Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for a restaurant with drive-thru (Use Class E and Sui Generis) including car park alterations, landscaping, and associated works at Land Adjacent Unit 1, Kirkstall Retail Park, Savins Mill Way, Kirkstall, Leeds, LS5 3RP.

Prior to the start of this item Cllr Rontree withdrew from the meeting. Minute 25 refers.

Members considered the report of the Chief Planning Officer which presented proposals for a restaurant with drive-thru use Class E and Sui Generis including car park alterations, landscaping, and associated works at land adjacent unit 1, Kirkstall Retail Park, Savins Mill Way, Kirkstall, Leeds, LS5 3RP.

The report recommended to the Panel that the application be deferred and delegated for approval to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the planning conditions specified within the submitted report.

Panel Members referenced above had attended a site visit prior to the meeting.

Slides and photographs of the site and proposals were presented by the Planning Officer who outlined the application and contents of representations received as detailed in the submitted report.

The Panel heard representations from Cllr Venner the Kirkstall Ward Councillor and a resident of Kirkstall in objection to the application. Following this they answered questions in relation to:

·  Traffic congestion.

·  Safety issues in relation to the entrance and exit to the site, and pedestrians using this site and the retail park.

·  Traffic accidents at the junction.

·  Air quality in the area.

The applicant’s agent made representation to the Panel and following the representation responded to questions in relation to:

·  Highways modelling untaken by the applicant, including predicted traffic volumes.

·  Parking capacity.

·  Operational Deliveries.

·  Deliveries for takeaway.

·  Safety impact assessments.

Questions and comments from Panel Members then followed, with officers responding to the questions raised, which in summary, included the following:

·  Highways data in relation:

o  to the current congestion at this junction,

o  the number of accidents at this junction. It was noted there that since 2021 there had been 30 collisions at this junction with 8 of those serious. The majority of accidents was due to driver error.

o  the use of the yellow box cameras

·  Poor air quality, which until recently had been a hot spot in the city.

·  Concerns in relation to cyclists accessing the drive through restaurant to pick up takeaway deliveries.

·  Concerns in relation to the blocking of the bus lane by customers, and delivery drivers.

·  Through flow of traffic round the retail centre.

·  Car park capacity for both the retail centre and the proposed restaurant.

·  Concerns for pedestrians accessing and exiting the retail centre and restaurant.

·  Suitable location for delivery vans. It was noted that deliveries to the restaurant would be 1 per day, occasionally 2. They would use the same controlled delivery hours of those retail stores already located at the retail park.

·  It was acknowledged that Kirkstall currently has some huge housing development underway. Members were advised that the predicted volumes of traffic would increase without this application for the restaurant. Currently there are 21,000 vehicles using the A65. Contributions from the applicant would be used to improve the traffic light system at the junction.

·  It was noted that as part of the modelling exercise undertaken by Highways, all safety aspects were considered.

·  Community safety aspect. It was recognised that with the proposed restaurant it would mean that the area would be better lit and there would be more people around, making it safer for pedestrians. However, it may also attract young people to congregate and there was the potential for anti-social behaviour. It was noted that the Police had not been asked for their comments on the proposal.

Members considered a number of options for their decision and were provided with advice and guidance from planning officers and the legal officer.

RESOLVED – That Panel be minded to refuse permission, based on concerns regarding traffic impact, and safety of pedestrians and cyclists in and around the site, and for the detailed reasons for refusal to be brought back to the Panel for further consideration.