Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a pre-application presentation of proposed development comprising demolition of existing buildings; and erection of a multi-storey (up to 27 storeys) residential development with multi-purpose internal and external amenity spaces, associated car parking, public open space and landscaping at land at Evolution House, 34 - 36 Springwell Road, Holbeck, LS12 1AW (PREAPP/23/00376).

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a pre-application of proposed development comprising demolition of existing buildings; and erection of multi-storey (up to 27 storeys) residential development with multi-purpose internal and external amenity spaces, associated car parking, public open space, and landscaping at land at Evolution House, 34-36 Springwell Road, Holbeck, LS12 1AW.

The planning officer confirmed that she has been working closely with the applicant since November 2023, and a scheme has been developed broadly supported by officers. There are outstanding concerns regarding on-site greenspace deficiency and the level of parking is low. Additional details of delivery arrangements are yet to be confirmed and there is a strong view that affordable units can be provided on-site.

Photographs and slides were shown throughout the representatives’ presentation, and the following information was provided:

·  The company is an investment business that operates nationally with a build to rent focus. There is an appetite for this type of development.

·  The site is considered to be in a sustainable location, with a nearby train station and other public transport options.

·  The applicant has recent developments that are successful commercial schemes such as Springwell Gardens 1 and a pending consent for Springwell Gardens 2, which were brownfield sites that were underutilised and of older building stock.

·  A low-level street scene was referred to, in the context of the proposal in line with other tall buildings.

·  The proposals have been amended multiple times by reducing the massing of the building, increasing the amenity space, and adding a lighter weight linier element to the building.

·  There has been attempts to break up the two buildings by splitting the materials, with one of the buildings having a linier glass look.

·  An overview of the ‘crowning’ element that has included in the proposals.

·  Within the building there is proposed 11%3-bed units, 39%2-bed units, and 50%%1-bed units. This meets accessibility standards and space standards.

·  There will be a cycle storage and cycle maintenance area. Options are being looked at to include a cycle pool scheme.

·  To include a residents well-being space in the proposals, 1200sqm of accessible amenity space that can be used by the wider community and possibly offered as a space for community events. There is also an external roof terrace only for residents, offering 550sqm, including photo voltaic (PV) provision on the lower tower block.

·  Committed to 200ml reveal windows. Predominantly brickwork scheme and going for red brick solution to fit in with the ‘Leeds look’. Also, a lighter element to the linier block with lighter metallic cladding.

·  There are 387 apartments proposed overall.

In responding to questions from Panel Members, the following information was confirmed:

·  Samples of materials can be provided at the Panel meeting where the full application will be considered. Wind consultants have been involved in the process from the start, and they have also worked on the Springwell 1 and 2 projects.

·  The applicant has met with officers in the regeneration team to discuss off-site greenspace ideas. The applicant has already undertaken discussions with local ward members and efforts have been made to try and identify the ability to put as much greenspace as possible on-site.

·  It is considered that the applicant is a few years away from delivery and occupancy.

·  The applicant will undertake a transport assessment, but it is confirmed that the number of car parking spaces proposed is consistent with other developments locally. The applicant will look at nearby car clubs and cycle schemes, to reduce the need of a car. Nearby streets are yellow lined, and it is believed that residents are unlikely to park a considerable distance away.

·  Solar studies will be undertaken in relation to the need of wind mitigation measures. Innovative designs in terms of mitigation solutions will be looked at, with the possibility of incorporating play facilities for children.

·  There will be a space for adults, with a fitness and relaxation spaces as well as a hobby space. There will be potential covered play spaces and outdoor gym facilities.

·  In terms of the crowning approach, there is a top middle bottom approach in Leeds. Further discussions to be held with the Council’s design team.

Comments from Panel Members included:

·  To include a children’s ‘scooter track’ on the central circular area, and benches for parents..

·  A suggestion was made that any glazing to gym should be obscured to lower sections to prevent clear views in. It was confirmed this is something the applicant will take on board.

·  Members requested further detail on the ‘Halo’ design of the proposals and to understands impacts of the ‘Glint and Glare’ of the materials used.

·  Members suggested that the pool bike suggestion needed to link into the City Council ‘Beryl Bike’ scheme.

·  Members welcomed internal play space, but wanted details of this, and hoped it could be designed to spread outside as in the adjacent Springwell Garden development.

·  ‘Crowning’ of the tower block looked top heavy.

·  PV provision on the lower block looks tokenistic. Members suggested that this be traded for more open space, or whether PV can be incorporated into elevations of the building.

·  Members requested further detail on where off-site greenspace will be secured and requested that ward members be included in such discussions.

Members comments in relation to the officer questions in the submitted report were relayed as follows:

·  Do Members support the principle of the development? Yes, Members support the principle.

·  Do Members support the proposed scale and form of the development (subject to the outcome of wind testing at application stage)? Yes, subject to the wind mitigation measures. The architect commented that the current design minimised the need for wind baffles.

·  Do Members support the proposed approach to provision of Public Open space within the development? To reflect on the suggestions as per the comments above.

·  Do Members consider the approach to car parking acceptable? Parking suggested is considered inadequate despite the location edge of centre and dedicated spaces for disabled/older drivers and deliveries required. Members also wanted assurances that any overflow on street from the development would not displace parking for existing businesses.

RESOLVED – To note the contents of the report on the proposals and to provide views in relation to the questions posed in the submitted report and progression of the application.