Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a development comprising 58 apartments for affordable rent, including communal and ancillary spaces on land at Railway Street, Saxton Gardens, Leeds, LS9.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out a Position Statement to Panel Members regarding a development comprising 58 apartments for affordable rent, including communal and ancillary spaces on land at Railway Street, Saxton Gardens, Leeds, LS9.

The proposed development includes a five-storey apartment building, parking area, amenity space and landscaping. The building would contain 58 apartments with a split of 28 x 1-bed, 25 x 2-bed and 5 x 3-bed. It was confirmed the scheme is 100% affordable housing with all apartments set at social rent.

Members had attended a site visit and were shown slides and photographs throughout the officer presentation.

The Planning Officer presented the application, providing the following information:

·  The site lies to the South of Railway Street, on the site former Yorkshire Riders Sport and Social Club and to the west of the site is an Energy Centre. The railway viaduct lies to the north and the Saxton Gardens estate to the south.

·  The area is expected to see significant growth with several recent planning approvals for large high-rise developments including two apartment buildings ranging from 6 to 22 storeys, one residential development ranging from 15 to 20 storeys and five residential buildings ranging from 12 to 22 storeys.

·  Members were provided with an overview of the layout of the site and shown photographs of the elevations of the proposals.

·  It was confirmed that the proposed housing mix overprovides on flats and underprovides on 3 bed dwellings. Although it was noted that the scheme provides 100% affordable housing.

·  There are also issues in terms of designated green space and the area proposed falling below minimum standards of the Core Strategy. Whilst there is a loss of greenspace, the application proposes improvements to the remaining area of green space and a commuted sum of 11k to be spent on local green space improvements in consultation with residents and ward members.

·  The private amenity provision is below the recommended quantity set out in the Neighbourhoods for Living Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The current proposal only achieves 14.2% representing a shortfall of 385m2.

·  Highways have submitted an objection requesting that further pedestrian safety measures are implemented.

·  General concerns remain outstanding regarding traffic.

Mr Jackson and Ms Chambers attended the meeting and were available for questions from Panel Members. In responding to questions, the following was confirmed:

·  There are mitigation issues with the height of the building should this exceed 16.5m. it was also mentioned that there are safety issues regarding balconies on higher storeys due to air pollution. Officers to investigate this further. Members raised concern regarding the quality of life for residents in terms of amenity space and suggested there is an opportunity with the proposal being revised to include additional storeys.

·  In response to a comment regarding the implementation of a roof terrace, it was noted there are issues surrounding the requirements to meet in terms of mitigating carbon emissions.

·  A Member suggested that ground floor flats with private gardens be predominantly 3-bed flats to accommodate families on a longer-term basis. In response, it was suggested that there are structural issues and will add additional costs to the scheme.

·  Members referred to the site visit and acknowledged there was a lot of traffic near the scheme and queried safety measures for pedestrians. The Panel discussed further options in terms of this such as a crossing and extending the footway.

·  A member suggested implementing green walls, and in response, it was confirmed that the maintenance is problematic. The proposal includes an addition of trees across the site.

·  Members questioned the potential right to acquire these properties, in response it was suggested that the discount would not likely be great so it was un-likely that they would be attractive to acquire. Officers to consider this further.

For clarity, officers confirmed that a condition relating to the extension of the footway will be difficult to incorporate if the applicant has been unwilling previously. It was suggested that members make a recommendation to instruct officers to negotiate extending the footway with the applicant and to explore the cost and provision of the footpath.

Comments from Panel Members included:

·  A member believed that due to Leeds City Council having ownership rights over the land the proposal sits on, it is up to the council to ensure the viability of the site. There is a missed opportunity if the housing mix isn’t correct in this location and the loss of greenspace and amenity for residents.

·  There is a requirement for additional 3-bed flats in this location.

·  Members were keen to push for the extension of the footway along the south side of Railway Street.

The following points were summarised in relation to the officers’ questions in the report:

Question 1: Do Members wish to comment on the proposed housing mix proposed by the applicant in light of the requirements of Core Strategy Policy H4? Are there any observations Members would wish to make in respect of the housing mix proposed?Members suggested that the ground floor can be utilised by 3-bed flats and the proposal should include additional 3-bed flats.

Question 2: Do Members consider the wider planning benefits and proposed green space improvements justify the loss of existing greenspace and, in doing so, satisfy Core Strategy Policy G6? Do Members have any further comments on the proposed greenspace improvements? Members accepted the loss of greenspace but suggested the applicant can be more creative in terms of resident’s amenity and density of the building. It was also mentioned that additional outdoor space with creative thinking can be provided.

Question3: Do Members consider the proposed level of private amenity space acceptable? Members highlighted the importance of providing enough amenity space for residents and suggested that additional efforts are to be made to look at the design and provide as much space as possible.

Question 4: Do Members consider further connections / linkages are required and, if so, should this be achieved by extending the foot path along the south side of Railway Street? Members stressed the importance that a footpath is required and will be a fundamental part of the scheme and urged officers to discuss further with the applicant.

RESOLVED - To note the content of the report on the proposal and to provide views in relation to the questions posed in the submitted report to aid the progression of the application.