Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for a proposed residential development and commercial space at Former Yorkshire Post site, Wellington Street, Leeds

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the construction of new buildings for residential (C3), purpose built student accommodation (Sui Generis) and commercial uses (Class E), landscaping, servicing, internal access road, car parking, modifications to highways access, site clearance and associated works.

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

Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  The proposals consisted of three tall buildings and associated public realm to create a residential development.

·  This was a key brownfield site and gateway location into the city.

·  Landscaping would include the provision of a micro forest on site and there would be the addition of two public art columns that would also act as wind mitigation features.

·  Provision of a riverside walkway and widening of the public square.

·  Building A would be for student accommodation would be 13 to 42 storey high.  CGI images were displayed along with internal layouts.  Materials would include metallic panels.

·  Building B would be for student accommodation and would be maibly of a terracotta brick finish with Portland stone.  The building would be from 13 to 32 storeys.  Floor layouts were displayed.

·  Building C would be build to rent apartments and would be 25 storeys.  There would be roof top terraces and a commercial unit at ground floor level.

·  Housing mix within Building C was 47% 1 Bedroom units with 45% 2 bedroom units.  This was consistent with other build to rent units.  Some of the 2 bedroom units could be converted to 3 bedroom units and a model was available to demonstrate how this could be achieved.

·  Samples of the building materials were available for Members to inspect.

·  Views of the site from other locations across the city.

·  Separation distances between the buildings.

·  Pedestrian access and connectivity through the site and to other sites.

·  Landscaping proposals and use of open space.  There would be an area dedicated to play.

·  The development would essentially be car free and there would be provision for cycle storage.

·  The existing clock tower would be demolished but it was proposed to retain the clock tower head and locate this on one of the two new columns that would be created.

In response to questions from the Panel, discussion included the following:

·  The wind impact assessment had been a key part of the design and layout.  Rigorous modelling had been carried out and there were various mitigation measures within the proposals.

·  There would be space for a medical facility within the development.  Health partners had been consulted but there had not been any request for space for medical provision.

·  The cycle space provision was lower than recommended but there was room for expansion if there was the demand.

·  There was no on-site parking and car use would not be encouraged.  There would be two lay-bys for deliveries and pick up and drop off points.  The applicant would be willing to include a clause to restrict student car ownership.

·  The applicant’s area of land ownership ended at the wall by the river.  The Environment Agency and other stakeholders would be consulted regarding any works that were necessary as part of the riverside path.

·  The Panel was informed that the clock tower was in a poor condition and due to wind mitigation would have to be demolished.  It was reported that the head of the clock tower could possibly be refurbished and repositioned on one of the new towers that would be constructed as part of the development.  This would be included in a condition to the application.  Members were also asked to consider restricting the use of any refurbished tower head for advertising.  The proposed location for the refurbished or replacement clock would still be in a prominent position on the site.

·  There would not be any significant overshadowing to other sites including City Island.  Separation distances between buildings would be greater than those expected in a city centre environment.

·  An off site contribution would be made for affordable housing.  This was in accordance with policy requirements.

·  Concern regarding noise from the ring road.  Noise levels would be acceptable internally and appropriate glazing would be used along with mechanical ventilation.  Landscaping and the buildings would provide noise mitigation for external areas.

·  Consultation had been undertaken with West Yorkshire Police regarding security at the site.  There would be conditions for CCTV and lighting.

·  There would be conditions regarding the provision of play equipment and the applicant was open to Member’s views regarding the kind of equipment to be installed including the provision for disabled children.

In response to comments from the Panel, discussion included the following:

·  It would be preferable to relocate the clock tower head to the taller structure which would be more prominent.  The favoured option would be to retain the clock tower head and restore to as close as its current appearance so as not to lose its authenticity.

·  There was a consensus that advertising on the clock tower head should not be a feature.

·  Concern that there was a lack of medical facilities for the ever increasing city centre population.

·  There would be further consideration of the need for 3 bedroom apartments through the development of the Local Plan.

·  Concern that some of the open space and greenspace would not be usable.

·  The need for sensory play and play equipment for disabled children.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the resolution of highways matters concerning vehicle tracking, the specified conditions set out in Appendix 2 (and any amendment to these and additions of others which he might consider appropriate) and the completion of a Section 106 agreement to include the following obligations:

·  Leeds City Council Travel Plan Review fee of £16,957

·  Provision of Leeds City Council Car Club provider parking spaces x2

·  Provision of a Residential Travel Plan Fund of £89.001

·  Offsite affordable housing commuted sum of £3,193,985 (This sum will be subject to independent valuer verification)

·  Offsite Greenspace contribution commuted sum (£184,934.73)

·  Contribution towards West Street highway Improvement Scheme (£262,721)

·  Wayfinding Contribution (£12,000)

·  Provision for TRO amendments

·  Maintenance of the internal road

·  Control of student occupancy and retention of public accessibility through the site

·  Section 106 management fee

In the circumstances 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.

(Although it was intended that the entire meeting would be live streamed on YouTube the live stream stopped while this application was being presented to panel and could not be restored. Following legal advice that the meeting could go ahead in accordance with the Council’s constitution, the meeting continued.)