Agenda item

PREAPP/21/00324 - Pre-application presentation for proposed development comprising residential apartments, commercial (offices and leisure), hotel and a travel hub on land largely bounded by Sweet Street, Meadow Road, Jack Lane and Bowling Green Terrace, Leeds LS11 9BX

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of a Pre Application Presentation for proposed development comprising residential apartments, commercial (offices and leisure), hotel and a travel hub on land largely bounded by Sweet Street, Meadow Road, Jack Lane and Bowling Green Terrace, Leeds LS11 9BX



(Report attached)


The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of a

pre-application presentation for proposed development comprising residential apartments, commercial (offices and leisure), hotel and a travel hub on land largely bounded by Sweet Street, Meadow Road, Jack Lane and Bowling Green Terrace, Leeds, LS11 9BX


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


The applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:


·  Site / location / context

·  The site area extends to 3.79 hectares

·  The “City One” site lies within the southern part of the designated City Centre. It is bounded by Sweet Street to the north, Meadow Road to the east, Jack Lane to the south and Bowling Green Terrace to the west.

·  The south-western corner of the site is 6.0m higher than the north-east corner. High pressure gas mains run below ground across the northern fringe and south-east corner of the site resulting in no build zones in these areas. Trent Street runs east to west across the site providing access to a large primary substation located towards the centre of the site.

·  Meadow Road is the main distributor to the City Centre from the M621

·  The southern extent of Holbeck Conservation Area is located 120m to the west at the junction of Sweet Street West and Marshall Street. The conservation area includes a number of listed buildings.

·  Major mixed use development scheme

·  The proposed development seeks the construction of up to 11 buildings ranging in height from 5 - 42 storey’s in height  - Residential apartments (2,200 maximum), commercial (offices and leisure) up to 70,000sqm, hotel (450 beds) and a multi-storey travel hub and /or basement car parking providing a maximum of 691 car parking spaces; up to 2,850sqm of ground floor use Class E(a-g) floorspace (with single retail units limited to 465sqm) with a minimum provision of 1,000sqm of Use Class E(a-g) floorspace across the development.

·  New Masterplan

·  Proposed new network of streets, including new green street

·  Key constraints: Gas lines and electricity sub-station (Alternative configuration if sub-station removed)

·  Landscaping strategy, tree lined public open space, introduction of rain gardens

·  Pedestrian priority environment, connectivity and permeability at the heart of the masterplan

·  Timescale – Commence latter 2022 with completion of first phase towards the end of 2025


Members raised the following questions to the developer’s representatives:


·  This is a large development, possibly up to 4,000 residents, are there any amenities provided or located nearby: eg doctor’s surgeries, nurseries and schools

·  The scale of this development is difficult to grasp. Could the areas of greenspace be combined to form larger, discrete areas of public realm rather than linear streets.

·  Do the large linear buildings and spaces have the potential to cause wind tunnelling.

·  Meadow Road filters into the M621, was sufficient planting been provided to combat particulates from vehicles

·  In respect of the electricity sub-station, were there any plans to relocate it, and if it was to be moved, would it be your intention to build on it or could it be greenspace. 


In responding to the issues raised the developer’s representatives said:


·  The Applicant confirmed that commercial space was available within the development for such amenities as a doctor’s surgery. In terms of nearby schools, it was confirmed there were existing schools within the locality

·  The Architect said the intention was to create a sense of openness with some of the streets being 25m in width. There would also be huge areas created with streets largely being given over to amenity space.

·  The Architect reported that no safety issues had been identified following wind modelling, the massing of the buildings was deliberately organised to address wind impact 

·  The Architect said the buildings along Meadow Road would be set back 10m, there would be a 3m wide planting strip and there would also be a 3m cycle path, the intention was to provide a series of soft landscape filters to help combat poor air quality

·  The applicant confirmed that relocation of the electricity sub-station was being considered and if it could be removed, the area would be redeveloped. Responding to a question, what if the sub-station was to remain, Members were informed the brickwork and door would be refurbished and then covered with a landscaped screen.


In offering comments, Members raised the following issues:


·  In general Members welcomed the principal of the development

·  The majority of Members were of the view that not enough useable greenspace was being provided relative to the scale of the development. The proposed linear pieces of greenspace were “underwhelming” and were not the same and as useable as a green square

·  There was more work to be done in terms of design and massing.  Architectural treatment needs to make a contribution to the spaces, with a variation in building design.

·  Too many people were being crammed onto a small site

·  A policy compliant housing mix needs to be provided

·  This is a large development and needs to cater for all ages with appropriate facilities, a depth of vision is required

·  Ideally the electricity sub-station requires removal and turned into greenspace

·  Possible wind implications, was a concern

·  More details about site security and connectivity both to the City Centre and neighbouring communities were required


In offering comments on the officers’ questions in the report:


·  Members were not supportive of the proposed scale and form of development


·  Members considered the emerging approach to landscape and public realm was not acceptable; more greenspace was required


·  Members considered that more details were required in terms of the development’s emerging provisions for transportation and connectivity


·  Members were not supportive of the emerging approach to sustainable development, more detailed information was required


The Chair thanked the developers for their attendance and presentation suggesting that Members appeared to be generally supportive of the principle of the development, but there were a significant number of issues to address.




(i)    To note the details contained in the pre-application presentation


(ii)    That the developers be thanked for their attendance and   presentation


Supporting documents: