Agenda item

PREAPP-22-00182 - Former Thyssen Krupp site, 177 Kirkstall Road, Leeds, LS4 2AQ

Pre-application presentation of proposed residential development of 130 units.



The report of the Chief Planning Officer introduced a pre-application for a proposed development of 130 units on the former Thyssen Krupp site, 177 Kirkstall Road, Leeds, LS24 2AQ.


Members visited the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion.


It was reported that  the scheme would provide 100% affordable housing.  There was an amendment to the report to clarify that there would be a 4 to 6 storey block and a 5 storey block of apartments.


The applicant addressed the Panel.  The following was highlighted:


·  The applicant was one of the largest affordable housing providers in the UK and owned the site.

·  Advice had been sought with regards to flood risk, drainage and remediation matters.

·  The site had been vacant since the flooding events in 2015.

·  There had previously been proposals for residential development at the site which had been supported in principle at Plans Panel.

·  There had been pre-application discussions with planning officers.

·  There would be engagement with neighbours and local businesses and full account of any comments would be considered before submitting a full application.

·  As part of the arrangements for accessing Government Funding, the scheme was required to be started by March 2023 with completion within two years.

·  Constraints included the location of the site within the flood zone.  Innovative designs would be used which included raising the levels of the dwellings.  There was also a surface water culvert across the site and development was not permitted on this but could be used for landscaping.

·  There would be a strong frontage to Kirkstall Road with landscaping and tree planting.

·  There would be 130 units on the site with 43 town houses and the remaining units as apartments.

·  The townhouses would be sheltered from Kirkstall Road to reduce the impact of noise and pollution and where feasible would have policy compliant enclosed garden spaces.

·  Pre-application feedback had led to increased garden sizes, increased landscaping and the proposed provision of 100% electric vehicle charging points.

·  All apartments would meet national space standards.

·  Properties would be developed above the flood level and there would be rooftop amenity space.

·  The design of the scheme would reflect the industrial heritage of the site.

·  Proposed materials included red brick with detailing, stone detailing and metal cladding.

·  CGI images of the proposed development were displayed.

In response to questions and comments from the Panel, the following was discussed:


·  The proposed use of materials was not decided at this stage and other options could be explored.

·  There was no reason why further articulation could not be added to the gateway entrance of the site.

·  There was a lot of public green space and amenity area.  Due to the arrangement for siting of houses it was difficult to meet policy for garden sizes but there were alternative amenity spaces.

·  All roads would be to an adoptable standard and there would be sufficient turning space for service vehicles.

·  Strategic work had been carried with Education and Public Health with regards to infrastructure during the site allocation process.  There would be further consultation with Children’s Services regarding school capacity when a full application was submitted.

·  As the scheme was proposed to be 100% affordable housing there would be an exemption from Community Infrastructure Levy.

·  The applicant was willing to consider further design features and materials and had been engaging with officers regarding design.

·  It was sought to close off access to Kirkstall Road and create an access from Viaduct Road.  There would be connectivity from other sides of the site and further access options would be explored.

·  Provision for play space/features would be considered.

·  The metal railings  to the western boundary of the site was not in the applicant’s ownership. However the developer will investigate the gap between the railings and hoarding boundary and the site red line for the formal planning submission will reflect the site ownership. 

·  Integral garages gave opportunity to give parking space whilst raising the level of the properties.  Use of landscaping could be explored to soften the appearance.

·  Concern regarding the location of bin stores.  Further consideration could be given to this with the introduction of landscaping and greenery.

·  It would be beneficial for the Panel to see samples of proposed materials.

·  The applicant would consider design features in the brickwork.

·  Challenges of development in the flood zone.

·  It had been advised that the raised levels for the development and drainage were appropriate for the flood zone.

·  Rooftop amenity spaces would be included on some of the townhouses.

·  A full transport assessment had not been done.  For the previous approval at the site there had not been an identified need for additional pedestrian crossings but this would be considered further during the transport assessment.

·  Use of planting to lessen the impact of surface water.

·  Use of green walls to screen bin stores.

·  There would be handrails where there were steps to properties.

·  The proposals met current street design guidance. Need to consider provision of street trees and how to control potential on street parking.

·  The green area to the rear of the eastern terrace row would be used as gardens.

·  Members were supportive of how the proposals reflected the industrial heritage of the site.

·  Play equipment and outdoor gym equipment would be welcomed.

·  Members were supportive of the provision of 100% affordable housing.

·  There was some concern with the appearance of potentially blank ground floor facades dominated by garages and bin stores.

·  The possibility of harvesting rainwater.

·  In response to questions outlined in the report, the following was discussed:

o  Members generally endorsed the approach to mitigating flood risk within the development but would like further detail.

o  Members supported the approach to housing mix,

o  Members supported the approach to private external amenity space.

o  Members supported the proposed scale and form of development.

o  Members considered that the emerging approach to landscape and public realm was acceptable but asked for further consideration with regard to comments made above.

o  Subject to addressing detailed Highway Services Comments Members supported the approach to car parking and 100% provision of electric vehicle charging points


RESOLVED – That the presentation and discussion be noted.



Supporting documents: