  Could further consideration be given to increasing the number of the balconies at the lower levels. One member considered that the useable space provided by the external balconies should be larger

·  The space between the canal and the buildings was an important area, would it be possible to reconfigure the blocks to create more public space

·  All Members expressed disappointment at the housing mix, in particular the number of family friendly 3 bed units (9.2%) and requested if this figure could be increased to 10%

·  One Member suggested the 31storey block was too high, other Members were supportive of the height

·  One Member asked for further consideration to be given to providing more facilities for children

·  It was important that the right species of trees and hedges were planted

 

In drawing the discussion to a conclusion, the Chair suggested that the housing mix was a significant concern to Members.

 

Addressing the applicant’s, the Chair asked if they would be willing to increase the number of 3 bed units to 10% (48 apartments). The applicant confirmed the proposal was acceptable.

 

It was moved and seconded that the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions specified in the submitted report (and additional conditions to control the construction hours and provision of CCTV, external lighting and building access control), subject to an amendment of the housing mix, as described above, further consideration be given to increasing the number  of the balconies and consultation on the tree species with Councillor Nash and following the completion of a Section 106 Agreement

 

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was passed 11 votes in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention

 

RESOLVED –

 

(i)  That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions specified in the submitted report (and additional conditions to control the construction hours and provision of CCTV, external lighting and building access control), subject to an amendment of the housing mix, as described above, further consideration be given to increasing the number  of the balconies and consultation on the tree species with Councillor Nash  and subject to completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to deliver the following planning obligations:

 

·  Employment and training of local people

·  The provision of publicly accessible areas

·  The provision of on-site affordable 34 units (7% in line with policy)

·  The provision of a travel plan fee of £5822

·  Provision of a Residential Travel Plan Fund of £124,806

·  A contribution for Traffic Regulation Orders to address potential overspill parking of up to £10,000.00

·  A contribution for biodiversity net gain of £16,500

·  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.