Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a Pre-Application Presentation for Relocation of Cottingley GP Surgery into a purpose-built medical facility (with ancillary services) at Cottingley Playing Fields, A6110 Ring Road, Beeston, LS11 (site 1) and Cottingley Vale, Cottingley Drive, Cottingley, LS11 (site 2)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a Pre-Application Presentation for relocation of Cottingley GP Surgery into a purpose-built medical facility (with ancillary services) at Cottingley Playing Fields, A6110 Ring Road, Beeston, LS11 (site 1) and Cottingley Vale, Cottingley Drive, Cottingley, LS11 (site 2)

The presentation informed Members of a major health / medical proposal for the area of Cottingley with feedback sought from the Panel as to two principal sites (2 of 6 put forward for initial consideration).

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:

·  2 sites have been put forward for consideration, to replace the existing GP surgery at Cottingley that is deemed no longer fit for purpose by Care Quality Commission (CQC). The new proposals will provide approximately 2400m2 enhanced / accessible local health care provision.

·  Further residents from the South Leeds  community are also expected tobenefit from the services. The centre will also provide an outpatient facility, community services, physio sessions, café, and potentially also a pharmacy (for site 1).

·  In relation to site no. 2 the pharmacy is hoped / expected to remain in the existing precinct opposite the application site.

·  The centre will also provide rooms for other bodies, stakeholders, and charities to provide financial and support services.

·  Site option 1 is located adjacent to the A6110 Ring Road, facing toward the Drysalters Public House and a Kia Car Showroom. The site / land is set slightly higher than the adjacent Ring Road from which access would be taken from. The Ring Road features a planned upgrading of the wider highway network to provide enhanced bus and cycle provision.

·  Site option 2 involves a segment of land set between the existing Cottingley Vale shopping precinct and a Sheltered Housing Complex. Ongoing discussions are required regarding parking demands and site layout issues.

·  There are different material considerations for both sites. Site 1 – issues in terms of the healthcare facility being accessible by foot and public transport and the link to existing shopping and highway considerations. Site 2 – issues in terms of possibly identifying additional parking.

·  Amenity considerations on both sites. Site 1 – issues around noise and part of the development being a multiuse games area may be better placed elsewhere due to the nearby crematorium. Site 2 – located near residential homes.

·  There are mature trees on both sites.

·  Flood risk associated with site 1.

·  Highways have commented on site 2 regarding parking demand and the need for detailed parking surveys. The developer will need to pay for traffic regulation orders if it is deemed additional parking is required, as well as alterations to existing bus stops.

·  Consultation with Yorkshire Water is expected in relation to development around the existing sewer network and in respect of flood risk management.

·  Site 2 includes existing trees and parking facilities and there is an opportunity to explore ways to regenerate the existing shopping precinct.

The applicant and architect were in attendance, and provided the following information:

·  In 2018 the CQC found several parts of the existing healthcare facility non-compliant and requires improvements as a matter of urgency. The practice is considered unsafe for the provision of healthcare.

·   The current site lacks facilities, there are no clean utility rooms and poor accessibility in terms of there being no disabled parking on-site. Therefore, residents in the area do not use this centre and travel further afield.

·  The proposed re-location strategy is to provide a one-stop medical facility to improve the range of services, whilst integrating aspects of the hospital, as well as support services.

·  A number of sites have been considered, and the 2 proposed before Panel Members are those deemed most acceptable by the Planning Officer.

·  An overview was provided in relation to both site 1 and site 2. It was noted that there will be an opportunity with site 2 to re-develop the shopping precinct, and possibly create a village square.

In response to questions from Members, the following was confirmed:

·  The structure on the existing site where the GP surgery currently is, cannot be extended due to the church above and the proximity to Cottingley Drive. The existing building is owned by a charity, and it is intended that the building will be used for peer support groups for the local community.

·  Site 1 was initially supported due to its visibility however there are reservations with greenspace loss.

·  Whilst it was acknowledged that there will be added benefits of re-developing the shopping precinct in relation to site 2, parking issues were also noted.

·  Commitment by the applicant to continue to make space available for existing businesses for rent.

A local ward Councillor (Scopes) addressed the Panel, and provided the following comments:

·  There is a need for GP access in Cottingley for the health and wellbeing of residents.

·  Cottingley acts like an island surrounded by transport infrastructure (rail, motorway and main roads) and with low car ownership, residents suffer from accessibility issues

·  The deprived nature of the area was acknowledged, and it was agreed that access to services such as debt advice options and support will be a good opportunity for the area.

·  The existing surgery does not meet standards, and many residents do not use the surgery.

·  The preference on locations, is site 2. It is in the middle of Cottingley and there is already an existing pharmacy. There is also an opportunity to re-develop the shopping precinct and the location will also benefit those in the nearby Dulverton Court Sheltered Accommodation.

·  Whilst it was recognised that there will be a loss of greenspace with site 2, the importance of having a GP surgery outweighs that loss.

·  Asked the committee to support the development and find pragmatic solutions in terms of parking.

In response to a question regarding the development of the existing site, the local ward Councillor explained he was in favour of additional greenspace in the area. There have been anti-social behaviour related issues with the shopping precinct relating to site 2 and improvements to this site are welcomed. It was believed that none of the residents have commented they wish for the existing surgery to be retained. There are opportunities to expand the centre and provide additional services.

Responding to questions from Members, officers informed the Panel with the following information:

·  The shopping precinct is not part of a designated centre. Subject to further considerations and moving on with site 2, policy officers will likely look to re-designate as a Local Centre in the Local Plan subject to delivery of this scheme. Officers are working with Commercial Asset Management to look at refurbishing and how units are showcased.

·  In relation to site 1, Highways colleagues have reservations due to there being no visibility on the junction and the junction will also interfere with the existing high frequency bus stop. Highways preferred option is site 2.

Members were broadly in favour of site 2 and agreed site 1 will not be considered an acceptable development.

Members relayed comments to the officers key issues set out in the submitted report in relation to site 2:

1.  Location / land use designation including the juxtaposition with adjoining land uses. Site 2 provides the best location in terms of accessibility and local amenities.

2.  Potential / suggested additional improvements offered namely as part of any development i) greenspace provisions (MUGA, outside gym and junior playing pitch) (to site 1) ii) built environment – i.e., neighbouring Sphinx shopping precinct (to site 2) members were keen to explore how the development can improve existing shopping facilities and form part of a combined development but also highlighted the importance that GP provision in the area should not be delayed.

3.  Highway safety / efficiency of design in relation to sustainable transport choices and emerging parking arrangements. It was noted that further considerations need to be taken in terms of parking, and the impact this has on the local community.

4.  Emerging landscaping arrangements to both existing and proposed settings. Members requested that ideally no trees are removed on site and broadly accepted the loss of greenspace on-site subject to additional parking that may be required.

Members accepted the need for healthcare provision in the local area and urged officers to undertake further discussions with local ward members, LCC Asset Management, Housing colleagues, residents, and the applicants in relation to site 2. Whilst Members were keen to see a scheme that improves the existing shopping centre, it was acknowledged that this may delay and impact on funding / delivery of site 2. It was noted that the applicant was not intending to become a landlord for the existing shopping units.

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 and to allow for further conversations.