Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a hybrid planning application for Full planning permission

for construction of 15 storey residential building providing 451 dwellings (Use Class C3) and ground floor commercial space (Use Classes E (a, b, c, d, e and f) and Sui Generis (drinking establishment)), 8 storey office building (Use Class E(g), pavilion building (Use Class E (b, c and d), partial demolition and extension to existing public house, landscaping, access road and other associated works; Outline application for mixed use development comprising a maximum of 900 dwellings (Use Class C3), a maximum of 7,000sqm of office space (Use Class E (g) and a maximum of 200sqm of commercial floorspace (Use Classes E (a, b, d, e and f) and Sui Generis (drinking establishment)) at Sweet Street West, Holbeck

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a hybrid application which included full planning application for construction of a 15 storey residential building providing 451 dwellings (use Class C3) and ground floor commercial space (Use Classes E (a,b,c,d,e and f) and Sui Generis (drinking establishment)) 8 storey office building (Use Class E (g), pavilion building (Use Class E (b, c and d), partial demolition and extension to existing public house, landscaping, access road and other associated works and outline application for mixed use development comprising a maximum of 900 dwellings (Use Class C3), a maximum of 7,000 sqm of office space (Use Class E (g) and a maximum of 200 sqm of commercial floorspace (Use Classes E (a,b,d,e and f) and Sui Generis (drinking establishment)).

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

The following was highlighted in relation to the applications:

·  There had been a permission granted for the site in 2007 for a high density residential, office and business scheme.  This had now lapsed.

·  The site was allocated in the site allocation plan and was flagged as a key generation site.

·  The former library building was just outside the building and was now used as an office.  The current occupier of the building had made objections regarding drainage and the impact of the proposed office building.

·  It was proposed that there would be 1,351 dwellings, 20,000 sqm of office space and associated communal and commercial space.

·  Pre-application proposals had been submitted in 2021.

·  The RESI 1 building would contain 451 dwellings and would range in height from 6 storey to 15 storey. Detailed façade treatments were displayed.

·  The Commercial Public House would be refurbished with modest side and rear extensions.

·  The pavilion building would house a cafe, gymnasium and workspace for local residents.

·  The Office 1 building would be up to 8 storeys with  basement car parking.  The relationship with the former library building was shown.

·  Landscaping – there would be a substantial buffer alongside the railway and tree lined boulevard along Sweet Street West.  There would be 213 new trees planted to replace the 71 lost at the standard ratio of 3:1.

·  Wind mitigation features.

·  Public open space would be 25% of the site area and the applicant was willing to pay a commuted sum towards any shortfall of the requirement.

·  There would be a public square to the rear of the public house and pavilion buildings.

·  There were proposed to be green roof spaces for the use of building occupiers.

·  All highways matters had been resolved.  There would be interim access measures during the first phase of the development.

·  The scheme had been to City Plans Panel twice before and was felt to be compliant and recommended for approval.

·  There were some outstanding issues as the scheme could not deliver all policy requirements and remain viable.

·  There were significant highways improvements which included £896k to remodelling and enhancement of Bath Road, £368k to the City Centre Transport Package and £70k for a crossing over NInevah Road.

·  The District Valuer had concluded that the full Section 106 package could not be delivered due to viability.  The following two options were presented with Option 2 being the recommended option:

o  Option 1 – if all other planning benefits are delivered, affordable housing would reduce to 3.5% (44 units)

o  Option 2 – if the Residential Travel Plan Fund is reduced to £100,000 and the Green Space and BNG reduced to zero, affordable housing would be 5.5% (70 units), plus the applicant has offered a further 1% giving a possible affordable housing total of 6.5% (82 units)

·  Affordable housing would be delivered at the 80% rate of local private sector rents.

·  The scheme offered significant investment into the city centre, re-use of a long disused site and considerable offsite and onsite open space improvements.  There had been a robust viability appraisal carried out and the proposals were recommended for approval.

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

·  A representative of the District Valuer informed the Panel of the process used when producing the viability assessment including issues surrounding construction costs and discussions with the developer regarding the development of the scheme.  These had informed the options that had been presented to the Panel.

·  There were no specific schemes for offsite greenspace or biodiversity net gain should the option that included commuted sums be taken.

·  Ward Members had not commented on the application or been consulted on the options.

·  Members were advised that if they chose to support the application that the options relating to viability could be deferred to Ward Members.  It was requested that if this was the case and Option was preferred then the Panel be informed of how the contributions would be spent.

·  Policy allowed the developer flexibility of how they wished to provide affordable housing and they had opted for the build to rent model at discount market rent.  Properties would be let to people on local housing lists.  The applicant’s representative explained the reason for their proposals for affordable housing fitting in with the model of development and that other kinds of affordable housing would not be suitable for this scheme.

Members were asked to comment on the proposals.  Discussion included the following:

·  The site would accrue a significant profit for the developer and could become viable in the longer term particularly with the rise in rental values.

·  The design was blocky.

·  Greenspace was minimal and much of it was not usable space.

·  There was a lot of development on the area and there needed to be more greenspace on site.

·  The need for the street network to be pedestrian friendly.

·  In response to comments, it was reported that the greenspace calculation did not include the area adjacent to the railway and there would be improved cycling and pedestrian routes.

·  The nearest greenspace was at Holbeck Moor and there needed to be more on site.

·  The proposed crossing could be in a better location.

·  There had been significant improvements since the pre-application stage.

·  Concern that Ward Members had not had an input or commented on the design.

It was proposed that the officer recommendation be moved with the viability options as reported to be determined by Ward Members.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the specified conditions set out in Appendix 1 (and any amendment to or addition of others which he might consider appropriate) and the completion of a Section 106 agreement to be determined following consultation with Ward Members on the options for planning obligation spend in terms of affordable housing.

In the circumstances where the Section 106 has not been completed within 3 months of the Panel resolution to grant planning permission, the final determination of the applications shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer.