Public Document Pack

CITY PLANS PANEL

Meeting to be held in Civic Hall, Leeds on Thursday, 27th October, 2016 at 1.30 pm

MEMBERSHIP

Councillors

P Gruen C Campbell R Procter T Leadley D Blackburn N Walshaw G Latty J McKenna (Chair) A Khan A Garthwaite J Heselwood B Selby C Macniven

Agenda compiled by: John Grieve Governance Services Civic Hall Tel: 0113 224 3836

Produced on Recycled Paper A G E N D A

Item Ward Item Not Page No Open No

SITE VISIT LETTER

1 APPEALS AGAINST REFUSAL OF INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS

To consider any appeals in accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2 of the Access to Information Rules (in the event of an Appeal the press and public will be excluded)

(*In accordance with Procedure Rule 15.2, written notice of an appeal must be received by the Head of Governance Services at least 24 hours before the meeting) Item Ward Item Not Page No Open No

2 EXEMPT INFORMATION - POSSIBLE EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

1 To highlight reports or appendices which officers have identified as containing exempt information, and where officers consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, for the reasons outlined in the report.

2 To consider whether or not to accept the officers recommendation in respect of the above information.

3 If so, to formally pass the following resolution:-

RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following parts of the agenda designated as containing exempt information on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information, as follows:-

3 LATE ITEMS

To identify items which have been admitted to the agenda by the Chair for consideration

(The special circumstances shall be specified in the minutes)

4 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS

To disclose or draw attention to any disclosable pecuniary interests for the purposes of Section 31 of the Localism Act 2011 and paragraphs 13 -16 of the Members’ Code of Conduct. Item Ward Item Not Page No Open No

5 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

6 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING 3 - 10

To consider and approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 6th October 2016.

(Copy attached)

7 Garforth and APPLICATION NO. 16/02757/OT - OUTLINE 11 - Swillington APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION OF A 36 MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA INCLUDING MEANS OF ACCESS AND: FACILITIES BUILDING WITH VIEWING PLATFORM, UP TO 100 BEDROOM HOTEL, SKELTON LAKE VISITOR CENTRE, FUEL FILLING STATION, VEHICLE CIRCULATION AND PARKING AREAS, LANDSCAPING AND AMENITY SPACES, PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE LINKS, PUMPING STATION, RETAINING STRUCTURES AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION, INFRASTRUCTURE AND EARTHWORKS AT LAND OFF JUNCTION 45, M1 MOTORWAY.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out detail of an outline application for the erection of a Motorway Service Area including means of access and: facilities building with viewing platform, up to 100 bedroom Hotel, Skelton Lake Visitor Centre, fuel filling station, vehicle circulation and parking areas, landscaping and amenity spaces, pedestrian and cycle links, pumping station, retaining structures and associated mitigation, infrastructure and earthworks at land off Junction 45, M1 Motorway.

(Report attached)

8 City and PREAPP/16/00532 - PROPOSAL FOR THE 37 - Hunslet REPAIR AND RESTORATION OF THE FIRST 46 WHITE CLOTH HALL, KIRKGATE, LEEDS.

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of a pre-application proposal for the repair and restoration of the First White Cloth Hall, Kirkgate, Leeds.

(Report attached) Item Ward Item Not Page No Open No

9 City and PREAPP/16/00421 - PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL 47 - Hunslet DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 64 APPROXIMATELY 567 APARTMENTS, THE REPAIR AND REFURBISHMENT OF THE GRADE II LISTED VIADUCT TO CREATE A NEW ELEVATED PUBLIC PARK AND A MIX OF COMMERCIAL UNITS WITHIN THE VIADUCT ARCHES ON LAND AT MONKBRIDGE, WHITEHALL ROAD, LEEDS, LS12 1BE

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of a pre-application proposal for residential development comprising approximately 567 apartments, the repair and refurbishment of the grade II listed viaduct to create a new elevated public park and a mix of commercial units within the viaduct arches on Land at Monkbridge, Whitehall Road, Leeds, LS12 1BE

(Report attached)

10 City and PREAPP/16/00428 - PROPOSAL FOR THE 65 - Hunslet REDEVELOPMENT OF HUME HOUSE, WADE 78 LANE, MERRION WAY AND TOWER HOUSE STREET, LEEDS TO FORM A 40 STOREY STUDENT ACCOMMODATION BUILDING

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of a pre-application proposal for the redevelopment of Hume House, Wade Lane, Merrion Way and Tower House Street, Leeds to form a 40 storey student accommodation building

(Report attached)

11 City and PREAPP/16/00385 - PROPOSED NEW CENTRE 79 - Hunslet FOR CREATIVE ARTS FOR LEEDS BECKETT 88 UNIVERSITY, PORTLAND WAY AND CALVERLEY STREET, LEEDS

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of a pre-application proposal for a new Centre for Creative Arts for Leeds Beckett University, Portland Way and Calverley Street, Leeds.

(Report attached) Item Ward Item Not Page No Open No

12 DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING

To note that the next meeting will take place on Thursday 17th November 2016 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds.

Third Party Recording

Recording of this meeting is allowed to enable those not present to see or hear the proceedings either as they take place (or later) and to enable the reporting of those proceedings. A copy of the recording protocol is available from the contacts named on the front of this agenda.

Use of Recordings by Third Parties– code of practice

a) Any published recording should be accompanied by a statement of when and where the recording was made, the context of the discussion that took place, and a clear identification of the main speakers and their role or title. b) Those making recordings must not edit the recording in a way that could lead to misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the proceedings or comments made by attendees. In particular there should be no internal editing of published extracts; recordings may start at any point and end at any point but the material between those points must be complete. Planning Services The Leonardo Building To all Members of City Plans Panel 2 Rossington Street Leeds LS2 8HD

Contact: Daljit Singh Tel: 0113 3787971 [email protected]

Our ref: City Site Visits Date: 14.10.2016 Dear Councillor

SITE VISITS – CITY PLANS PANEL – THURSDAY 27th October 2016

Prior to the meeting of City Plans Panel on Thursday 27th October 2016 the following site visits will take place:

Time Ward Site 09.30- City & Hunslet Residential development for up to 580 flats and associated 10.10am public space and commercial uses at Whitehall Road Leeds 12. PREAPP/16/00421 10.20- City & Hunslet Restoration of First White Cloth Hall, Kirkgate, Leeds 2. 11.00am PREAPP/16/00532 11.10- City & Hunslet Proposed Student Accommodation, Tower House Street, 11.30am Leeds 2. PREAPP/16/00428 11.40- City & Hunslet Proposed creative arts building at Portland Way Leeds 2. 12pm PREAPP/16/00385

For those Members requiring transport, a minibus will leave the Civic Hall at 9.20 am prompt. Please notify Daljit Singh (Tel: 3787971) if you wish to take advantage of this and meet in the Ante Chamber at 9.15 am at the latest.

Yours sincerely

Daljit Singh Central Area Team Leader

www.leeds.gov.uk general enquiries 0113 222 4444 ®

Page 1 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6

CITY PLANS PANEL

THURSDAY, 6TH OCTOBER, 2016

PRESENT: Councillor J McKenna in the Chair

Councillors P Gruen, R Procter, D Blackburn, G Latty, T Leadley, N Walshaw, C Campbell, A Khan, A Garthwaite, J Heselwood, B Selby and C Macniven

A Members site visit was held in the morning in connection with the following proposals:

Planning Application No. 16/02582/FU Construction of new stands at Headingley Carnegie Stadium, Planning Application No. 16/02583/OT Residential Development on land north of Weetwood Avenue, Applications No. 16/02584/OT Residential Development on land south of Thorpe Lane, Planning Application No.PREAPP/16/00453 Mixed use development and City Park at former Tetley Brewery site, Planning Application No.16/02420/FU Residential Development at Clarence Road and Planning Application No.PREAPP/16/00093 Purpose built Student Accommodation at St Albans Place and was attended by the following Councillors: N Washaw, J McKenna, A Garthwaite, C Macniven, C Campbell, G latty, T Leadley and D Blackburn.

58 Chair's Opening Remarks

The Chair Welcomed to the meeting students from Leeds Beckett University who were studying for degrees in Planning and Journalism

The Chair also introduced and welcomed Nicole Walker the newly appointed Head of Services (Legal & Democratic Services)

59 Appeals Against Refusal of Inspection of Documents

There were no appeals against the refusal of inspection of documents.

60 Exempt Information - Possible Exclusion of Press and Public

There were no resolutions to exclude the public.

61 Late Items

There were no late items of business

62 Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests

There were no declarations of interest.

Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on Thursday, 27th October, 2016

Page 3 63 Apologies for Absence

There were no apologies for absence

64 Minutes of the Previous Meeting

With reference to Minute No.52 Councillor Leadley requested an additional comment be added requiring the tidying up of the rear of the buildings fronting Woodhouse Lane.

RESOLVED – That, with the inclusion of the above, the minutes of the meeting held on the 8th September 2016 be approved as a correct record.

65 Planning Application No. 16/02420/FU - Multi-level Development Comprising 204 Dwellings and Two Commercial Units, car Parking, Landscaping and Public Realm at Clarence Road, Hunslet, Leeds, LS10 1ND

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application for a multi-level development comprising 204 dwellings and two commercial units, car parking, landscaping and public realm at Clarence Road Hunslet, Leeds, LS10 1ND.

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

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

 Principle of use  Urban design  Greenspace and Public realm  Residential quality and sustainability  Highways and transportation  Flood risk  Wind  Jobs and skills training  Section 106 obligations and CIL

The Chief Planning Officer and the applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

 The proposal was for 204 dwellings, arranged in 12 blocks made up of a mixture of flats and houses  Built to high sustainability passivhaus principles (Climate innovation system)  Dwelling types, some stacked town houses  Elevation treatments  Proposals for public open space  Off- site improvement works

Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on Thursday, 27th October, 2016

Page 4  Wind assessment (The inclusion of a condition requiring a quantitative wind impact assessment prior to development taking place)  Flood Assessment  New access to river and towpath

In response to Members comments and questions the following were discussed:

 Noted that passivhaus principles had significant insulations properties  The access road was not adopted but should be properly maintained  Noted the development was to be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment  Use of quality materials, the use of timber mainly on lower levels for ease of maintenance was welcomed  A suggestion that the design of the dormers may require more finesse  The industrial aspect of the development was good design feature  Members welcome the opportunity for local employment  A suggestion that the planting scheme should be a simple design for ease of maintenance.  Noted the likely completion period of 3 years

In drawing the discussion to a conclusion the Chair said Members appeared to be generally impressed with the proposal. He said Members welcomed the introduction of passivhauses to the city, there were some impressive design features with the use of quality materials.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions specified in appendix 1 of the submitted report with the inclusion of an additional condition requiring a quantitative wind impact assessment prior to development taking place (and any others which he might consider appropriate) and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to include the following obligations:

 5% on-site affordable housing in accordance with policy for the area (10 units of a pro-rata mix, split 60:40 lower decile; lower quartile income)  On-site public realm accessibility  Travel Plan measures (Sustainable travel fund – car club trial provision) £16,500  Travel Plan monitoring fee £3010  Co-operation with local jobs and skills initiatives  Management fee £750  Future maintenance of the Internal Access Road

In the event of the Section 106 Agreement not being completed within 1 month of the resolution to grant planning permission, the final determination of the application be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer

Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on Thursday, 27th October, 2016

Page 5 66 PREAPP/16/00453 - Proposal for Mixed Use Development, Consisting of Residential, Office, Hotel, Retail, Institutional Ancillary Uses and Park At Former Tetley Brewery Site, Hunslet Road, Leeds, LS10 1JQ

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of a Pre- Application presentation for a proposed mixed use development consisting of residential, office, hotel, retail, institutional, ancillary uses and Park to former Tetley Brewery site, Hunslet Road, Leeds, LS10 1JQ

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

The applicant’s representative addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

 The location of the proposed development site was the former Tetley Brewery site at Hunslet Road, Leeds 10  The scale of the city park could cover an area of 3.5ha in conjunction with the redevelopment of adjoining land and the applicant’s first phase of development proposes 2.36ha  The creation of 1000 dwellings (1-3 beds)  Hotel development (400 rooms)  B1 office use (85,000sqm)  Active uses: retail, Cultural, Educational, Leisure and Health (15,000sqm)  Improve connectivity by linking communities to the south with the South Bank and the City Centre, linking future HS2 to Leeds Dock, and linking the city centre to the South Bank and the Aire Valley  Majority of car parking to be located within basement and undercroft parking areas

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

 The proposed development site was an important location and high design standards and aspirations were required including towards sustainable construction  Important site for connectivity to other parts of the city  Proposed development needs to be in context with adjoining areas  Further details around pedestrian access required  The creation of a City Centre Park was welcomed but needs to incorporate the highest quality of design which functions as an exciting multi-purpose space  Possible water feature within the Park  Further details around car parking required

In drawing the discussion to a conclusion Members provided the following feedback;

Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on Thursday, 27th October, 2016

Page 6  Members considered the principal of the proposal for a mixed – use residential, office and hotel scheme with ground floor retail, cultural and leisure uses, strong pedestrian routes and a new park was appropriate.  Members were satisfied with the approach to flexible residential accommodation.  The emerging scale and layout of the development, including the approach to the City Centre Park was generally acceptable  Further understanding of the detailed car parking and access arrangements was required

RESOLVED –

(i) To note the details contained in the pre-application presentation

(ii) That the developers be thanked for their attendance and presentation.

67 PREAPP/16/00093 - Proposed New Student Accommodation Building on Land Between St Alban's Place and Belgrave Street, Leeds

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of a Pre- Application presentation for a proposed new student accommodation building on land between St Alban’s Place and Belgrave Street, Leeds 1.

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

The Chief Planning Officer clarified that reference in the report to an objection from Councillor Nash related to an earlier design iteration. Since that time the applicant had appointed a new architectural practice and altered the proposed design.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

 The student accommodation would comprise of 376 studios  The building would have a stepped profile, southern element 7 storeys, central element 18 storey and the northern element being 11storeys  A communal area for students would be located in the “hub” comprising half of the ground floor and half of the first floor totalling approximately 820sqm  Two storeys would consist of retail or A3/A4 units.  The appearance of the building would involve a highly textured intricate facade comprising glazed ceramic tiles

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

Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on Thursday, 27th October, 2016

Page 7  The design and scale of the building and relationship to the public open space  Some Members considered more work was necessary on the architectural articulation and the external finish  Impressed with communal space and the hub was a good concept  The size of the proposed flats and quality of internal amenities  No concerns raised about parking provision

In drawing the discussion to a conclusion Members provided the following feedback;

 Members considered that the proposed development was acceptable in principle.  The majority of Members considered the living conditions within the student accommodation would be acceptable for future occupiers  Members were of the view that the scale and massing was acceptable  There were mixed views on the emerging appearance of the proposed building, with some Members seeking more work on the external finish  The proposal that there would be no car parking provision for the proposed development was considered to be acceptable

RESOLVED –

(i) To note the details contained in the pre-application presentation

(ii) That the developers be thanked for their attendance and presentation.

68 Position Statement - Application Nos: 16/02582/FU, 16/02583/OT and 16/02584/OT

The Chief Planning Officer reported that following discussions with the applicant, the proposed Position Statements in respect of the above applications would not be heard today. He said it was an unfortunate situation but at this stage, no further details were forthcoming from the applicant.

In addressing Members of the public who’d attended to hear these particular applications, the Chair said it was regrettable but no discussion would be taking place today on these applications.

On behalf of the Panel, the Chair expressed extreme disappointment in the late notification by the applicant and apologised for the inconvenience caused to local residents

RESOLVED – That consideration of the above applications be deferred to a later date.

69 Date and Time of Next Meeting

Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on Thursday, 27th October, 2016

Page 8 RESOLVED – To note that the next meeting will take place on Thursday 27th October 2026 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds.

Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on Thursday, 27th October, 2016

Page 9 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7

Originator: James Bacon Tel: 0113 222 4409

Report of the Chief Planning Officer

CITY PLANS PANEL

Date: 27th October 2016

Subject: APPLICATION 16/02757/OT- Outline Application for the erection of a Motorway Service Area including means of access and: Facilities Building with viewing platform, up to 100 bedroom Hotel, Skelton Lake Visitor Centre, Fuel Filling Station, vehicle circulation and parking areas, landscaping and amenity spaces, pedestrian and cycle links, pumping station, retaining structures and associated mitigation, infrastructure and earthworks at land off Junction 45, M1 Motorway.

APPLICANT DATE VALID TARGET DATE Extra MSA Group 3rd May 2016 23rd August 2016

Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:

Garforth and Swillington Equality and Diversity

Community Cohesion

Burmantofts Ward a ndMembers Richmond consulted Hill Narrowing the Gap Yes (referred to in report)

RECOMMENDATION:

DEFER AND DELEGATE approval to the Chief Planning Officer subject to referral of the application to the Secretary of State as a Departure from the Statutory Development Plan and should the Secretary of State decide not to call in the application for determination and the completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure the following:

• Travel Plan and monitoring fee (£3,540) • Local Employment and Training Initiatives • Traffic Regulation Order (£25,000) • Bus stop (pole) contribution (£500)

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 application shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer. Page 11 1. Standard time limit on outline permission 2. Reserved matters to be agreed (appearance, landscaping, layout, scale) 3. In accordance with approved plans 4. Details of external walling and roofing materials 5. Details of design of green roof to be submitted 6. Details of boundary treatments 7. Restriction on gross development floorspace (incl. 929sqm retail floorspace) 8. Submission of a Construction Practice/ Traffic Management Plan to be submitted 9. Means of vehicular access in accordance with approved plan 10. Details of the highway works to Junction 45 of the M1 to be submitted 11. Submission of cycle/ motorcycle facilities 12. All areas used by vehicles to be laid out 13. Submission of a car park and servicing management plan 14. Details of electric charging points to be submitted 15. No vehicular/ pedestrian access from Knowsthorpe Lane 16. Reserved Matters (layout) to detail hotel development outside 1 in 100 flood extent 17. Development carried out in accordance with Flood Risk Assessment and the mitigation measures (i) provision of compensatory storage; (ii) finished floor levels 18. Details of surface water drainage to be submitted 19. Details of the finished floor levels of the building to be submitted 20. Details of landscaping works and implementation 21. Submission of a landscape management plan 22. Protection of identified existing trees/ hedges/ bushes during construction 23. Preservation of retained trees/ hedges/ bushes 24. Incorporation of sustainable construction methods/ targets and investigation into use of district heating 25. Submission of a statement of construction practice (incl. prevent mud on road, control of emissions/dust etc) 26. Submission of a scheme to control noise from plant/ machinery 27. Submission of a delivery management plan (delivery arrangements, procedures, noise mitigation measures) 28. Provision of grease trap (to food preparation/ kitchen area(s)) 29. Details of noise mitigation measures (acoustic ventilation) for hotel rooms 30. Details of external lighting to be submitted 31. Submission of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (incl. protective fencing and bird nest boxes etc) 32. Submission of a Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan 33. Submission of a Lighting Design Strategy for bats 34. Submission of Green Roof Ecological Design Statement 35. Submission of a method statement for the control of Giant Hogweed and Himalayan Balsam 36. Submission of the provision of and management arrangements for the Visitor Centre 37. Submission of site investigation report in respect of coal mining 38. Submission of contaminated land reports 39. Submission of amended remediation statement 40. Submission of a verification report 41. Imported soils to be tested

Full wording of the conditions to be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer, including any revisions and additional conditions as may be required.

Page 12

1.0 INTRODUCTION: 1.1 This planning application is brought to the Plans Panel as the proposed development is a major application and represents a departure from the adopted development plan. This application proposal was previously presented to Members as a position statement on 8th September 2016 and prior to this as a pre-application presentation on 17th December 2015.

1.2 The development proposal is considered to be an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development and as such, in accordance with the relevant regulations is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES). The ES provides an overview of the environmental impact of the proposals with a summary of mitigation measures proposed and contains a methodology for assessing the significance of the environmental effects and the cumulative impact. A series of technical papers consider the range of environmental factors.

2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 This outline planning application proposes the redevelopment of 15.52ha of land to the south of Junction 45 of the M1 Motorway to provide a Motorway Services Area (MSA). The applicant (Extra MSA Group) operates other such facilities across the country and this proposal would represent a ‘new concept’ following on from Extra’s Beaconsfield and Cobham sites. 2.2 The application is submitted in outline with all matters, except for access, reserved for later assessment. The detailed appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the scheme will form subsequent reserved matters for later approval. 2.3 The proposed MSA will include: • Facilities building (5,277sqm) that will provide a range of food and retail outlets, food court, ancillary amenity areas (incl. toilets, washing and shower facilities) as well as ancillary staff areas (incl. kitchen, storage, refuse and office space). • Business centre comprising a business lounge with a range of meeting rooms (totalling 400sqm) at first floor level. • Community use space e.g. visitor/ education centre relating to Skelton Lake and inclusion of a second floor viewing platform (contained within roof). • 100 bedroom hotel with supporting ancillary uses. • Fuel filling station comprising car and HGV pumps and an associated forecourt shop (approx. 450sqm). • Associated parking facilities will comprise: 550 car parking spaces (incl. 25 disabled spaces); 50 HGV spaces, 1 abnormal load HGV space, 12 coach, caravan (incl. 2 disabled spaces) and 12 motorcycle spaces. • Electric vehicle charging points. 2.4 The means of access to the site is to be taken from the existing Junction 45 of the M1 motorway via a new direct signal controlled access. A carriageway will extend from junction 45 towards an internal site access roundabout, providing two lanes of access and egress. This internal access roundabout is also designed to accommodate the access requirements to the proposed residential development to the east (Ref: 15/07655/OT). The proposal indicates the provision of segregated footways and cycleways and crossing facilities. Knowsthorpe Lane and Pontefract Lane will be diverted from their current alignments to tie into the proposed site access corridor. The proposal enables the possible future routing of a bus service between Knowsthorpe Lane (to west of the M1) and the adjacent residential development via

Page 13 the site. Associated bus stops and a bus layby are to be provided on the outbound carriageway of the site access road. 2.5 Whilst the layout, appearance, scale and detailed landscaping will form reserved matters for later approval, the indicative details illustrate the main facilities building is positioned towards the southern portion of the site and comprise a series of interlinked buildings with a partial living/green, over sailing roof form. The associated parking, vehicle circulation areas and filling station are sited to the building’s northern side. The proposal includes retention of vegetation around the site’s perimeter (although not in its entirety) with mitigation planting to be provided across the site. Connections to existing public footpaths and bridleways are to be formed and an area of open space provided to the south which will also act as a flood compensation area. Outdoor play space and dog walking areas are also to be created.

3.0 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS:

3.1 The identified site is located to the southern side of the junction 45 of the M1 motorway and comprises restored agricultural land. The site was previously in use as an open cast mine but has since been backfilled. The site comprises two agricultural fields bordered by hedges and vegetation. The site also extends over wooded areas located to the north and south of the site. An electricity pylon stands to the western part of the site and the power lines run roughly east-west across the site.

3.2 The M1 motorway runs along the site’s northern and western boundaries and junction 45 is located directly to the north of the site. Knowsthorpe Lane (access currently blocked) runs from the junction along the northern and western edge of the site and continues under the M1 to the west. Public Bridleway (No.259) runs to the east and within the southern portion of the site.

3.3 The application site is set at a lower ground level to the adjacent motorway and connecting slip roads and the land levels generally fall to the south towards Skelton Lake. However, there is a mounded area beyond the south-east of the site which is elevated above the site. Skelton Lake lies to the south with Colton Beck and associated ponds located beyond the eastern boundary which feed into the northern side of the lake. Wyke Beck runs beyond the south-western boundary and joins with the River Aire to the south of Skelton Lake. The Aire and Calder Navigation corridor is located further south of the River Aire.

3.4 Temple Newsam Park and Golf Course is located 160m to the north of the site, beyond the M1 Motorway. Temple Newsam is a Grade II Registered Park and Garden and includes the Grade 1 Listed Temple Newsam House which is located 1km to the north of the site. The estate also contains a range of other Grade II* and II Listed Buildings although the area closest to the motorway junction is excluded from the listing. The Grade II* Listed Leventhorpe Hall is also located 1.9km to the west with Newsam Green Farm and Lawn Farm House (both Grade II) situated nearby.

4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 Planning permission exists for the carrying out of engineering operations and the laying out of access roads and landscaping to the south-east of junction 45 (Ref:32/369/01/FU) for the wider Skelton Gate site. This permission was to support an outline planning permission for a business park (Ref:32/368/01/OT) and comprised new road connections on to Knowsthorpe Lane/ Pontefract Lane and a new Page 14 roundabout with an access road into the proposed business park site. The infrastructure works granted permission in 2004 were granted approval to extend the time limit for implementation under Ref:14//00247/EXT and this permission remains extant until 25th April 2018.

4.2 In 2000, the application site was subject to a planning application for a motorway service station (incl. amenity block and travel lodge) (Ref:32/162/00/OT). The application was called in for determination by the Secretary of State and was considered alongside four other sites on the A1M in North Yorkshire. The purpose of that Public Inquiry was to identify a suitable MSA site or sites to serve the A1M in North Yorkshire. The location of the M1 J45 Skelton site was always such that it could not be a site that would primarily serve the A1M and the outcome of the Public Inquiry led to the granting of Planning Permission for what is now the A1M J46 Wetherby MSA. The spacing criteria and associated Circular covering MSA spacing have now subsequently changed and with the Wetherby MSA built back in 2007/8, there is now an unsatisfied 'need' for an additional MSA at M1 J45 Skelton.

4.3 The above is all in addition to the fact that there was back in 2004 still significant uncertainty on the timing of the then proposed A63 East Leeds Link Road and also the opening of the associated new Junction 45.

4.4 The land to the east of the application site is currently subject of a pending outline planning application (Ref:15/07655/OT) proposing a new community comprising 1,100 dwellings, a new food store, a new local centre, a new school and areas of public open space together with a means of access. All matters are reserved for future consideration except for means of access.

5.0 HISTORY OF NEGOTIATIONS

5.1 Prior to the submission of this planning application the applicant engaged with the Local Planning Authority at pre-application stage (Ref: PREAPP/15/00459) and this included a series of meetings with Officers. The discussions covered a range of issues in respect of the site’s allocation and the emerging Aire Valley AAP; the interface between the proposed MSA and the adjacent residential proposals to the east and collaborative working; the highway need case; the alternative site assessment; comments on the living roof design and to relate closer to building footprint. Alongside those discussions the respective technical consultants have liaised with their Council and external consultee counterparts.

5.2 The pre-application proposals were presented, alongside the residential led development on the wider Skelton Gate site, to City Plans Panel on 17th December 2015 and an extract of the meeting minutes in relation to the MSA summing up is provided below:

‘Members commented that they were agreeable with a motorway service area being positioned at Junction 45 of the M1, it being a good location. Members were of the opinion that the concept was a good one. Members considered that a possible visit to Hartshead Service Area (or similar arrangement) should be undertaken to demonstrate how a residential development could work alongside a motorway service area.

RESOLVED – That the applicants be invited to progress their proposals in collaboration with each other’

Page 15 5.3 Officers have also provided feedback to the applicant through a formal Environmental Statement (ES) Scoping Report (Ref: PREAPP/16/00026) which was submitted in advance of the formal planning application.

5.4 The applicant has undertaken consultation with a range of local residents and businesses through the holding of two public exhibition events, the distribution of community letters/ brochure, a newspaper (Yorkshire Evening Post) advert, letters/ brochures to local councillors and MPs and the creation of a website detailing the scheme and providing an opportunity to comment. The applicant reports that the vast majority of the feedback received was extremely positive with strong support for creation of local employment opportunities, appearance of the scheme, re-use of the site and links to wider Aire Valley green infrastructure. The concerns raised related to the need for an MSA, highway impacts, not wanting the site to be built on, impact on wildlife and landscape and for alternative uses to be considered. The applicant considers that the identified concerns have been fully addressed within the submitted application documents.

5.5 Amendments have been sought on the submitted proposal during the application process which, in brief, comprise minor revisions to the road signage/ road markings; annotation on road surfacing treatment; provision of a bus stop to the northbound road access; re-alignment and widening of Pontefract Lane; re-alignment of Knowsthorpe Lane at its junction with the new access road; 50 additional parking spaces; reduction in swale to western edge of car park; redesign of hotel to avoid encroachment into existing Flood Zone 3; lighting positions altered in response to Knowsthorpe Lane and car park changes.

5.6 The application proposal was presented to City Plans Panel on 8th September 2016 and an extract of the meeting minutes in relation to the MSA summing up is provided below:

‘In drawing the discussion to a conclusion Members provided the following feedback; • Members did not have any concerns about the principle of developing this site as a motorway services area. • Members did have some concerns on the compatibility of the use with the adjacent residential led development proposal particularly in Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on Thursday, 6th October, 2016 respect of potential noise and light nuisance, but they would wait and see how this developed. • Members had no concerns in respect of vehicle circulation within the site, subject to addressing the requirements for caravan movement and parking. • Members had some concerns in respect of the general layout in so far as noise from the site may impact on local wildlife and biodiversity. • Other issues Members would like considering further were a travel plan for staff particularly at night/parking split between general cars and HGVs/charging points for electric cars provision of a multi faith room/the opportunities for local employment and training to be provided by the development.’

5.7 The main issues raised as above are addressed in the appraisal section of this report although it is noted some of the points made relate to matters of detail and are more readily picked up as part of a subsequent reserved matters application should this outline scheme be accepted.

6.0 PUBLIC/LOCAL RESPONSE:

Page 16 6.1 The application was advertised as a Major application (as a departure, affects a right of way and is accompanied by an Environmental Statement) by site notices posted adjacent to the site dated 20th May 2016. The application was also advertised in the Yorkshire Evening Post published 20th May 2016.

6.2 Following the submission of revised information further publicity was undertaken and site notices were posted dated 12th and 26th August 2016. A further advert has been placed in the Yorkshire Evening Post published 2nd September 2016 and the addendum to the Environmental Statement was publicised in the Yorkshire Evening Post on 5th October 2016.

6.3 To date, five letters of representation have been received in response to the public notification process. Four letters received express support for the submitted proposals with one providing comments on the proposals.

6.4 Two of the letters of support are from both Alec Shelbrooke MP and Richard Burgon MP offering the following summarised comments: • Designs and landscaping treatment are impressive as are intentions for job creation. • Pleased to see the desire to work with local communities and stakeholders to deliver a quality development that will complement the Enterprise Zone to the west. • Understand it will provide an opportunity to facilitate and complement the adjacent new housing proposals. • The investment in a new concept motorway services area together with a package of economic, social and environmental benefits in this part of Leeds and wider City Region is welcomed.

6.5 The third support letter is submitted by the Leeds City Region Enterprise Partnership and the comments are summarized below:

• Investment of some £50m by a new investor to the region will reinforce Enterprise Zone ambitions- send further positive message to existing/potential investors. • Designs and landscaping treatment are impressive as are intentions for job creation. • Pleased to see the desire to work with local communities and stakeholders to deliver a quality development that will complement the Enterprise Zone to the west. • Understand it will provide an opportunity to facilitate and complement the adjacent new housing proposals. • The investment in a new concept motorway services area together with a package of economic, social and environmental benefits in this part of Leeds and wider City Region is welcomed.

6.6 The fourth support letter is submitted on behalf of the Friends of Rothwell Country Park and this is summarised below: • Proposed plans for new services are an excellent idea and the ecology of the area has been very well planned. • Services will be of enormous benefit to travellers and will highlight Skelton Lake (as) an area of natural beauty. • Proposal will create jobs and bring much needed economic growth.

Page 17 6.7 1 letter providing comments on the proposals (on behalf of Swillington Ings Bird Group) which was accompanied by a wildlife survey of the lower Aire Valley. A summary of the comments received are set out below:

• Extensive wetland ecological network in Lower Aire Valley and Aire/Calder Migration Corridor is an important migration corridor for birds. • St Aidan’s is being assessed as a potential SSSI by Natural England. • City Council is signed up to the National Biodiversity Action Plan and surveys show that Skelton Lake and the surrounding area is important for a number of bird priority species- displaced during and following development- appropriate mitigation required. • Skelton Lake has enormous potential as a Leeds Nature Area once properly wardened/ protected (RSPB interest to take on role). • Secure parking at MSA will mean used as an access point for visitors for recreation and put pressure on lakeside- whilst the northern side of lake is to be fenced no mention of protection to remainder of lakeside. • MSA proposal includes features that off-set loss of biodiversity in long-term (green roof, tree/ hedgerow retention, construction of nature ponds) and will have no more than minor long term loss of biodiversity but short to medium term significant negative effect without mitigation (substantial if Ref:15/07665/OT Skelton Gate takes place at the same time). • Appropriate for access to the whole of Skelton Lake to be restricted by fencing so visitors and their pets are confined to public rights of way. • Minimise loss following construction through the suggested provision of nest boxes and replanting of hedgerow.

6.8 Any further representations received between the preparation of this report and the Panel itself will be reported to Members verbally as part of the officer presentation as the formal expiry period for the Environmental Statement addendum is noted to be 26th October 2016.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Statutory: 7.1 Coal Authority: No objection, suggested conditions securing further site investigation works.

7.2 Environment Agency: No objection, suggested condition.

7.3 Highways England: Holding direction lifted on 4th October 2016 and suggested conditions.

7.4 Historic England: No objection, the proposals would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of Temple Newsam House and Park, and to the setting of Leventhorpe Hall and any impact should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme.

7.5 Natural England: No objection, advisory to consider green infrastructure, biodiversity and landscape character.

7.6 Highways (LCC): No objection, suggested conditions.

7.7 West Yorkshire Combined Authority: No objection, request 2 bus stop poles for proposed shuttle bus service from adjacent proposed residential site.

Page 18 Non-statutory: 7.8 Contaminated Land: No objection, suggested conditions (covering site investigation, remediation works, verification reports).

7.9 Flood Risk Management: No objection, suggested conditions (covering surface water drainage works (incl. method statement during construction works), finished floor level restriction).

7.10 National Grid: No objections.

7.11 Leeds Civic Trust: No objection, welcome overall design approach (incl. building appearance, signage, landscaping).

7.12 Public Rights of Way: No objection, request 1m margin to proposed bridleway, contribution towards cycle/bridleway network, consideration for safe crossing over new access road.

7.13 Canal and River Trust: No requirement to comment.

7.14 SDU (Nature Conservation): Ecological surveys make clear the level of impact from development and conditions suggested to achieve overall neutral long-term biodiversity impacts (covering construction management plan, biodiversity enhancement and management plan, lighting design strategy, green roof design statement, control/eradication of giant hogweed and Himalayan balsam, use of visitor centre). In addition request off-site mitigation options in liaison with RSPB.

7.15 SDU (Landscape): Seek retention of retained trees condition with detailed matters (incl. biodiversity plan, green roof, hedgerow, landscaping, external lighting) to be dealt with at later stage.

7.16 SDU (Design): No objections if reserved matters scheme reflects the design work carried out under this application.

7.17 SDU (Conservation): No objections, limited impact on setting of Temple Newsam estate with landscaping, re-planting and green roofs strongly tied in through reserved matters to minimise visual impact.

7.18 Travelwise: No objections to revised travel plan.

7.19 West Yorkshire Police (architectural liaison): No objection, counter terrorism team propose no action.

7.20 Neighbourhoods & Housing (air quality): No objection, note commitment to provide electric vehicle charging points.

7.21 Neighbourhoods & Housing (environmental protection): No objection, suggested conditions.

7.22 Neighbourhoods & Housing (environmental studies): No objection, suggested conditions.

7.23 Yorkshire Wildlife Trust: Support ecologist’s recommendations in relation for bat sensitive lighting plan and welcome proposed bird mitigation measures, dog walking facilities and proposed ecological enhancements. Consider relationship with adjacent proposed residential development and habitat creation and enhancement undertaken. Page 19

7.24 Yorkshire Water: No objection, suggested condition (covering works in accordance with flood risk assessment, restrictions on discharge, surface water interceptor to be installed).

7.25 West Yorkshire Archaeological Advisory Service: As site was subject to extensive open cast mining no archaeological significance, no further work necessary.

8.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

8.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning applications are determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan for Leeds currently comprises the Core Strategy (2014), saved policies within the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006) and the Natural Resources and Waste Development Plan Document (2013). Adopted Core Strategy: 8.2 The Core Strategy is the development plan for the whole of the Leeds district. The Core Strategy (CS) was adopted in November 2014. The following CS policies are relevant:

Spatial policy 1 Location of development Spatial policy 2 Hierarchy of centres and spatial approach to retailing Spatial policy 4 Regeneration priority programme areas (incl. Aire Valley) Spatial policy 5 Aire Valley Leeds urban eco-settlement Spatial policy 8 Economic development priorities Spatial policy 11 Transport infrastructure investment priorities Spatial policy 13 Strategic green infrastructure Policy EC1 General employment land Policy EC3 Safeguarding existing employment land and industrial areas Policy P1 Town and local centre designations Policy P8 Sequential and impact assessments for main town centre uses Policy P9 Community facilities and other spaces Policy P10 Design Policy P11 Conservation Policy P12 Landscape Policy T1 Transport management Policy T2 Accessibility requirements and new development Policy G1 Enhancing and extending green infrastructure Policy G8 Protection of important species and habitats Policy G9 Biodiversity Improvements Policy EN1 Sustainability targets Policy EN2 Sustainable design and construction Policy EN4 District heating networks Policy EN5 Managing flood risk Policy ID2 Planning obligations and developer contributions

Leeds Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Review: 8.3 The site is allocated for employment uses within the City Council’s Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) as site E4.45 Skelton Business Park, Pontefract Lane and promoted for prestige office development. Saved policy T29a states support for the provision of lorry parking and coach layover facilities at the junction of the East Leeds Link Road and the M1 (i.e. jct 45). The land to the south of the employment Page 20 allocation is currently in the Green Belt, but is subject to review through the Site Allocations Plan process. The relevant saved UDP Review (2006) policies are listed below for reference:

Policy GP5 Requirement of development proposals Policy N23 Development and incidental open space Policy N24 Development proposals next to green belt/ corridors Policy N25 Development and site boundaries Policy N28 Historic parks and gardens Policy BD5 Design considerations for new build Policy T24 Car parking guidelines Policy T29a Lorry parking and coach layover facilities Policy E4 Employment allocations Policy LT6 Waterway corridors and tourism Policy LD1 Landscape schemes

Aire Valley Area Action Plan (AVLAAP): 8.4 The site lies within the boundary of the emerging Aire Valley Leeds Area Action Plan (AVLAAP) within which the site is identified for housing. This document is being prepared in accordance with Core Strategy Spatial Policy 5 and will form part of the LDF when adopted. The draft AVLAAP (Submission Draft) has been submitted to the Secretary of State for examination (23rd September 2016) and is therefore at an advanced stage. Where policies and proposals are not subject to objection they can now be accorded significant weight in decisions.

Natural Resources and Waste Local Plan: 8.5 The relevant Natural Resources and Waste Local Plan (adopted) policies are listed below for reference:

AIR 1 Management of air quality through development WATER 1 Water efficiency WATER 2 Protection of water quality WATER 4 Development in flood risk areas WATER 6 Flood risk assessments WATER 7 Seeks to ensure no increase in the rate of surface water run-off and the incorporation of sustainable drainage techniques. LAND 1 Requires submission of information regarding the ground conditions LAND 2: Relates to development and trees and requires replacement planting where a loss is proposed.

Supplementary Planning Guidance / Documents: 8.6 SPG10 Sustainable Development Design Guide SPG22 Sustainable Urban Drainage SPD Street Design Guide SPD Designing for Community Safety SPD Travel Plans SPD Sustainable Design and Construction Leeds Parking Policy (adopted)

National Planning Guidance: 8.7 In terms of national policy, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) identifies a number of core planning principles of which include for planning to be genuinely plan-led with plans kept up-to-date and to provide a practical framework within which

Page 21 planning decisions can be made; proactively drive and support sustainable economic development and seek to secure high quality design.

8.8 Chapter 1 sets out the need to build a strong competitive economy in order to create jobs and prosperity and that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning policies should avoid the long-term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.

8.9 Chapter 2 advises that local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date local plan.

8.10 Chapter 4 confirms that transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development. In particular reference to this application proposal, para. 31 advise that ‘the primary function of roadside facilities for motorists should be to support the safety and welfare of the road user’ and the advice contained within this chapter deals with sustainable transport modes and avoiding severe highway impacts.

8.11 Chapter 7 advises that the Government attached great importance to the design of the built environment stating that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

8.12 Chapter 10 identifies planning’s key role in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy. Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided.

8.13 Chapter 11 advises the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment and prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land stability as well as avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development.

8.14 Chapter 12 considers where a development proposal will lead to a less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Department for Transport 8.15 Circular 02/2013 The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development. Annex B: Roadside Facilities for Road Users on Motorways and All Purpose Trunk Roads in England’ which has created a favourable national policy context for the determination of any application (certainly since the refusal of the MSA proposal at this site back in 2005) and recommends that the maximum distance between motorway services should be no more than 28 miles. However, whilst the document supports the broad locational aims of the proposed development, any application must still be dealt with in accordance with local and national planning policy.

9.0 MAIN ISSUES

1. Principle of development (incl. emerging plans, highway need, main town centre uses) 2. Highway implications 3. Impact on visual amenity (incl. design and appearance) 4. Landscape implications (incl. planting, green roof, lighting) Page 22 5. Heritage implications (incl. impact on heritage assets, archaeology) 6. Impact on amenity (incl. noise) 7. Ecological implications 8. Flood risk and drainage 9. Ground conditions (incl. contamination and coal mining legacy) 10. Section 106 agreement and CIL 11. Other matters

10.0 APPRAISAL

Principle of development (incl. emerging plans, highway need, main town centre uses) 10.1 This motorway services area proposal is submitted as an outline planning application with all matters other than the means of access reserved. The application site is allocated for employment uses within the Unitary Development Plan Review 2006 (UDP) and identified as Skelton Business Park, Pontefract Lane (policy E4:45). This policy was saved by the Core Strategy (adopted in 2014). The Core Strategy states that for the loss of land allocated for employment the criteria within policy EC3 must be satisfied. It is to be noted that this allocation also includes land to the east which is currently subject to a residential led outline planning application (Ref: 15/07655/OT).

10.2 The application site also falls within the boundary of the Aire Valley Leeds Area Action Plan (AVLAAP) where the site is proposed as a housing allocation. Spatial Policy 5 sets out a requirement for AVLAAP to provide a minimum of 6,500 new homes and 250 hectares of land for employment uses and new retail facilities to support new development. It is recognised that the draft AVLAAP, has regard to the consideration of proposals for non-housing uses at Skelton Gate and specifically excludes, inter alia, a motorway service area (MSA) as an acceptable non-housing use. The proposed housing allocation is subject to a number of objections (incl. one from the applicant) and accordingly the weight afforded to the allocation in the determination of this application can only therefore be very limited. Council officers have recommended a number of modifications to the draft AVLAAP policies, including the removal of the reference which specifically excludes an MSA and changes to the wording of the criteria based approach to non-housing uses. The application site would however remain within the proposed housing allocation. The proposed changes were agreed at the Council’s Development Plan Panel on 10th May 2016 and subsequently the Executive Board (on 27th July 2016) and Full Council (on 14th September 2016) approved the modifications. The AVLAAP was formally submitted to the Secretary of State for examination on the 23rd September 2016. This revised draft policy can still only be afforded very limited weight but it does indicate that the MSA proposal is consistent with the draft plan that the Council has approved.

10.3 The proposed MSA is not in accordance with the existing UDP employment allocation. However, this UDP allocation is not considered to be up-to-date following adoption of the Core Strategy which identifies sites as having potential to accommodate major housing and mixed use development in the AVL area and this includes the Skelton Gate area and the application site and reflects the proposed housing allocation in the draft AVLAAP. The draft AVLAAP identifies sufficient employment sites to deliver the requirement for 250ha of employment land in the area without assuming a contribution from Skelton Gate. Thus, there is no need to deliver employment development on the site in that the site lies outside an area of shortfall and the proposal would not result in the loss of a deliverable employment site necessary to meet employment needs during the plan period.

Page 23 10.4 Although the draft AVLAAP allocation can only be given very limited weight, supporting evidence from the Core Strategy and AVLAAP (including the Leeds SHLAA) demonstrates that there will need to be a significant contribution from the Skelton Gate site if the minimum housing requirement of 6,500 units is to be delivered. The Core Strategy is supportive of a housing and mixed use development at Skelton Gate (the wider site) and the delivery of a major housing development is effectively embedded within the development plan. Details of the allocation (such as estimated capacity) and any site specific requirements will be set out in the AVLAAP. However, the proposed modifications to the publication draft plan (see paragraph 10.2 above) involve a reduction the capacity of the wider Skelton Gate site has been estimated at 1,801 dwellings and this figure does not assume a contribution from the area of land within this application site. Accordingly, given that the estimated capacity for Skelton Gate can be delivered elsewhere on the wider site, and sufficient sites have been identified within the AVL area in the draft submission plan (as agreed at DPP on 10th May 2016) to meet the target of 6,500, this MSA proposal is not considered to be inconsistent with Core Strategy policy objectives. It is however appropriate to consider the impact of the MSA proposal on the delivery of the housing development across the wider site and at the most strategic level there is clear evidence that the applicants have worked jointly through the preparation of a masterplan showing the relationship between the two schemes and the access arrangements from junction 45 of the M1 motorway.

Highway need: 10.5 As previously reported, the National Government policy relating to the strategic road network is contained within Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 02/2013 ‘The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development’. Annex B of the circular sets out policy on the provision on standards for road facilities (including MSAs) on the strategic road network. The circular (para.B4) emphasises that MSAs perform an important road safety function by providing opportunities for the travelling public to stop and take a break. This links to the National Planning Policy Framework (para 31) which states that the primary function of roadside facilities should be to support the safety and welfare of the road user. Highways England’s recommendation (para B5, B6 and B7) is that MSAs should be spaced such that there is a maximum of 30 minutes travelling time between facilities. This can typically be a maximum distance of 28 miles or less on congested sections.

10.6 Paragraph B8 confirms that in determining applications for new MSAs, Local Planning Authorities should not need to consider the merits of spacing of sites beyond conformity with the maximum and minimum spacing criteria established for safety reasons. Ultimately, it is interpreted that once a gap between MSAs is shown to exist it is not necessary to have regard to other considerations in determining whether a need exists, a need either exists or it does not.

10.7 The applicant’s submission identifies the distances between the relevant existing MSAs are 32.8 miles between Hartshead Moor and Wetherby (on the M62 / M1 / A1(M) route) and 30.2 miles between Woolley Edge and Wetherby (on the M1 / A1(M) route). These distances are both greater than the maximum 28 mile distance recommended in the circular. The provision of the application scheme would reduce the maximum gaps to 15.7 miles and 13.1 miles respectively. Both distances lie within the recommended maximum spacing policy. It is accepted the need for the MSA has been proven, judged against the Government’s policy in Circular 02/2013. This should accordingly be afforded weight as a material consideration in favour of the application.

Alternative site assessment Page 24 10.8 The applicant’s submission outlines an assessment of potential site locations within the area of identified need along the M1 motorway at both on-line and existing junction locations (incl. junctions 44, 45 and 46). The selected sites were considered against a range of policy (e.g. green belt, site allocations) and site specific constraints (e.g. highway access impacts, committed development, flood risk, environmental impacts etc.) which concludes that the application site provides the optimal location in which to accommodate the proposed MSA. The fact this site has previously been promoted for an MSA when the central government advice relating to such proposals was more prescriptive also indicates a robustness to the alternative site assessment process that has been undertaken.

Main town centre uses 10.9 The proposed MSA will incorporate a range of retail, leisure, hotel and other main town centre uses. Whilst it is accepted that MSAs are a sui generis use, the degree to which the range of uses contained within the facility are also categorised as sui generis is open to interpretation. In any event, the DfT Circular 02/2013 (section B29) states that ‘the scope and scale of retail activities at roadside facilities is a matter for consideration by the relevant local planning authority in line with the National Planning Policy Framework and local planning policies. However, local planning authorities should have regard to the primary function of roadside facilities which is to support the safety and welfare of the road user”.

10.10 National and local planning policy establishes that out of centre retail and leisure proposals should be located within town centres and where they are proposed outside of town centres must be subject to a sequential and an impact assessment (subject to scale). It is to be noted that there is nothing within the Core Strategy or the NPPF to suggest that this requirement should not apply to main town centre uses contained within an MSA. Whilst it is accepted that it is not the purpose of national and local policy to direct Motorway Service Areas to town centres, this must not give carte blanche to allow any range and scale of town centre uses to be located within MSAs without adequate assessment or compliance with local and national policy.

10.11 The applicant’s submission includes a sequential test which considered alternatives sites that are suitable for the development proposed and accordingly require sites to be either directly adjacent to the motorway, at an existing junction off the motorway or directly adjacent to the Strategic Road Network. The applicant has considered alternative sites along a 6.2mile corridor of the M1 (this being the stretch of the M1 that best meets the gap in service provision along the M1). It is recognised that there are no defined centres within that length of motorway, and to locate the MSA within, or on the edge of any nearby centres would result in the MSA being located on a site wholly unsuitable for the operation of the development. It is therefore accepted that there are no sequentially preferable sites which are suitable for the development proposed.

10.12 The applicant has not assessed the impact of the development on nearby centres (and investment within those centres) in the ‘traditional’ manner; rather they have set out why such an approach would not work with this type of development. Traditionally an assessment would be made on the level of spend likely to be diverted to the MSA, and where that spend had been diverted from. However, with an MSA, predicting where customers may have come from would be close to impossible given that users of MSAs could be travelling from all over the country. In addition, trade is not diverted from town centres in a way consistent with a ‘normal’ retail development. The range of facilities that the MSA provides are designed to be attractive to motorway drivers, rather than as a shopping or a leisure destination in its own right. As a result, it is Page 25 accepted that the proposal is unlikely to result in a significant adverse impact to the vitality and viability of any nearby centre, or to planned and committed investment within those centres. However, the presence of a supermarket on the MSA site would change the retail dynamic and it is considered necessary to impose a condition limiting the amount of floorspace of individual unit sizes (to 929sqm gross floorspace) to prevent the creation of a single large retail unit within the facilities building.

10.13 Overall, it is considered that following an assessment of the submitted information the proposed MSA development satisfies the sequential and impact assessments and there are no objections to the scheme from a retail policy perspective.

Employment and Training 10.14 The proposed MSA would result in significant investment (circa. £50m) and create local employment opportunities. The applicant has submitted an Employability Strategy, in conjunction with Employment Leeds, setting out its commitment to ensure the proposal delivers lasting social and economic benefits for local communities.

10.15 The development proposal is estimated to initially generate around 450 job years of employment during construction and approximately 300 full-time equivalent positions once operational which will lead to numerous jobs being generated through future business/ trade networks.

10.16 Commitments to the promotion of employment and training opportunities for local people during construction works as well as influencing future occupiers of the development to work with Employment Leeds are to be secured through the development’s associated s106 agreement. The commitments will cover the procedures for appointing contractors/ sub-contractors; details of job vacancies, apprenticeship opportunities, work placements as well as identifying numbers/ types of employment and training opportunities for local people, updating regular details of recruitment and retention of local people as employees. To date, the developer has yet to procure a main contractor and this is typically done post approval. In practice the main contractor predominantly delivers on the obligations with the encouragement of the developer. Therefore, the employment opportunities are discussed and agreed between the developer, Employment Leeds and the main contractor. Once the contractor has been appointed they will be more readily able to identify the total labour force required which in turn will identify any new employment opportunities such as, people into jobs and new/ existing apprentices. Officers in Employment Leeds are content with this approach which is typical for significant development proposals.

10.17 Subject to planning approval in 2016, Leeds Skelton Lake Services has been programmed to be operational from 2019 onwards. The site lies adjacent to the Leeds City Region Enterprise Zone and would help support the general developer interest in this locality and will assist the wider economic regeneration objectives in this Aire Valley region.

Highway implications 10.18 The proposed development is to be accessed via a signal controlled connection to junction 45 of the M1. The access arrangements include the diversion of Knowsthorpe Lane (a low trafficked road) and Pontefract Lane from their current alignment with the introduction of an internal site access roundabout that feeds both the proposed MSA and the adjacent residential development. It is to be noted that the access arrangements detailed within these two applications originally differed although following the completion of a Co-operation Agreement between the involved parties Page 26 the access arrangements for both developments will now be served by the same basic access arrangements - as shown as part of the MSA application. 10.19 The proposed access between junction 45 of the M1 and the internal access roundabout is to provide two lanes in each direction with the approach to the M1 flaring to provide three lanes at the motorway stop line. The internal access roundabout is to be located approximately 170m into the site with two lanes providing access into the MSA site. In response to a road safety audit the applicant has recently revised the highway arrangements and these have been reviewed and accepted by highway officers. Highways England has lifted its holding direction subject to the imposition of conditions to secure details of the highway works to the M1 junction and a traffic management plan during construction.

10.20 The proposed access is designed to accommodate all vehicle types, including the largest ‘abnormal loads’ which are permitted to travel on the road. As such, there is not considered to be negotiability concerns for vehicles manoeuvring through the motorway junction and the access road/ internal roundabout. Furthermore, a swept path analysis has been undertaken to demonstrate that the indicative layout can accommodate the turning manoeuvres of all vehicles likely to visit the site including, HGVS, caravans and motorhome, abnormal loads, and cars. The proposed access will include segregated footway/ cycleways on both sides of the access link road with crossing facilities provided at appropriate locations. Pedestrian crossing facilities will be provided within the car parking areas to aid safe movement. The proposal will provide improvements to existing walking, cycling and public transport network in the vicinity of the site. 10.21 The application proposal is accompanied by a Framework Travel Plan which outlines a variety of measures to improve accessibility for staff by non-car modes of transport. These measures include: personalised travel planning, Cycle 2 Work Scheme, provision of shower and changing facilities on site to encourage cycling to work, a demand responsive staff shuttle service, secure cycle parking, membership to the West Yorkshire Travel Plan Network, car park management plan, on-site pedestrian and cycle routes, access for a future bus service through the site including provision of bus stops within the site and at the new link road. In addition, the document includes a commitment to provide electric vehicle charging points and this is currently envisaged to comprise 6 active spaces; 10 passive spaces and 1 accessible bay. A Travel Plan Co-ordinator is also to be appointed to oversee the day-to-day running of the Travel Plan (and subsidiary travel plans from tenants) and the costs towards monitoring have been agreed.

10.22 As part of the range of travel plan measures a private pick-up/ drop-off service is to be provided to operate between the MSA site and the nearby Temple Green park and ride facility (due to open summer 2017) to facilitate safe, convenient and accessible staff travel to/from the site. This shuttle service will be provided for all staff (MSA, tenants and hotel) to correspond with shift changeovers. Outside of the park and ride site operating hours (i.e. early and night-time shifts, plus Sundays) the shuttle service will be available to staff on demand with the initial destinations expected to be the city centre, Leeds Station as well as Colton and Rothwell. These locations will however be subject to review by the applicant depending on future staff travel demands. Overall, the travel plan document is considered to be sufficiently comprehensive and acceptable.

10.23 The parking provision for the MSA has been derived using the procedure set out in Circular 02/2013 and is considered acceptable. In addition, the proposed parking for the hotel element (which is to be designated) is considered to accord the local parking Page 27 standards and the parking provision across the development proposal is appropriate. Nevertheless, measures to include clearway and/or formal parking restrictions to prevent any parking from the MSA on to the existing highway network, including the residential roads of the adjacent development, once the MSA is operational will be secured through s106 agreement.

10.24 Within the emerging AVAAP an upgrade and adoption of Knowsthorpe Lane to provide a link to junction 45 of the M1 and improve access to the Skelton Gate development and employment sites to the west of the M1 is identified as a priority scheme for improvement for the highway network. There are aspirations to use Knowsthorpe Lane underpass beneath the M1 carriageway as an additional point for bus services to create a circular route to the park and ride facility (located to the west of junction 45) and in accordance with this the applicant is to facilitate a bus route through the MSA development with an on-site bus stop facility.

Impact on visual amenity (incl. design and appearance) 10.25 Although this proposal has been submitted as an outline application with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale being reserved matters, the submission identifies a series of design principles that have informed the illustrative layout. Regard is given to providing connectivity to the new roundabout to the east of the site from junction 45, positioning the filling station close to the site entrance, locating HGV parking in the least prominent portion of the site (views limited by planting, bunding and set under the pylon cables) and integrating landscaping within car parking areas. Moreover, the external amenity space located to the south of the facilities building provides a southern aspect across a landscaped area and the Skelton Lake beyond with opportunities to improve pedestrian connectivity to existing footpaths.

10.26 In addition, the application submission includes details of site constraints which illustrates the areas of the site that cannot be used for the facilities building and where there are significant ground levels changes, former coal mining groundworks, flood risk areas, electricity pylon easements and consideration of noise impacts from the M1 and relationship with adjacent residential development. The illustrative layout is therefore strongly influenced by these constraints so a degree of certainly to the basic layout shown is provided despite this only being an outline application.

10.27 The proposed facilities building contained within the MSA will adopt a bespoke design with the intention of introducing a landmark feature. The illustrative design comprises a series of interconnecting buildings with a large oversailing roof that will incorporate a partial living/green roof and use timber framework and sections of wooden panelling to reference the surrounding landscape. The applicant advises that the height of the building is provisionally set to 15m in order to respond to the specific requirements owing to the provision of an elevated viewing area. The building height and mass is anticipated to be reduced adjacent to the viewing area element with a layered undulating ribbon roof design raised and lowered where appropriate.

10.28 The basic design approach advanced in the submission documents have generally been well received and accordingly officers are confident a quality and innovative form of development can be brought forward under a reserved matters application.

Landscape considerations (incl. planting, green roof, lighting) 10.29 As part of the submitted proposals a landscape framework has been developed. The application submission identifies the vegetation to be removed, the vegetation to be retained and the proposed areas of planting to mitigate the loss. In order to Page 28 accommodate the development and the associated areas of flood compensation, areas of existing scrub are to be removed from the site access as well as areas of the mixed native tree and scrub woodland belt from the eastern boundary. Compensatory planting is proposed to the perimeter of the car parking areas, within the proposed amenity area to the south as well as to the eastern and western boundaries and around the site access. In addition, the proposals provide for the future management for the retained hedgerows and tree plantation to increase bio-diversity value and visual amenity. The details are to be reserved and considered in full within a future application but the basic approach is acknowledged by officers as being appropriate.

10.30 The facilities building is to incorporate a green roof which offers visual amenity benefits in reducing the visual impact of the built development in the wider landscape. The applicant has undertaken a landscape visual impact assessment and the accompanying photo-montages illustrate the effectiveness of the visually recessive green roof treatment. Further design details of the green roof are to be covered by planning condition to maximise the benefits of this feature both in terms of visual amenity and biodiversity.

10.31 It is recognised that the proposed detailed lighting design is a matter for consideration at reserved matters stage however the applicants have assessed existing lighting conditions around the site, considered any potentially sensitive receptors (including heritage, highway, landscape, ecology and residential) and provided an initial assessment of the potential lighting impact that the proposed development may have.

10.32 Overall, the proposal is not expected to result in adverse impacts as a result of any increase in obtrusive light condition. In respect of ecology and bats, the majority of locations are not expected to receive a significant obtrusive light condition over the existing situation and there is unlikely to be any discernible difference in relation to obtrusive light impact over the existing conditions in relation to the tree belt to the south and importantly the illuminance to Skelton Lake. It is acknowledged that the proposed street lighting along Knowsthorpe Lane (which runs along the northern boundary of the site) will have some impact on ecological receptors in this area over the existing situation as this road is currently unlit and the HGV parking area is indicatively sited in this location.

10.33 It is considered that an appropriate lighting scheme can be achieved and a lighting specification will be identified at the detailed design stage (type, height, location) to ensure that new development proposals do not cause unacceptable lighting impacts. The avoidance of a sky glow over the site from distant views will also be a factor when assessing the detailed detail as officers recognise this has been an issue elsewhere and Members specifically raised this as a potential issue during the position statement.

Heritage implications (incl. impact on heritage assets, archaeology) 10.34 Linking into the visual amenity considerations, the proposed MSA lies within the wider setting of Temple Newsam House (Grade I), Temple Newsam Park (Grade II Registered Park), other listed structures within the park itself, Leventhorpe Hall (Grade II*) and also Newsam Green Farm and Lawn Farm House (both Grade II).

10.35 In order to reach a conclusion on the acceptability of the outline planning application an assessment of the identified harm to the designated heritage assets is required (paragraph 134 of NPPF) and weighed against the public benefits of the scheme. Significant weight has been ascribed to the assessment of the proposals impact on the heritage assets. The contribution that the application site makes to the setting of Page 29 these heritage assets has been affected by twentieth-century activity in the area, including open-cast mining, landfill, electricity pylons and significantly the M1 motorway which effectively forms a visual boundary to Temple Newsam Park.

10.36 The applicant has undertaken a visual impact assessment which indicates that the development will only be visible from a very few areas of the Registered Park due to extensive tree planting with no visibility from either ground or first floor within Temple Newsam House itself or from Leventhorpe Hall. It is also notable that the Templegate development site to the immediate east lies between the application site and the heritage assets of Leventhorpe Hall, Newsam Green Farm and Lawn Farm House. Accordingly, the limited views which are currently available will over the passage of time be lost when this development site is eventually built out. Overall, the proposal’s impacts on the heritage assets are considered to be minimal and Historic England is satisfied the proposals would cause less than substantial harm and the Council’s Conservation officer considers the application proposal to have a limited impact. However, it is recognised that local planning authorities should give considerable importance and weight to conserving designated heritage assets when balancing the public benefits and advantages of the proposal against any such harm. In undertaking this balancing exercise the local planning authority should bear in mind the statutory duty of section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which requires ‘special regard’ be had to the ‘desirability of preserving the building or its setting’.

10.37 The application proposal will deliver a wide range of social, economic and environmental benefits that weigh substantially in favour of the application proposal, of which the following are considered to be the most significant, addressing a policy need for a new MSA benefitting road user safety/ welfare/ convenience; delivering £50m of investment and generating economic development (construction/ business rates); providing substantial new employment opportunities (incl. training/ skills programmes); support and attract investment to the adjacent Enterprise Zone and Aire Valley; enhancements to footpath links, wildlife habitats and delivering a high quality facilities building.

10.38 Considerable importance and weight has been attached to the identified harm on existing heritage assets but the significant positive public benefits factors realised through the delivery of the proposal are considered to outweigh the limited harm on these heritage assets. Accordingly, officers consider the heritage impact can be accepted.

10.39 The application site has been subject to opencast coal extraction and accordingly there is very little potential for the presence of remaining archaeological or cultural heritage remains within the boundary of the site.

Impact on amenity (incl. noise) 10.40 During consideration of the position statement, Members expressed some concern about the relationship between the proposed MSA and the adjacent residential led development. To provide more context to this specific area, the access arrangements for both developments would be the same and importantly fixed. This therefore provides a reasonable degree of certainly in terms of the likely separately distances to be achieved between the developable areas for both sites. Once allowing for the access road and changes in levels, a separation distance of approximately 140m is identified between where buildings could be located although even this only relates to where the petrol filling station is shown rather than the main facilities building which would be much further away. Putting aside the actual carriageway surfaces, a good Page 30 deal of land would still be available which can be planted up to provide screening and/or contoured to assist with any noise mitigation should it be required.

10.41 The proposed MSA is to operate on a 24hr basis and this brings the potential for noise and disturbance from vehicle movements, lighting and plant/ equipment on residents of the hotel element and the adjacent residential led development. This application is supported by a noise report which considers the impact of construction and operational noise associated with the proposed development as well as the impact of existing and proposed noise sources within the development and nearby. The Environmental Protection officer has reviewed the contents and subject to the imposition of planning conditions, including a delivery management plan to address mitigation of any significant noise levels from deliveries to the fuel station, the proposal is not considered to have an undue impact on local residences.

10.42 Notwithstanding the above, it is still noted that noise from existing ambient sources and future road traffic has been predicted at the façade of the proposed hotel element which shows that mitigation measures (e.g. acoustic ventilation) will be required to satisfy internal noise standards in bedrooms of the proposed hotel during the daytime and night-time. Such measures can however be appropriately secured by planning condition and is the typical response for sites in such close proximity to a motorway. It is worth noting that some of the houses proposed on the neighbouring site may also need to adopt a similar approach due to the presence of the motorway depending on what other mitigation is proposed.

10.43 The MSA proposal includes provision for community based uses and these are indicatively shown within the upper floor of the facilities building. Within this part of the building there is ample scope to accommodate a range of community based and following the feedback from the position statement the applicant is agreeable to investigating how a multi faith room/area can be best accommodated as part of the overall package.

Ecological implications 10.44 The application is supported by a preliminary ecological appraisal which identified all habitats on the site and major habitats surrounding the site. The ecological surveys are considered adequate to allow a clear understanding of the level of impacts resulting from the proposal. The application site is located in a regionally important area for biodiversity being immediately adjacent to Skelton Lake, the Wyke Beck and River Aire, and sits at the gateway to the Lower Aire Valley with its nationally important nature reserves at Fairburn Ings and St Aidans together with Leventhorpe Lagoon and Ings. 10.45 The development of the site would result in the permanent loss of existing arable and other agricultural habitats and it is recognised that there will also be some off-site long-term adverse impacts resulting from increased recreational pressure on other nearby sites in the Lower Aire Valley, resulting from both visitors to the MSA and the new residential population in the event the adjacent housing scheme is supported. 10.46 In the short-term it is recognised that construction activity will have the potential to increase disturbance to existing biodiversity features (incl. nesting birds) but through careful management during the construction phase these impacts could be appropriately mitigated and the measures to be adopted are to be secured within a specific construction management plan (incl. protection zones/ fencing, bird boxes, ecologist presence etc). On a medium to long-term basis, the landscaping works, additional habitat creation/ management, and a sensitive lighting design strategy are Page 31 considered to achieve an overall neutral long-term impact on biodiversity. The indicative position of the facilities provides a physical barrier that will act to screen and buffer the main activities associated with the operation of the MSA from the ecological sensitive Skelton Lake that lies to the south. The creation and retention of wildlife connections across the site, a green roof and ecological/ attenuation ponds to the southern portion of the site will provide an opportunity for habitat enhancements at the site. Furthermore, the provision of a viewing platform within the building (overlooking southern aspect to Skelton Lake) would offer opportunities for visitors/ community groups to find out more about local wildlife and bird species. Overall, it is considered that the proposal will not have significant detrimental ecological impacts provided that suitable management and mitigation measures are adopted.

Flood risk and drainage 10.47 In terms of flood risk the majority of the application site is located in Flood Zone 1 and is not shown to be at particular risk from surface water flooding. However, the lower part of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and amendments have been made to the indicative layout to ensure the proposed hotel use (considered a more vulnerable use in flood risk terms) is located outside zone 3. Accordingly, the areas to the southern end of the site are now shown as being landscaped and a restrictive planning condition ensuring the hotel element lies outside this flood zone is to be imposed. Moreover, all proposed buildings are to be constructed with finished floor levels set high enough to prevent flooding (stipulated by planning condition) and that a safe means of access during flood events is available via existing ground levels to the north of the facilities building.

10.48 The development platform will encroach marginally into the current flood plain extents. The proposal will through the re-profiling of ground (to east and west of the Facilities Building) provide compensatory flood storage on a level for level basis in accordance with Environment Agency requirements to ensure the site is safe from flooding and will not have an adverse impact to surrounding sites. 10.49 The development proposal will result in an overall increase in impermeable area at the site and lead to an increase in surface water run-off over the existing situation. The proposal will limit the peak flow discharge to mitigate this increase from the development by providing surface water attenuation in a pond/detention basin and underground storage tanks to ensure the site does not have an adverse impact on surrounding sites.

Ground conditions (incl. contamination and coal mining legacy) 10.50 The application is accompanied by Phase I (desk study) and Phase II (site investigation) reports that have examined potential contamination or stability constraints at the site. The investigations have concluded that the site has a low potential for contamination although continuing investigations in the bedrock, ground water and surface water testing and gas monitoring are on-going and contamination officers are content for this additional work to be secured through appropriately worded planning conditions.

10.51 A Coal Mining Risk Assessment has been submitted which considers historic borehole findings, current intrusive site investigations, opencast abandonment plans and other Coal Authority records. The assessment concludes that further intrusive site investigation works are necessary and The Coal Authority considers the information is sufficient in demonstrating that the application site is, or can be made, safe and stable for the proposed development and recommends details of these works to be secured through an appropriately worded planning condition. Page 32

10.52 In terms of potential coal recovery, the report concludes that given the site’s history as an open cast mine, coal has already been extracted from almost the entire site. Only very small, largely inaccessible areas of shallow coal remain and further coal recovery could not be sensibly or economically achieved.

Section 106 Agreement and CIL 10.53 A legal test for the imposition of planning obligations was introduced by the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. These provide that a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is - (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

10.54 The obligation headlines are set out at the start of this report but are repeated here for completeness:

1. Traffic Regulation Order contributions (£25,000) 2. A Travel Plan and associated monitoring/ evaluation fee (£3,540) 3. Contribution towards bus pole installation (£500) 4. Local employment and training obligation

10.55 The obligations need to be considered against the legal tests and are required to be necessary, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

10.56 The proposed development is Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) liable however this is not applicable at the Outline stage due to the fact that floor space has yet to be fixed. As such CIL will be generated at the Reserved Matters stage and it is to be noted that CIL is generally payable on the commencement of development. The payment of CIL is not material to the determination of the planning application and this is presented simply for Members information.

Other matters 10.57 It is anticipated that the proposed development will attain a BREEAM rating of ‘Very Good’. The scheme is to incorporate a range of design and energy efficiency measures and low and zero carbon technologies where possible in order to help reduce energy consumption and deliver reductions in CO2 emissions in line with policy requirements and details will be secured by planning condition. Moreover, the applicant is willing to commit to explore the potential connections into the District Heating Network (DHN) being advanced locally. At this time, the network is not yet available but will be delivered through a long-term programme, subject to funding. The earlier phases focus on developing the DHN from the Veolia plant towards the city centre. As the application site falls into the last phase and is approximately 2.5km from the plant, this is not a viable option for the applicant to pursue. However, the applicant is willing to commit to engaging with the relevant body to ascertain the future viability of connecting onto a DHN should this become available in the future but they cannot provide any commitment beyond this due to the uncertain nature of the DHN heading towards junction 45.

11.0 Conclusion: Page 33 11.1 The application site lies within a long established development allocation and it is accepted through the adopted Development Plan that it is an appropriate location for development. The proposed MSA development is not considered to be inconsistent with emerging local policy objectives and is considered to be compatible with adjacent land uses. The proposed MSA will address a policy defined need to serve an identified gap between existing road facilities on the strategic road network in order to improve road user safety and welfare.

11.2 The MSA proposal represents a significant investment that will generate substantial new employment opportunities. The proposal lies at a strategic eastern gateway of the city and will help attract investors and occupiers and will make a positive contribution to the delivery of economic development, assisting the adjacent Leeds City Region Enterprise Zone, the Aire Valley and the wider East Leeds area.

11.3 The proposed development adjoins the M1 motorway, served off junction 45 and can be safely accessed by pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles and will not result in any demonstrable harm to the operation of the highway network.

11.4 The indicative design and appearance of the MSA proposal is considered to be of high quality incorporating a curved partial living roof to help assimilate the building into the surrounding landscape and set within an attractive landscape and lakeside setting. The proposal will involve the creation of new wildlife habitats and biodiversity enhancements alongside a range of soft landscaping works and mitigation to help integrate the proposal into the landscape.

11.5 The proposed development is considered to cause less than substantial harm on existing nearby heritage assets which when weighed against the significant wider public benefits arising from the scheme as reported above and the heritage impact is accepted.

11.6 Overall, the proposed MSA development will deliver a substantial range of social, economic and environmental benefits for the Leeds City Region and represents sustainable development which national and local planning policy encourages. The proposal is not considered to raise significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated by appropriate planning conditions and which would outweigh the scheme’s significant benefits. On this basis, officers consider outline planning permission warrants support. The proposed development is considered to represent an acceptable departure from the adopted Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and needs to be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from the Development Plan before permission can formally issued.

Background Papers: Application file Ref: 16/02757/OT

Page 34 16/02757/OT

CITY PLANS PANEL © Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey 100019567 Page 35 PRODUCED BY CITY DEVELOPMENT, GIS MAPPING & DATA TEAM, LEEDS CITY COUNCIL SCALE : 1/5000 ° Page 36 Agenda Item 8

Originator: C. Briggs

Tel: 0113 2224409

Report of the Chief Planning Officer

CITY PLANS PANEL

Date: 27th October 2016

Subject: Pre-application PREAPP/16/00532 Proposal for the repair and restoration of the First White Cloth Hall, Kirkgate, Leeds.

Applicant: Leeds City Council

Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:

City and Hunslet Equality and Diversity

Community Cohesion

Yes Ward Members consulted Narrowing the Gap

RECOMMENDATION: This report is brought to Panel for information. The applicant team will be asked to present the emerging scheme to allow Members to consider and comment on the proposals.

1.0 Introduction:

1.1 The First White Cloth Hall (FWCH) was built in 1711 to head off a challenge from Wakefield which had built a cloth hall in the previous year with the intention of becoming the market centre for the trading of white (undyed) cloth in the West Riding. This FWCH was quickly superseded by several larger cloth halls as Leeds became the regional capital of the cloth trade. It was listed Grade II* in 1983 following its ‘rediscovery’ as the earliest surviving cloth hall in recognition of its historic importance to the economic history of the region and the nation. Unfortunately, it has been in a poor condition since its listing and is on Historic England’s at Risk Register and acknowledged as being the highest category of risk with potential for further rapid deterioration with no solution agreed. In 2010 the

Page 37 west wing of the building was also dismantled when the adjoining building was demolished due to urgent structural concerns.

1.2 In 2012 Leeds City Council were successful in bidding for £1.5 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) for a Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI) scheme in lower Kirkgate. This scheme makes grants available towards repairs works to those properties between and including 83 Kirkgate to the FWCH. The FWCH is identified as the ‘critical project’ in the scheme, and accordingly £500k of the HLF funding is ring-fenced for this building. In addition £250k grant funding has been made available by Historic England. After the grant funding was secured, the owners of the FWCH, City Fusion, stated that they do not have the ability to bring a restoration project forward. In response the Council has been seeking to acquire the building from the owners in order to ensure that this important piece of Leeds heritage is not lost. Despite initial agreement to transfer ownership of the building to the Council, they have not been able to acquire the building.

2.0 Site and Surroundings:

2.1 The First White Cloth Hall is a Grade II* Listed Building located on the south side of Kirkgate, facing the junction of Kirkgate and New York Street. Kirkgate is within the City Centre Conservation Area. The south side of Kirkgate consists of late 18th century and early 19th century three storey-houses which have had shopfronts inserted at ground floor. Due to the dangerous condition of the FWCH building it is surrounded by hoardings from Kirkgate and by fencing from Crown Street car park.

2.2 Kirkgate is known as Leeds’ oldest street, and the lower part of Kirkgate lies at a strategically crucial point in the City Centre between Victoria Gate, Kirkgate Market and the Riverside area. Despite its central location and historic character, it has not benefited from the recent success of the rest of the City Centre, and a number of properties are vacant. It has a unique character that has huge potential to kick start a revitalisation that could have wider benefits for the City. The townscape of the Kirkgate area contains some of the most architecturally and historically significant buildings in the city, being the historic core of Leeds and the site of continuous development since at least the Anglo Saxon period, running from Briggate to the Parish Church. Kirkgate is flanked by continuous and varied building frontages rising to the west to later Victorian buildings, which create a sense of enclosure and verticality. This is accentuated by the narrow width of individual building frontages, reflecting the medieval layout of crofts along the street. To the rear of the frontage on the south west side of Kirkgate a large open space has been created by the clearance of buildings. There is a car park to the rear of the properties, which is accessible from Crown Street and by narrow through-passages from Kirkgate.

3.0 Proposal

3.1 Conservation-accredited architects, Buttress, were appointed in September 2014 to develop a Conservation Management Plan and subsequent design option appraisal for the building. The Conservation Management Plan contains polices to provide a framework for the detailed design of the building. These are based on the detailed assessment of the significance of the building undertaken in the plan. The plan has led to a specific approach for each part of the building, and each are subject to a

Page 38 number of factors such as the information available, the significance of that part of the building, and the need or opportunity for intervention or enhancement. The Conservation Management Plan has been shaped using current conservation philosophy and principles. These advocate a cautionary approach to changing a place, doing no more than necessary to repair and adapt a building to a sustainable use. There is a presumption against speculation or conjecture in restoration works, and that changes to a heritage asset should not distort the physical or other evidence it provides. Preservation in this context means not harming the interest or significance of the building, rather than keeping it unchanged.

3.2 In accordance with this approach the preferred scheme seeks provide a space for a new bar or restaurant use or other similar commercial and leisure operation as follows:

a) Reinstate the west wing to its pre-demolition form The pre-demolition form of the wing has value architecturally as it offers symmetry to the extant building. It is possible to detail the building in such a way that it reflects the form and materials of the east wing but is identifiable as a modern addition.

b) Reinstate the arcading to the inner courtyard This is based on remaining physical evidence. It is possible to repair existing and replicate missing elements to the original design without conjecture. Reinstating the colonnade would enhance the significance of the building.

c) Retain and repair the Kirkgate frontages The Kirkgate façade has heritage value as it demonstrates the evolution of the building and the re-facing of the Kirkgate façade. Removing this historic fabric and replacing it with a conjectural design informed by speculation, for which no evidence exists, would be harmful to the significance of the building and contrary to the policy framework.

d) Introduce high quality modern design in the form of a glazed atrium The addition of a glazed atrium to the yard would make the building more attractive to tenants, both aesthetically and commercially, by introducing flexibility to the circulation and extending the trading hours for the internal courtyard. This would be able to be used throughout the year and in poor weather. Commercial consultants have provided advice to suggest that such an approach would be beneficial as potential occupants are likely to prefer a larger floor area in an enclosed “square” form to operate from, rather than an open ‘U’ shape which can make practical use more difficult. High quality modern, “honest”, interventions are also an accepted conservation practice.

e) Introduce a modern rainscreen treatment to the southern elevation Only a small proportion (two and a half bays) of the fenestration of the original southern elevation remains. Whilst it is possible to arrive at a probable window pattern based on this and the likely symmetrical nature of the rear elevation it would involve a small element of conjecture. Therefore, it is proposed to introduce a corten rain screen to cover the rear elevation. This approach would enable a possible historic window pattern to be designed without adding speculative features to the actual building.

Page 39

3.3 It is intended to secure access rights from the car park area to the rear to help serve and maintain the premises and uses.

3.4 The next stage would be to undertake detailed design which would develop the preferred option to full planning/listed building consent application stage.

4.0 History of Negotiations and Consultation

4.1 As part of the option process a number of consultation workshops were held with relevant stakeholders by the applicant team. These workshops were facilitated by Buttress Architects.

4.2 The first workshop with the applicant team, conservation officer and City Fusion sought to reduce a ‘long list’ of potential design options to a smaller number that could be considered further by a wider stakeholder group. The design options ranged from repair only to the rebuilding of the west wing in an overtly modern style. The meeting agreed to reduce the options to four in number.

4.3 The second workshop involved a wider stakeholder group which included: • Applicant team officers • Conservation officer • City Fusion • Leeds Civic Trust • Historic England • Leeds Minster • The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) • Council for British Archaeology • Leeds Historical (Thoresby) Society • Mood Developments (a neighbouring Kirkgate property owner - all Kirkgate property owners were invited) • Prince’s Regeneration Trust

4.4 This meeting reduced four options to an agreed preferred option, with the agreement that an atrium would be acceptable if justified in viability terms. A further meeting was requested, to test the more detailed design approach to the form i.e. a “1711” conjectural approach towards potential original design, or a repair and reinstatement scheme in line with Conservation Management Plan policies.

4.5 The third meeting was attended by:

• Applicant team officers • Conservation officer • City Fusion • Historic England • Prince’s Regeneration Trust • Leeds Civic Trust • SPAB • Mood Developments

Page 40

4.6 There was disagreement between stakeholders on the second issue of how to approach the detailed design. Some preferred rebuilding in a “1711” style despite accepting there is no remaining or documentary evidence of the approach. This approach would be contrary to the philosophy of the Conservation Management Plan, and would not be in accordance with accepted conservation philosophy. Other stakeholders, such as Historic England, preferred a repair and reinstatement approach which was based on the developed conservation approach and meets current best practice conservation principles.

4.7 Following the stakeholder workshops Buttress presented their recommended design approach to the applicant team, which was a repair and reinstatement scheme with the introduction of a glazed atrium. This is the applicant team’s preferred approach.

4.8 Historic England have confirmed that they are satisfied with the principle of the proposal, which they consider will bring the building back into viable use, but that the detailed design for the glazed atrium requires further work.

4.9 City and Hunslet Ward Councillors were consulted by email on 10th October 2016. At the time of drafting this report no comments had been received.

6.0 Relevant Planning Policies

6.1 The Development Plan Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the application to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the purposes of decision making, the Development Plan for Leeds currently comprises the following documents: 1. The Leeds Core Strategy (Adopted November 2014) 2. Saved UDP Policies (2006), included as Appendix 1 of the Core Strategy 3. The Natural Resources & Waste Local Plan (NRWLP, Adopted January 2013) 4. Any Neighbourhood Plan, once Adopted These development plan policies are supplemented by supplementary planning guidance and documents.

6.2 Leeds Core Strategy The Core Strategy sets out strategic level policies and vision to guide the delivery of development investment decisions and the overall future of the district. The most relevant policies are set out in the paragraphs below:

Policy CC1 outlines the planned growth for the city centre and supports the provision of town centre uses such as bar and restaurant uses as part of this planned growth.

Policy P10 requires new development to be based on a thorough contextual analysis to provide good design appropriate to its scale and function, delivering high quality innovative design and enhancing existing landscapes and spaces. Proposals will be supported which protect and enhance existing historic assets.

Page 41 Policy P11 states the historic environment will be conserved and enhanced. Where appropriate the significance of assets, impact of proposals and mitigation measures will be required to be considered through a Heritage Statement. Innovative and sustainable construction which integrates with and enhances the historic environment will be encouraged

Policy P12 requires the quality, character and biodiversity of Leeds’ townscapes, including their historical and cultural significance, to be conserved and enhanced.

6.3 Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review 2006 (UDPR) Saved Policies The site lies within the designated City Centre. Saved policies that are relevant to this scheme are: GP5 All Planning Considerations N14 Listed Building and Preservation N15 Listed Buildings and Change of Use N16 Listed Buildings and Extensions N17 Listed Buildings Character and Appearance N18A Conservation Areas and Demolition N18B Conservation Areas and Demolition N19 Conservation Areas New Buildings N20 Conservation Areas and Retention of Features BD2 Design of New buildings BD6 Alterations and extensions BC7 Building conservation

6.4 Relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance includes:

Lower Kirkgate Planning Statement 2011 The Lower Kirkgate Planning Statement 2011 was adopted by the Council as site specific informal planning guidance for development management purposes, following public consultation in 2009 and 2011. The document was used to inform the successful Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI) bid, and is used to guide development proposals within the Lower Kirkgate THI area. In particular, states that the centrepiece and focal point of Lower Kirkgate should be the careful and sensitive repair and restoration of the First White Cloth Hall, which has the potential to act as catalyst for the wider regeneration and re-connection of this part of the City Centre.

6.5 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied, only to the extent that it is relevant, proportionate and necessary to do so. The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Section 7 (paras 56-66) states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. It is important that design is inclusive and of high quality. Key principles include:

• Establishing a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit;

Page 42 • Respond to local character and history; • Reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation; • Development to be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) also includes policies relating to heritage assets and states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

Paragraph 17 of NPPF states that “conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations”.

Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment. In particular paragraph 131: In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

• the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; • the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and • the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

Paragraph 132 would be relevant in determining an application, namely that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.

7.0 Key Issues

7.1 The principle of the proposed uses At this stage the intention is to plan for a bar and/or restaurant use as the most likely viable option. Notwithstanding this the Council is not wedded to any particular use provided it is viable.

With regard to a possible bar or restaurant use, the wider area is characterised by a mixture of uses including existing bars and restaurants. It is considered that new bar and restaurant uses can be accommodated on the site with suitable controls without creating an amenity problem in the area and would be compatible with the vibrant

Page 43 mixed use character of the wider city centre area. The intention is to secure access from the rear to ensure that suitable servicing arrangements can be provided.

7.2 Impact of the proposal on the special architectural character and historic interest of the Grade II* Listed First White Cloth Hall and the City Centre Conservation Area (Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990)

The architect has produced a preferred option based on the conservation management plan and general conservation good practice, as set out at paragraph 3.2 of this report. In summary the emerging scheme would feature: - the reinstatement of the west wing to its pre-demolition form - the reinstatement of the arcading to the inner courtyard - retention and repair of the Kirkgate frontages - introduction of high quality modern design in the form of a glazed atrium - the introduction of a corten rainscreen treatment to the southern elevation

7. 2 Do Members support the preferred option prior to its detailed design?

8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 Members will be advised of the details of this emerging scheme and are asked to provide responses to the following:

8.2 Do Members support the preferred option prior to its detailed design?

Background Papers: Pre-application file: PREAPP/16/00532

Page 44 PREAPP/16/00532

CITY PLANS PANEL © Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey 100019567 Page 45 PRODUCED BY CITY DEVELOPMENT, GIS MAPPING & DATA TEAM, LEEDS CITY COUNCIL SCALE : 1/1500 ° Page 46 Agenda Item 9

Originator: Paul Kendall

Tel: 3788017

Report of the Chief Planning Officer

CITY PLANS PANEL

27th October 2016

Pre-application presentation of proposed residential development comprising approximately 567 apartments, the repair and refurbishment of the grade II listed viaduct to create a new elevated public park and a mix of commercial units within the viaduct arches on Land at Monkbridge, Whitehall Road, Leeds, LS12 1BE (PREAPP/16/00421)

Applicant – ART PRS Leeds GP Limited (as General Partner of ART Investments LP)

Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:

City and Hunslet Equality and Diversity

Community Cohesion

Ward Members consulted Narrowing the Gap Yes

RECOMMENDATION: This report is brought to Plans Panel for information. The Developer will present the details of the scheme to allow Members to consider and comment on the proposals at this stage.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This presentation is intended to inform Members of the emerging proposals for the former Doncaster Monkbridge site and the listed viaduct. The previously approved scheme on this site was for a major residential development comprising four towers ranging from 13 storeys to 33 storeys in height.

1.2 The emerging proposals will be presented to Panel by the applicant to allow Members to comment on the scheme and raise any issues, prior to the intended submission of a hybrid planning application and a listed building consent application. The applicant has informed officers that they already have a construction partner (Sir Alfred McAlpine) and that, if approved through the planning process, it is intended to commence work on site in Summer 2017, with completion in 2019.

2.0 Site and surroundings Page 47

2.1 The site measures approximately 1.7 hectares and contains the Grade II listed former railway viaduct along the southern boundary, with the land to the north being cleared and, in part, hard surfaced. The viaduct consists of a main elevated section which is straight, the top of which is approximately the same length and width as Briggate, and a narrower spur which gently curves off to the north for some 40m. To the north of this is the complex of former historic railway buildings comprising the Grade II* listed Roundhouse, the Grade II listed Half Roundhouse and canal side workshop building.

2.2 The site is located to the south-west of the commercial core of the city centre but within the defined city centre boundary. The Leeds Liverpool Canal is to the east of the site with the railway to the west, which sits above the general height of the majority of the land to be developed. There is a mix of residential, commercial and industrial activities in the surrounding area with the land immediately to the north being part vacant and part used to store vehicles in connection with the vehicle hire use currently in the Roundhouse. These are accessed from Graingers way which feeds directly onto the Inner Ring Rd east of the Armley Gyratory. To the north of the canal is the City Island Phase 1 residential scheme (4-15 storeys in height) which has its nearest section approximately 35m away and raised above canal level on the robust canal-side stone wall. Adjacent this is the phase 2 scheme which rises to 19 storeys of residential use.

2.3 As will be set out below, planning permission was previously granted for commercial office buildings to the south of the viaduct, works to refurbish the viaduct to introduce commercial uses and a large residential development to the north of the viaduct on the same land to be occupied by the scheme under consideration here. One of the office buildings (8 storeys) has been constructed on Whitehall Road and is now occupied.

2.4 The access roads to the commercial plots south of the viaduct have also been constructed and connected to Whitehall Road, one of the main distributor roads serving Leeds City Centre. The site subject to this appraisal is accessed via these new access roads which are private and therefore do not form part of the public highway network. These pass beneath 2 of the arches in the listed viaduct.

2.5 The eastern part of the site is within Flood Zone 2.

3.0 Proposals

3.1 The proposed development is for approx. 567 no. apartments in five buildings. The three western buildings will provide approx. 307 no. apartments intended to be made available to the Private Rented Sector (PRS) with the other two buildings providing a further 260 units for open market sale. The 307 PRS units will be applied for in full with outline permission being sought for the open market dwellings.

3.2 The 3 buildings containing the PRS units would be between 12 and 14 storeys in height closest to the railway line. Of the remaining 2 buildings containing the open market units, the building closest to the canal is proposed to be between 18 and 21 storeys, with the remaining building being between 12 and 14 storeys.

3.3 The buildings follow the gently curving path of the northern side of the viaduct. Three of the buildings align with the viaduct with 2 being set perpendicular to the curve. Each of the buildings is set 20m away from its neighbour and so, whilst the buildings are of differing heights and widths, it is the gaps between them which remain the Page 48 constant. This sets up a strong rhythm which is discernible when viewed from distance, primarily from the Inner Ring Road to the north. Southern views will be intermittent given that the site is located to the north of the neighbouring office site and to the east of the railway. However, t would be visible across the pocket park between the River Aire and the canal, and from the canal towpath.

3.4 The listed viaduct will be repaired and will be enhanced to provide a new elevated landscaped public park that will connect to the Wellington Place development to the east, with the physical mechanism for achieving this link yet to be agreed.

3.5 There will be 5,500 sqm of public open space within the site consisting of a majority of the top of the viaduct with a further 3,700 sqm of private communal space for the residents of the PRS apartments.

3.6 The arches to the viaduct will also be repaired and refurbished to provide new commercial space including retail units, cafes, bars and restaurants with the triangular area between the 2 viaduct limbs proposed to provide a glazed covered space and a physical connection between the viaduct level and the lower general site level. At this point a further arch would be left open to provide a strong north/south pedestrian connection.

3.7 Car parking is to be provided beneath each of the buildings with the total number of spaces proposed being 119. Servicing and will take place from a single loop road and 2 spurs off this, which would pass beneath the buildings. This would utilize 2 of the arches for access points, which is the same arrangement approved as part of the previous permission.

4.0 Relevant planning history

4.1 The site has a complex planning history and the key applications are outlined below with a brief summary provided for each.

4.2 06/02880/OT: Outline application to layout access and erect multi-level mixed use development for residential and office uses up to 33 storeys high, with ancillary class A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, D1 and D2 uses and associated car parking and landscaped areas - approved 10th Sept 07.

4.3 This is the key application that relates to the wider Doncaster Monkbridge site (i.e. to both the north and south of the viaduct and the viaduct itself). This outline approval granted permission for five office buildings to the south of the viaduct (up to 12 storeys), works to the viaduct to introduce commercial uses in the arches, and a landscaped area on top of the viaduct plus four residential towers of up to 16, 23, 29 and 33 storeys providing a total of 720 apartments. The principle of development, means of access and siting of the buildings were agreed and a detailed design code set the design principles and scale of the buildings.

4.4 Car parking for the residential development was to be provided in a multi-storey car park located under the fourth residential building at the western end of the viaduct.

4.5 14/04913/LI: Listed Building application to carry out alterations, repairs and restoration to disused railway viaduct to form new public realm and links to adjoining proposed residential development - approved 24th October 14.

4.6 This permission renewed the historic listed building consents that allowed the repair and refurbishment works to the viaduct. Page 49

4.7 12/05448/LI/12/05444/FU: Use of disused viaduct as an outdoor architecture/art/sculpture platform - approved 15th Feb 13.

4.8 The council and local residents have sought to achieve a temporary use of, and art installation on, the viaduct. This permission permitted the installation of art works on top of the viaduct.

4.9 11/03759/RM: 29 storey block of 194 flats and use of 2 railway arches for commercial purposes - approved 6th Dec 11

4.10 08/03199/RM: Laying out of pocket park with landscaping - approved 28th October 08. As required by the original permission,

4.11 As required by the outline consent, the pocket park between the canal and river was approved and subsequently laid out.

4.12 07/04583/RM: 16 storey block of 103 flats and 23 storey block of 166 flats, with associated landscaping - approved 25th June 08.

4.13 Reserved matters approval was granted for the first two residential towers.

4.14 06/00463/LI: Listed Building Application for the removal of structures and associated works and equipment from railway viaduct arches. Removal of brickwork attached to the viaduct and opening up of all arches by removal of retaining walls - approved 13th June 06.

5.0 History of negotiations and engagement

5.1 Pre-application discussions regarding the current proposals commenced in July this year. Design meetings have been held involving both the developer’s team and officers from Planning, Design and Highways.

5.2 Officers have confirmed that the principle of buildings increasing in height towards the river is acceptable and are very supportive of the works to the listed viaduct and the ability to utilize this space by the public.

6.0 Consultation responses

6.1 Ward councillors have been informed of the pre-application proposal by e-mail. No responses were received as a result of this.

6.2 Historic England: Note the importance of the historic structures on the site. The Railway Viaduct over River Aire and the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, dated c.1846 was designed by Thomas Grainger, engineer for the Leeds and Thirsk Railway Company and the Leeds, Dewsbury and Huddersfield Railway. The Round House, a Grade II* listed building was built as an engine house in 1847, also by Thomas Grainger and is located adjacent to the north west corner of the development site. The area to the north of the site contains a Grade II listed Half-Round House and the Grade II listed Former Railway Repair Shop, all designed by Grainger and broadly contemporary. These designated heritage assets form part of the pre-amalgamation railway complex which is of immense significance both locally and nationally; the only example of Grainger’s fine civil engineering design south of the Scottish border. The existing railway context makes an important contribution to the setting of the Page 50 listed buildings and directly informed their locations. The river and canal also constitute major aspects of the setting of the heritage assets.

The proposals coming forward will need to be supported by an assessment of impact on significance that considers the site and its setting holistically. Opportunities to enhance the appreciation and understanding of the different elements and how they relate to each other should be clearly identified in the supporting information.

HE broadly support the proposals for the public realm and are positive towards the creative landscaping proposals which focus on enhancing connectivity and the movement of people into the site. Using the deck and following the railway line route for the main access through the site is a positive response the heritage significance of both the structure and its setting.

In general terms, HE have no objection to the proposed layout which looks to set different blocks at right angles to the dismantled railway line. They then go on to make comments about some key elements which, in the views of HE, would benefit from further work:

The western most block should respond to the shape of the site – possibly a triangular form which would allow views of the Round House from the railway line. The Round House, Half-Round House and the railway Repair Shop are all different, yet bold distinctive shapes. A triangular block on the western edge of the development site would add another distinctive shape which has been, once again, dictated by the location and relationship to the surrounding railway infrastructure, following this established tradition.

A creative approach should be taken to the reinstatement of missing balustrading to the parapets. Previous repairs indicate how the visual appearance and silhouette of the vase shapes was more important than the fabric. Therefore, new interventions should be encouraged to reflect this.

They would prefer the connection to Wellington Place to the east to be made symmetrical to the end of the viaduct, whether it is a staircase or lift

They consider that at least one of the arches should be kept open and not be glazed. This would help to retain the significance that derives from the ability to appreciate the depth of the structure when viewed from the south east. Open arches will also help to create strong sightlines which are important to indicate direction of movement, draw people in, but also to help the legibility of the arches. Glazing is transparent to an extent. However, due to glare, reflections etc it is sometimes seen as a solid material and enclosing the arches will fundamentally change their character.

6.3 LCC Highways: The vehicle and main pedestrian and cycle route to the site will be through the partially developed office development site from Whitehall Road. A number of improvements will be required within this site, including extension of the existing roads to the viaduct, provision of footways - including alongside sections of the existing road where none exist. The road is privately maintained and controlled, whilst there are double yellow lines and signage to discourage parking, it seems to be tolerated to the extent that the two way movement of traffic to the development site could be blocked. The relationship between the ownerships and ability to implement changes needs to be understood.

Page 51 A link to the footbridge over Wellington Road (Inner Ring Road) would be beneficial to pedestrian movement from the site, providing access to employment and other facilities that are otherwise a long circuitous route away, the connection should be provided if at all possible.

A transport assessment will be required. As a minimum this will need to consider the operation of the junction with Whitehall Road with the development site opposite and the Globe Road / Whitehall Road junction, although the final scope can only be determined once the proposed level of parking and likely traffic generation is understood. It should also consider connection to public transport, walking and cycling routes to key locations.

The level of car parking can be a maximum of one space per unit, whilst less parking may be appropriate, the level needs to be considered alongside the type and size of accommodation being provided, an amount of spaces should be provided with electric vehicle charging points in line with parking policy. High quality, secure cycle parking should be provided for residents and employees along with short stay visitor parking for the commercial units. Provision of car club spaces on site may be beneficial and can be considered as the proposals progress.

The submitted scheme suggests that large commercial vehicles will be able to access and turn within the car park area. This will be acceptable for managed movements such as refuse collection, however, drop-off and turning arrangements will need to be provided outside the car park for ad-hoc activities such as taxis and home deliveries.

6.4 LCC Flood Risk Management: The western section of the site is in Flood Zone (FZ)1 with the eastern section in FZ 2 with a small portion adjacent to the River Aire in FZ 3. Hence appropriate consideration should be given to the access level of any basement proposed for the buildings to ensure that these are not inadvertently flooded if they are set below the 1:100 yr flood levels of the adjacent watercourse / FZ 3. It would be prudent to acquire these flood levels from the EA and a Flood Risk Assessment should be completed for the development to appropriately consider the management of any residual flood risk to the development and the need if any for flood resilient measures to be included in the development, even if this may only be necessary for any basement level of the proposed buildings in FZ 2.

Since April 2015, it has been a requirement for the surface water discharge rates from previously developed sites to revert to the greenfield situation. Of course consideration should be given to the hierarchy of surface water discharge so that if infiltration drainage is discounted then surface water discharge from the site would be restricted to greenfield rates of discharge.

6.5 LCC Contaminated Land Team: There is an extensive planning history for the site in question and its environs. Should the development proposal be submitted as a full planning application a Phase I Desk Study Report or Data Review would be required in support of the application. Depending on the outcome of the Phase I Desk Study, a Phase II (Site Investigation) Report and Remediation Statement may also be required.

6.6 LCC Nature Conservation: Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) and Ecological Impact Assessment will be required – there is potential for bat roosting and use of canal-side areas by Otters so the ecological appraisal will need to consider these species and carry out further surveys where appropriate. The stonework of the main viaduct and remaining abutments are likely to provide features with bat roosting Page 52 potential, any boarded up/enclosed areas below the arches should also be considered for hibernation potential. The proposed future intensive use and lighting of these areas below and adjacent to the viaduct will have significant impacts on bat roosting. The PEA should also identify the locations of non-native invasive species (Giant Hogweed has been observed on-site).

Creation of a specific feature for roosting bats would be welcomed – a custom-made bat tower immediately adjacent to the canal-side (in an unlit area) that is modelled on the nearby Italian-esque towers would be a striking local feature. Such a significant feature could help offset any loss of roosting (or potential roosting) at this site.

Leeds Habitat Network – the site lies within the Leeds Habitat Network because of its strategic location and presence of ruderal/undisturbed habitats together with groups of trees to the southern boundary with the railway. The presence of the canal to the north and railway to the south are both features that will need buffering through retaining existing vegetation and a sensitive lighting scheme. Connecting the canal and railway as a biodiversity feature should be possible along the viaduct provided that the landscaping treatment is sympathetic to biodiversity – this will need careful consideration, and should aim to include a range of native shrubs and small trees along the entire length (design in relation to rooting area and drainage will be important).

It will be important to show on a map the areas of biodiversity value to be protected and enhanced – likely to focus on the south and south-western boundaries adjacent to the railway, and an area adjacent to the canal (which could also house the bat tower suggested above).

7.0 Policy

7.1 Development Plan

7.1.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the application to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the purposes of decision making, the Development Plan for Leeds currently comprises the following documents:

• The Leeds Core Strategy (Adopted November 2014) • Saved UDP Policies (2006), included as Appendix 1 of the Core Strategy • The Natural Resources & Waste Local Plan (NRWLP, Adopted January 2013) including revised policies Minerals 13 and 14 (Adopted September 2015). • Any Neighbourhood Plan, once Adopted.

7.2 Core Strategy (CS)

7.2.1 Relevant Core Strategy policies include:

Spatial Policy 1 prioritises the redevelopment of previously developed land within Main Urban Area, in a way that respects and enhances the local character and identity of places and neighbourhoods.

Spatial Policy 3 seeks to maintain and enhance the role of the City Centre as an economic driver for the District and City Region, by comprehensively planning the redevelopment and re-use of vacant and under-used sites for mixed use development and areas of public space; enhancing streets and creating a network of Page 53 open and green spaces to make the City Centre more attractive; and improving connections between the City Centre and adjoining neighbourhoods.

Spatial Policy 7 sets out the spatial distribution of the district wide housing requirement between Housing Market Characteristic Areas. The site is in the City Centre with a requirement to provide 10,200 units (2012-28)

Spatial Policy 11 includes a priority related to improved facilities for pedestrians to promote safety and accessibility, particularly connectivity between the edges of the City Centre and the City Centre itself.

Policy CC1 outlines the planned growth within the City Centre for 10,200 new dwellings, supporting services and open spaces. Part (b) encourages residential development, providing that it does not prejudice town centre functions and provides a reasonable level of amenity for occupiers.

Policy CC3 states new development will need to provide and improve walking and cycling routes connecting the City Centre with adjoining neighbourhoods.

Policy H3 states that housing development should meet or exceed 65 dwellings per hectare in the City Centre.

Policy H4 states that developments should include an appropriate mix of dwelling types and sizes to address needs measured over the long term taking into account the nature of the development and character of the location.

Policy H5 identifies affordable housing requirements. According to the policy, the affordable housing requirement would be 5% of the total number of units, with 40% for households on lower quartile earnings and 60% for households on lower decile earnings.

Policy P10 requires new development to be based on a thorough contextual analysis to provide good design appropriate to its scale and function, delivering high quality innovative design and that development protects and enhance the district’s historic assets in particular, historically and locally important buildings, skylines and views.

Policies T1 and T2 identify transport management and accessibility requirements to ensure new development is adequately served by highways and public transport, and with safe and secure access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with impaired mobility.

Policy G5 requires commercial developments over 0.5 hectares in the City Centre to provide a minimum of 20% of the total site area as open space.

Policy G9 states that development will need to demonstrate biodiversity improvements.

Policies EN1 and EN2 set targets for CO2 reduction and sustainable design and construction, and at least 10% low or zero carbon energy production on-site.

Policy EN5 identifies requirements to manage flood risk.

7.3 Saved Unitary Development Plan Review policies (UDPR)

7.3.1 Relevant Saved Policies include: Page 54

BD2 - New buildings should complement and enhance existing skylines, vistas and landmarks.

Policy BD5 states that a satisfactory level of amenity for occupants and surroundings should be provided.

LD1 - Sets out criteria for landscape schemes.

The eastern part of the site is within the Waterfront Strategy Area as designated by the UDP. This strategy seeks to enhance the waterfront.

7.4 Natural Resources & Waste DPD 2013

7.4.1 The plan sets out where land is needed to enable the City to manage resources, such as minerals, energy, waste and water over the next 15 years, and identifies specific actions which will help use natural resources in a more efficient way. Policies regarding drainage, air quality, land contamination and flood risk are relevant to this proposal.

7.4.2 The site is within the Sand and Gravel and Coal Safe Guarding Areas as identified by policies Minerals 2 and 3 of the Natural Resources and Waste DPD. These policies seek to have the natural assets removed prior to development if viable.

7.5 Other material considerations

7.5.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The NPPF identifies 12 core planning principles (para 17) which include that planning should:

• Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver homes • Seek high quality design and a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants. • Actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling.

Planning should proactively support sustainable economic development and seek to secure high quality design. It encourages the effective use of land and achieves standards of amenity for all existing and future occupiers of land and buildings. A safe and suitable access to the site should be provided (para 32). One of the core principles is the reuse of land that has previously been developed. Paragraph 49 states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF states that local authorities should deliver a wide choice of homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities (para 50).

7.6 Relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance includes:

SPD Tall Buildings Design Guide SPD Parking SPD Street Design Guide SPD Travel Plans SPD Building for Tomorrow Today: Sustainable Design and Construction Page 55 SPG City Centre Urban Design Strategy SPG3 Affordable Housing and the interim affordable housing policy SPG Neighbourhoods for Living

7.6.1 Tall Buildings Design Guide SPD (TBDG)

The guide provides design guidance on the location, form and appearance sustainability, micro-climate and public realm of tall buildings, so that they can be successfully integrated into the environment and contribute to the changing skyline. The strategic principles to be taken into account are to:

• Locate tall buildings in the right place, to integrate them into and make them compatible with their surroundings. • Enhance skylines, views and settings. Protect and preserve areas of special character and interest, principal views across the city and the historic skyline. • Ensure that new tall buildings have a good relationship with the street, movement patterns and transport facilities, creating high quality public space at the same time. • Ensure that tall buildings assist in the legibility of the city and contribute strongly to a sense of place. • Make tall buildings environmentally sustainable and operational. • Promote the highest design quality for tall buildings and their composition resulting in a distinctive, recognisable, skyline.

It is essential that appropriate risk assessment and quantitative analysis is carried out to demonstrate that tall buildings will not produce harmful effects on pedestrians, cyclists or vehicles. The study will also need to demonstrate that appropriate mitigation measures have been applied where comfort and safety criteria are not met.

The TBDG identifies potential opportunity areas for tall buildings taking into account more sensitive areas such as the setting of listed buildings and conservation areas, together with existing infrastructure and tall buildings. The site is an area where tall buildings could be considered appropriate.

7.7 Site Allocations Plan (SAP)

7.7.1 The site is identified in the Publication Draft of the Site Allocations Plan as part of a larger site that also includes the land to the south of the viaduct. This site is identified as being able to deliver 463 units & 50,380 sqm of offices in Phase 1 (MX1-11).

7.8 The Leeds Standard and the DCLG Technical Housing Standards

The Leeds Standard sets out the importance of excellent quality housing in supporting the economic growth ambitions of the Council. The Leeds Standard sizes closely reflect the Government’s Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standard which seek to promote a good standard of internal amenity for all housing types and tenures. Whilst neither of these documents has been adopted as formal planning policy in Leeds given their evidence base in determining the minimum space requirements they are currently used to inform decisions on the acceptability of development proposals.

8.0 Issues Page 56

Members are asked to comment on the proposals and to consider the following matters:

8.1 Principle of the uses The site is brownfield and has a previous permission for primarily residential use, with the accommodation provided in tall apartment blocks. The site is allocated in the SAP for residential use and therefore it is considered that this use is acceptable here.

8.2 A range of supporting uses are proposed for the lower levels and again this general arrangement was proposed by the previous permission. Given the number of residential units, and the requirement to make the ground floors vibrant and attractive, and also to animate the arches, it is again considered that the use of the lower levels of the buildings and arches, for the A1-5 uses proposed, is acceptable. These would ultimately be the subject of controls regarding hours of use, noise, deliveries, extraction and plant details. The amount of A1 retail would also need to be considered against polices which seek to control the unrestricted growth of out of centre retailing.

8.3 The proposed commercial uses will ensure the long term use, management and maintenance of the listed viaduct and will complement the residential use proposed, in addition to the commercial uses, both occupied and proposed, to the south of the viaduct.

8.4 Layout and scale The previous scheme incorporated four buildings between 16-33 storeys in height, whilst the new proposals range between 12-21 storeys. The site is located within an area where a string of tall buildings are considered appropriate in the Tall Buildings Design Guide and where tall buildings have been consistently approved in the past. It is considered that the site remains an appropriate one for tall buildings such as those proposed.

8.5 The buildings range in height and generally step up towards the canal to provide a focal point. This tallest element is approx. 35m away from the properties to the north at City Island. The spacing between the buildings has been carefully considered. This is important as it has the following impacts:

• Gives the residents sufficient space about the units to provide an adequate amount of amenity through day-light penetration and reasonable outlook, including those at City Island • Prevents the run of buildings creating an oppressive linear wall, which could be visually monotonous and relentless • Allows visual connections and links between the listed railway viaduct to the south and the listed railway Roundhouse and Half-Roundhouse to the north.

The objective is to achieve a balance which would enable all of the above objectives to be achieved. The latest iteration will be presented to Members at Panel.

1. Do Members consider that the heights and footprints of the building achieve all of the objectives set out above, including the relationship to the existing units at City Island?

8.6 Public realm and pedestrian connectivity

Page 57 The site is notable for the presence of the listed viaduct structure, and also for the fact that this will be used exclusively for the provision of mostly publicly accessible open space, but also in part for the private residential use. There are also opportunities to pass through the site in 2 locations to provide connectivity north/south and also to connect to the canal towpath and the MEPC site to the east. Core Strategy CC2 advocates a more effective integration of the northern and southern halves of the city through better connectivity and the prioritisation of town centre uses, including large scale residential and leisure uses. It is considered that the emerging vision for this scheme positively reflects this vision.

8.7 In addition to having a close connection to the canal, river and pocket park in between, the public open space on the viaduct will also connect to the open space within the MEPC Wellington Place site. To the north west of the site is the connection to the pedestrian footbridge over the Inner Ring Road adjacent the railway line. The site is narrow at this point and there is a significant levels difference between the site and the area adjacent the Roundhouse. There is also a strip of trees which runs along the railway embankment. Officers intend to pursue the objective of joining up to this footbridge. However, it may prove difficult to achieve a usable and safe pedestrian route whilst also allowing for the retention of trees as part of the Leeds Habitat Network objectives. An alternative would be to come through the neighbouring site to the north and onto Graingers Way at the time when this site comes up for redevelopment. This would give the potential for a wider ‘at grade’ route following the existing highway. It is not known when, or even if, this site will become available and so at this time officers intend to pursue the route which leads directly to the bridge.

2. Do Members support the approach to connect to the footbridge over the Inner Ring Road?

8.8 The grade II listed viaduct is an important and prominent part of the site and will be carefully repaired to allow for the creation of the public open space referenced above. In addition a number of commercial units will be introduced into the archways to enliven the public space to the south of the viaduct. The works outlined above are similar to those approved under the original scheme previously approved and are supported by officers.

8.9 Wind

The intended height of the buildings is such that wind issues need to be considered in detail in the design of the development. The applicant is fully committed to undertake the necessary assessments and has appointed wind engineers to study the potential impacts. The studies will need to take into account the varying and cumulative impacts that may arise, depending upon the sequence in which the towers are constructed.

8.10 Residential amenity and mix The site is located to the east of the railway and adjacent an area used for the parking of large commercial vehicles in association with the vehicle hire business which is located in the neighbouring Roundhouse. The railway is a known feature and the impact this will have on the nearest residential units to the line can be considered and mitigated. The vehicle hire business to the north amounts to a parking area whose intensity of use is unknown. However, it is not used for any industrial processes or anything other than vehicle movements, and any future development on this site would come under planning control.

Page 58 8.11 At the time of writing this report the footprints of the buildings were being considered with one of the primary objectives being to ensure the best quality of amenity for future occupiers such as natural daylight. The PRS apartments would also benefit from the dedicated communal space that totals 3,700 sqm, whilst the open market dwellings benefit from access to the 5,500sqm of public open space on the refurbished viaduct.

8.12 The buildings have been set away from the boundary by between 4 to 10m. This provides a degree of separation from any potential future development of the adjoining sites to the north. Indicative future development plots have been shown on a plan and this is evidence that development of a building footprint, equivalent to those under consideration as part of this pre-application proposal, could still be accommodated on these sites. Clearly any approach from these neighbours would need planning permission and the relative juxtaposition of buildings could be controlled at that time.

8.13 The current proposals identify 567 residential apartments comprising the following components:

• 262 one bedroom apartments • 276 two bedroom apartments • 29 three bedroom apartments

8.14 Policy H4 of the Core Strategy seeks to ensure that new housing is of a range of types and sizes to meet the mix of households expected over the Plan period, taking account of preferences and demand in different parts of the city. With this in mind the Policy is worded to offer flexibility.

8.15 Within the scheme overall, 50% of the units in both the PRS and for sale elements are proposed to be 1 bedroom units (approx. 300 units). 45% are proposed to be 2 bedroom (approx. 275 units) and 5% are proposed as 3 bedroom units (approx.. 30 units). This mix accords with Core Strategy policy H4 with regard to the one and two bedroom dwellings, whereas the percentage of 3 bedroom units is below the percentage sought by policy H4. However, this is consistent with most other schemes approved in the city centre since the Core Strategy was adopted and still ensures that a significant number of three bed dwellings would be delivered, given that the current city centre provision is 1% of all dwellings being 3 bedroom units.

8.16 The applicant has also proposed a differential in the size of units between the ‘for sale’ housing and the PRS sector units. The for sale units are sized at 50 sqm for a one bedroom unit, 70 sqm for a 2 bedroom unit and 100 sqm for a 3 bedroom unit. These meet the nationally described space standards. For the PRS units these would be 42 sqm for the one bedroom units and 64-70 sqm for the two bedroom units (3 bedroom unit sizes are unknown at the time of writing this report). The presentation will show that the room sizes in the PRS units are actually larger than those in the for sale units, but that the omission of the hallway from the PRS units is the difference between the two. This also enables a greater number of units to be provided within the available PRS floorspace.

3. Do Members agree that this is an acceptable approach to amenity and housing mix on the site?

8.17 Highways Vehicular access to the site is fixed by the layout of the neighbouring site to the south and the use of the open arches. The proposal for a single through-route, with Page 59 car parking accessed to either side of this, is simple and means that the parking is contained beneath the buildings. This avoids the need to provide a separate stand- alone car park (approved as part of the previous scheme). Servicing and drop-offs can occur from this loop road and its associated spurs.

8.18 Subject to detailed design and a Transport Assessment of junctions, officers support the general approach to car parking, access and servicing. Car park numbers are proposed to be provided for approximately 22% of the units. The applicant is of the view that the low level of car parking would not discourage interest from future occupiers.

8.19 In addition, the site is within 10 minutes’ walk of the railway station and bus routes on Whitehall Rd and the Inner Ring Road. There would also be significant areas for cycle parking and therefore the site is well located for modes of transport other than the private motor vehicle.

4. Do Members consider that the level of car parking provision here is acceptable?

8.20 Section 106 Obligations and CIL At this stage, adopted policies would result in the following necessary Section 106 matters: • Affordable Housing 5% on-site in accordance with the policy for the area • Sustainable travel fund • Travel plan monitoring fee • Public access through the site including new routes and the use of the viaduct • Cooperation with local jobs and skills initiatives • Management fee

The proposal would be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

9.0 Conclusion This scheme is a significant regeneration opportunity on a brownfield site. It also makes a significant contribution to the long term maintenance and use of the listed viaduct. It would bring with it a large number of new homes and opportunities for employment. Members are asked to note the contents of the report and the presentation, and are invited to provide feedback on the issues outlined below:

1. Do Members consider that the heights and footprints of the building achieve all of the objectives set out above, including the relationship to the existing units at City Island?

2. Do Members support the approach to connect to the footbridge over the Inner Ring Road?

3. Do Members agree that this is an acceptable approach to housing mix on the site?

4. Do Members consider that the level of car parking provision here is acceptable?

Page 60

Page 61 PREAPP/16/00421

CITY PLANS PANEL © Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey 100019567 Page 62 PRODUCED BY CITY DEVELOPMENT, GIS MAPPING & DATA TEAM, LEEDS CITY COUNCIL SCALE : 1/2500 ° Page 63 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10

Originator: Tim Hart

Tel: 3952083

Report of the Chief Planning Officer

CITY PLANS PANEL

27th OCTOBER 2016

Pre-application presentation of the proposed redevelopment of Hume House, Wade Lane, Merrion Way and Tower House Street, Leeds to form a 40 storey student accommodation building (PREAPP/16/00428)

Applicant – Knightsbridge Capital (Leeds) Ltd.

Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:

City and Hunslet Equality and Diversity

Community Cohesion

Ward Members consulted Narrowing the Gap Yes

RECOMMENDATION: This report is brought to Plans Panel for information. The Developer will present the details of the scheme to allow Members to consider and comment on the proposals at this stage.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This presentation is intended to inform Members of the emerging proposals for a new 40 storey tower on land currently occupied by Hume House, Wade Lane. The vision is to provide a landmark building for Leeds intended to enhance the quality of the evolving Arena Quarter and provide a significant addition to the skyline of the city.

1.2 The building, designed by Nick Brown Architects, is likely to comprise primarily student accommodation with commercial space at ground floor level.

2.0 Site and surroundings

2.1 The existing building is a part 2, part 5 storey office building sitting on top of a basement car park dating from the late 1960’s. The site sits towards the eastern extreme of Woodhouse Ridge such that natural ground levels fall towards Mabgate to the east and the heart of the city centre to the south. Page 65 2.2 The site is located close to the junction of Merrion Way and Wade Lane to the north- east of the Merrion Centre. Tower House Street is a short street running north from Merrion Way along the western flank of the site. Arena Point (originally known as Tower House), a 19-storey (77m) office building, is situated on the west side of the street. There is a footway on the northern side of Hume House beyond which is the clv student accommodation building (formerly Opal 3) which is 26 storeys high (90m) at its maximum extent. The First Direct Arena is a large building to the north-west. Beyond the arena, Sky Plaza standing at the junction of Clay Pit Lane and the Inner Ring Road is the tallest building in the area (37 storeys / 106m). The scale of buildings generally reduces substantially with greater distance from the city centre although there are tower blocks beyond the Inner Ring Road in Little London to the north-east. Similarly, although to a lesser degree, the height of buildings beyond Wade Lane to the east reduces as natural ground levels fall.

3.0 Proposals

3.1 It is proposed to demolish the existing building and to construct a 40 storey (126 metre) tower in a similar position to that existing. The building would be likely to be primarily student accommodation, housing between 750 and 800 student rooms depending upon the mix of cluster rooms and studios brought forward. Approximately half of the ground floor (220sqm) would comprise commercial space and the remainder of that level together with the first and second floors would accommodate student amenities including reception area, dining area, lounge, laundry, library and cinema room. A gym is identified at level 39 whilst level 40 would primarily house plant.

3.2 A basement, accessed from Tower House Street, would house bike and bin stores and car parking. The base of the tower is distinct from the body of the building above. The first two levels above ground would have an irregular hexagonal footprint, 19.4 metres at its widest point and 38 metres across its longest dimension. The northern elevation would be parallel to the clv student tower, located approximately 6.7 metres to the north. There would be no windows in this elevation. The southern end would be slightly oblique, projecting 4.5 metres beyond Arena Point (originally Tower House) to the west. This west elevation would be slightly cranked, 12.6 metres from Arena Point across Tower House Street at its closest point. The eastern elevation would be more noticeably cranked with its south- eastern facet parallel to Wade Lane.

3.3 Levels 2-34 would share a common footplate. The western elevations would oversail the ground and first floor typically by 1 metre and 3.5 metres towards the north-west corner. The south-eastern elevation would extrude 7 metres further north than the levels below then return back at an acute angle to the eastern elevation.

3.4 The top 6 floors of the building would gradually become more slender than the levels below. Levels 35-38 would step back to the arrangement at the two lowest ground levels. Levels 39-40 would have a slimmer footplate to levels 35-38 albeit sharing a common north-south dimension.

3.5 The variation in footplates helps to define the base, middle and top of the building. The ground and first floor would be set back behind slender columns supporting and accentuating the upper layers. These levels would be taller than the levels above helping to create a clear base and also setting a rhythm of scale for the levels above. As such, the principal frame to the facades from level 2 upwards would repeat every 3 storeys. This device continues to the top of the building where the top 6 floors step back every 3 storeys. Page 66

3.6 Within the frame each storey would be highlighted by recessed spandrel panels and floor to ceiling openings reflecting a human scale. A variety of different options for materials have been tested. Subject to costing it is presently intended that the main frame would be clad in Yorkshire Gritstone with insulated glazed infill panels used for the inset cladding.

3.7 The basement of the building would accommodate 12 car parking spaces, including disabled parking, motorcycle parking and cycle parking, and bin store accessed by either a car lift or hoist. A loading bay is proposed on the east side of Tower House Street.

3.8 The applicant states that the development would create the opportunity to significantly enhance the public realm in the area. Indicative proposals have been submitted which show a new hard-surfaced area around the periphery of the building containing street trees and the potential for pedestrian priority zones in Merrion Way and Wade Lane.

4.0 Relevant planning history

4.1 The existing building is little changed since its construction in the late 1960’s. The clv student building (formerly Opal 3) was constructed on the site of the Little Londoner public house in 2007. The arena was completed in summer 2013.

5.0 Consultation responses

5.1 LCC Highways – Cycle parking should be provided in accordance with the parking SPD. The proposals suggest that Merrion Way and Lowell Park Road could be altered to become ‘Pedestrian Priority Zones’, although there is no information about how this would be achieved. 3 metre wide footways should be provided. Any proposals for Merrion Way would need to extend further along to encompass Merrion centre entrances, and would need to take account of other proposed developments and access needs. Servicing proposals appear to conflict, adversely affecting existing disabled car parking bays and resulting in vehicles waiting in the highway to enter the site. Provision for student drop-off and pick up also needs to be provided. Wind studies would need to demonstrate that the development would not result in danger to road users.

5.2 LCC Flood Risk Management (Drainage) – The site is located within Flood Zone 1 and is not shown to be at risk of flooding from surface water. A Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy should be provided for the site and Yorkshire Water should be consulted at an early stage as such a large building will have the potential to generate a significant foul water discharge rate. The developer should look at options for reducing surface water runoff.

Given that the adjacent public sewers are all designed for combined water a 30% reduction in total foul and surface water flows off-site, compared with the existing situation should be provided. It is likely that a storage tank and pumping station will be required in the basement of the building.

5.3 LCC Contaminated Land Team – the proposed development is sensitive. A minimum of a Phase I Desk Study is required.

6.0 Policy

Page 67 6.1 Development Plan

6.1.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the application to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the purposes of decision making, the Development Plan for Leeds currently comprises the following documents:

• The Leeds Core Strategy (Adopted November 2014) • Saved UDP Policies (2006), included as Appendix 1 of the Core Strategy • The Natural Resources & Waste Local Plan (NRWLP, Adopted January 2013) including revised policies Minerals 13 and 14 (Adopted September 2015). • Any Neighbourhood Plan, once Adopted

6.2 Core Strategy

6.2.1 Relevant Core Strategy policies include:

Spatial Policy 1 prioritises the redevelopment of previously developed land within the Main Urban Area, in a way that respects and enhances the local character and identity of places and neighbourhoods.

Policy CC1(b) states that residential development will be encouraged within the City Centre and (c) that university facilities will be retained in the City Centre.

Policy H6B refers to proposals for purpose-built student accommodation. Development will be controlled to take the pressure off the need to use private housing; to avoid the loss of existing housing suitable for families; to avoid excessive concentrations of student accommodation; to avoid locations that would lead to detrimental impacts on residential amenity; and to provide satisfactory internal living accommodation for the students.

Policy P10 requires new development to be based on a thorough contextual analysis to provide good design appropriate to its scale and function, delivering high quality innovative design and that development protects and enhance the district’s historic assets in particular, historically and locally important buildings, skylines and views.

Policy P11 states that the historic environment and its settings will be conserved, particularly those elements which help to give Leeds its distinct identity.

Policies T1 and T2 identify transport management and accessibility requirements.

Policy G9 states that development will need to demonstrate biodiversity improvements.

Policies EN1 and EN2 set targets for CO2 reduction and sustainable design and construction, and at least 10% low or zero carbon energy production on-site.

6.3 Natural Resources & Waste DPD 2013

The plan sets out where land is needed to enable the City to manage resources, such as minerals, energy, waste and water over the next 15 years, and identifies specific actions which will help use natural resources in a more efficient way. Policies regarding drainage, air quality, land contamination and tree replacement are relevant to this proposal. Page 68 6.4 Saved Unitary Development Plan Review policies (UDPR)

6.4.1 Relevant Saved Policies include:

GP5 - All relevant planning considerations to be resolved.

N19 states that all new buildings within or within the setting of Conservation Areas should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

BD2 states that new buildings should complement and enhance existing skylines, vistas and landmarks.

BD5 requires new buildings to consider both their own amenity and that of their surroundings including usable space, privacy and satisfactory daylight and sunlight.

6.5 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The NPPF recognises the presumption in favour of sustainable development (para 14). The NPPF identifies 12 core planning principles (para 17) which include that planning should:

• Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development; • Seek high quality design.

Section 7 states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. It is important that design is inclusive and of high quality. Key principles include:

• Establishing a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit; • Respond to local character and history; • Reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation; • Create safe and accessible environments; and • Development to be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.

6.6 Supplementary guidance

Tall Buildings SPD Travel Plans SPD Building for Tomorrow Today: Sustainable Design and Construction SPD City Centre Urban Design Strategy SPG Parking SPD

6.7 Other material considerations

6.7.1 The Leeds Standard was adopted by the Council’s Executive Board on 17th September 2014 to ensure excellent quality in the delivery of new council homes. Through its actions the Council can also seek to influence quality in the private sector. Those aspects of the Standard concerned with design quality will be addressed through better and more consistent application of the Council’s Neighbourhoods for Living guidance. The standard closely reflects the Government’s Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standard which seek to promote a good standard of internal amenity for all housing types and Page 69 tenures. Whilst neither of these documents has been adopted as formal planning policy and only limited weight can be attached to them, given their evidence base in determining the minimum space requirements, they are currently used to help inform decisions on the acceptability of development proposals.

7.0 Issues

Members are asked to comment on the proposals and to consider the following matters:

7.1 Principle of the development

7.1.1 The site is located within the designated City Centre. Core Strategy Policy CC1(b) encourages residential development in city centre locations providing that the development does not prejudice the functions of the City Centre and that it provides a reasonable level of amenity for occupiers.

7.1.2 Policy H6B relates specifically to the provision of student housing. The policy was adopted following the Core Strategy Inspector’s rejection of the Council’s position that the policy should include a test for need when considering applications for new student housing. The proposal is therefore considered against the criteria set out within policy H6B within the adopted Core Strategy:

(i) To help extend the supply of student accommodation taking pressure off the need for private housing to be used.

The development of 750-800 student bedspaces would help to take pressure off the need to use private housing for student accommodation.

(ii) To avoid the loss of existing housing suitable for family accommodation.

The site currently accommodates a relatively small office building. The development would therefore meet the objective.

(iii) To avoid excessive concentrations of student accommodation which would undermine the balance and wellbeing of communities.

The proposed development involves 750-800 student bedspaces. The CLV (former Opal 3) student building is located immediately to the north of the site and contains approximately 560 bedspaces. There are also proposals for a 376 studios development at St Albans / Belgrave Gardens approximately 100m to the south-east (PREAPP/16/00093). Further west, beyond Clay Pit Lane, the Plaza and Sky Plaza developments contain in the region of 650 student bedspaces. Consequently, if all proposed developments were to be constructed, there would be approximately 2800 student bedspaces in close proximity to the arena.

In addition to the arena the area supports a mix of uses, including offices and a range of commercial uses, together with pockets of residential accommodation located primarily to the east side of Wade Lane / Lovell Park Road. However, it is not considered that these and other existing residents in the city centre would be adversely affected by student accommodation in the proposed location given the way in which the area is currently used. Similarly, it is not considered that the number of students proposed would result in an excessive concentration of students within the context of a busy, mixed use, city centre environment. Finally, routes from the development towards both the university campuses and the heart of the city Page 70 centre would typically be through commercial areas such that residential communities would be unlikely to be adversely affected by the student use.

(iv) To avoid locations which are not easily accessible to the universities.

The site is located towards the north-eastern edge of the city centre and is well- placed with regard to access to both the University of Leeds and Leeds Beckett University. Potential improvements to the public realm around the site, including Merrion Way, could improve accessibility further.

(v) To provide satisfactory living accommodation.

The internal arrangement of the building has yet to be fixed such that this matter, including room sizes and dedicated student facilities, will be reviewed in more detail at a later date. However, it is clear that the student rooms facing east and south would benefit from an open outlook with good daylighting. Those rooms facing west up to level 25 would not experience such good outlooks or daylighting due to the juxtaposition with Arena Point. However, a distance of 12.5m is achieved at the closest point between the buildings which is not considered unacceptable in respect of daylighting and outlook for the student rooms. Rooms above this level would enjoy uninterrupted views across the top of Arena Point. No rooms would face north.

7.1.2 Do Members consider that the proposed development is acceptable in principle?

7.2 Townscape considerations

7.2.1 The existing building and its curtilage is not considered to positively contribute to the character of the area. Therefore, the demolition and redevelopment of the site is acceptable in principle. Any new development must provide good design that is appropriate to its location, scale and function (Core Strategy Policy P10). Part (i) of the policy states that the size, scale, design and layout should be appropriate to its context and the development should protect and enhance skylines and views (ii). These policies accord with guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework which requires that development establishes a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit; to respond to local character and history; and to reflect the identity of local surroundings.

7.2.2 The Tall Buildings Design Guide, which pre-dated the construction of the arena but recognised the recent Sky Plaza and CLV (Opal 3) towers, identified that there could be the opportunity for a cluster of tall buildings in the area to the north of the Merrion Centre which includes the site. This “opportunity” overlaps with a potential string of tall buildings following the Inner Ring Road and also the potential for tall buildings to announce a northern gateway to the city centre.

7.2.3 The applicant has tested options ranging from a building the height of Arena Point (77m) up to a 155m high structure. It is suggested that the smaller of the options (a 22 storey structure (77m)) would produce a poor slenderness ratio which would be compromised by its context. Similarly, the architect argues that a 30 storey (90m) building, equivalent in height to the top of the clv tower, would have a poor-average slenderness ratio. It is suggested that a 40 storey building (126m) enables the building to become a dominant element within the cluster with elegant elevations and to achieve a successful slenderness ratio. Above 126m the economies of scale Page 71 diminish rapidly due to the requirements for additional lifts and services until a height of 155m is achieved. Consequently, a 126m (40 storey) building is proposed in order to have a transformative effect upon the site and the context.

7.2.4 Given the building’s scale and the topography of the city it would typically be seen in longer distance city views as the taller element of a cluster of tall buildings grouped around the arena. This would be apparent in views such as those from Scott Hall Road / Scott Hall playing fields and along York Road. Further afield, the long elevation of the building would be clearly visible from Temple Newsam but its narrower profile would be seen in the context of the wider city centre when viewed from the south.

7.2.5 In local views along Merrion Way from Queen Square Conservation Area and Clay Pit Lane past the arena the building would step up from the scale of the Yorkshire Bank, the arena and Arena Point. However, from the conservation area, Merrion House would remain the dominant element. The lower scale of existing buildings along Lovell Park Road is such that the building would appear as a significant skyline feature although much of the mass would be situated behind the clv tower.

7.2.6 The building would be clearly visible in views along Mark Lane immediately to the south of St John’s Church. The applicant suggests that the church tower would remain as the dominant element although the relationship, albeit a passing one, is considered unfortunate.

7.2.7 The gable end of the clv tower is clearly visible in views north up Briggate albeit the building is slightly off the axial view. The views of the existing clv tower diminish approaching the Headrow due to the intervening former Lewis’s building. The proposed building would be located immediately to the south-west of the clv tower such that it would be situated slightly further to left of the axial view north up Briggate. However, the proposed building would obscure much of the view of the clv tower, particularly from the west side of Briggate. The orientation and extruded form of the building is such that the depth of the building would be far more apparent than that of the clv tower. Being 36m (40%) taller than the clv tower and forward of it, the new building would appear far more dominant when viewed up Briggate than the existing clv tower. The Tall Buildings Design Guide states that the view south down Briggate is one of the key views in the city that should be protected and that the introduction of tall buildings within the sky background is likely to have a negative impact upon the distinctive street scale and view. However, the guide is silent on the importance of the view north along Briggate.

7.2.8 The view across Park Square towards the Town Hall is one of the key views in the city centre. The top 10 storeys of the building would be visible from the south-west corner of the square, albeit set away from the Town Hall tower and in the background of chimneys to buildings within Park Square.

7.2.9 Do Members consider that the scale of the proposed new building and its relationship with the surrounding context is acceptable?

7.2.10 The form of the building is partially a response to the constraints of the site in terms of the alignment of neighbouring highways and the position of neighbouring tall buildings. The building is also heavily influenced by the desire to obscure views of the clv tower from Briggate as far as possible. Additionally, the set-backs at the top 6 levels of the building are intended to create a strong top to the building and to increase its verticality. More fundamentally, the scale of the building is intended to Page 72 create a step change in scale and to deliver a new, positive element in the skyline of the city.

7.2.11 The variation in footplates, together with differing functions and architecture, helps to define the base, middle and top of the building. The ground and first floor would be set back behind slender columns supporting and accentuating the upper layers. These levels would be taller than the levels above helping to create a clear base and also setting a rhythm of scale for the levels above. The principal frame to the facades from level 2 upwards would repeat every 3 storeys. This device continues to the top of the building which becomes more slender as the top 6 floors step back every 3 storeys.

7.2.12 Within the frame each storey would be highlighted by recessed spandrel panels and floor to ceiling openings reflecting a human scale. A variety of different options for materials have been tested. Subject to costing it is presently intended that the main frame would be clad in Yorkshire Gritstone with insulated glazed infill panels used for the inset cladding.

7.2.13 Do Members have any comments regarding the emerging architectural approach?

7.3 Impact on neighbouring properties

7.3.1 Hume House is a part two and part five storey building constructed at a similar time to Arena Point (Tower House). The clv tower was constructed 6-7 metres to the north, with living room and bedroom windows located directly facing the gable end of Hume House, albeit given the relative heights only 3 levels in the south-west corner are affected. The northern elevation of the proposed building would be situated an almost identical distance from the clv building to that existing. This elevation would not contain any windows so no issues of overlooking would arise. Further, the width of the new gable is not dissimilar to that of the existing building at its closest point such that its tapered profile helps to mitigate the impact of the much taller proposed building upon the living conditions of occupiers of the clv building. Any issues involving Right to Light are not material planning considerations.

7.3.2 Arena Point is situated on the west side of Tower House Street 11-17m from Hume House. The proposed building would be a metre further away from Arena Point at its closest dimension although the main mass of the building would vary between 12.5- 15m from Arena Point. The west elevation of the proposed building would contain a number of windows but it is noted that Arena point is presently occupied as offices.

7.3.3 The Q One (previously Brunswick Point) building across Wade Lane was converted to residential accommodation earlier this year. The buildings would be a minimum of 25m apart at the closest point. Overlooking is not considered to be an issue at this distance although the new building to the north west could potentially result in a small amount of overshadowing.

7.3.4 The Merrion Centre is located to the south-west of the building beyond Merrion Way. Given the use of the building, the distances involved and the orientation of the proposed tower to the Merrion Centre there is unlikely to be any adverse impact.

7.3.5 Do Members consider that the proposed building would have an acceptable relationship with neighbouring properties.

Page 73 7.4 Public realm and servicing

7.4.1 The site is heavily constrained by surrounding highways which serve uses including the arena, the clv tower, offices in Arena Point and the wide range of uses within the Merrion Centre. Initial details identify a proposed loading bay on Tower House Street together with an access point to a car lift and hoist into the basement servicing area. Further details are required to illustrate in detail how these arrangements would work without unduly affecting the operations of surrounding businesses or harming traffic or pedestrian safety.

7.4.2 The reduced footprint of the building at ground level helps to increase the visual width of the public realm. The remainder of the periphery of the building would be hard-surfaced with street trees located within the footway. The applicant also comments that the redevelopment of the site with a 40 storey building would enable the development to generate a value that would provide the opportunity to significantly enhance the public realm in the area. This could involve pedestrian priority zones in Merrion Way and Wade Lane. It is important that such a large building with a significant zone of influence is located in a suitably, high quality setting. Consequently, further details of what could be realised and how these works would integrate with other proposals within the Arena Quarter need to be produced.

7.4.3 Do Members consider that the development should deliver improvements to the public realm in the area beyond the immediate periphery of the site?

7.5 Wind

7.5.1 The intended height of the building is such that wind issues need to be considered in detail in the design of the development. The applicant is fully committed to undertake the necessary assessments and has appointed WSP as wind engineers to study the potential impacts. A phased approach has been identified that will involve the following processes: a desktop review; preliminary study using Computational Fluid Dynamics covering an area with a radius of 500m from the site; and finally Wind Tunnel testing. The studies will need to take into account the implications of any proposals for tall buildings that may come forward concurrently on the podium site to the west of Arena Point.

7.6 Conclusion

7.6.1 Members are asked to note the contents of the report and the presentation, and are invited to provide feedback, in particular, on the issues outlined below:

Do Members consider that the proposed development is acceptable in principle? (7.1.2)

Do Members consider that the scale of the proposed new building and its relationship with the surrounding context is acceptable? (7.2.9)

Do Members have any comments regarding the emerging architectural approach? (7.2.13)

Do Members consider that the proposed building would have an acceptable relationship with neighbouring properties? (7.3.5)

Page 74 Do Members consider that the development should deliver improvements to the public realm in the area beyond the immediate periphery of the site? (7.4.3)

Page 75 PREAPP/16/00428

CITY PLANS PANEL © Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey 100019567 Page 76 PRODUCED BY CITY DEVELOPMENT, GIS MAPPING & DATA TEAM, LEEDS CITY COUNCIL SCALE : 1/1500 ° Page 77 Page

Page 78 Page

Agenda Item 11

Originator: Tim Hart

Tel: 3952083

Report of the Chief Planning Officer

CITY PLANS PANEL

27th OCTOBER 2016

Pre-application presentation of the proposed new Centre for Creative Arts for Leeds Beckett University, Portland Way and Calverley Street, Leeds (PREAPP/16/00385)

Applicant – Leeds Beckett University

Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:

City and Hunslet Equality and Diversity

Community Cohesion

Ward Members consulted Narrowing the Gap Yes

RECOMMENDATION: This report is brought to Plans Panel for information. The Developer will present the details of the scheme to allow Members to consider and comment on the proposals at this stage.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This presentation is intended to inform Members of the emerging proposals for a new creative arts building for Leeds Beckett University (LBU). The building would bring together university facilities for film, music, performing arts and fashion in order to improve the student experience, to diversify recruitment, enhance transferable skills and employability of the students and to accommodate the recent growth in creative arts courses.

1.2 The building would occupy land north of the junction of Portland Way and Calverley Street adjacent to the student accommodation buildings which have recently been completed by Downing and opposite the west wing of the Civic Hall. The development would be a joint venture between LBU and Downing. The project architect is responsible for the earlier phases developed by Downing.

1.3 A planning application is likely to be submitted later in the year with the intention that the new facility would open in Autumn 2019.

Page 79 2.0 Site and surroundings

2.1 The site is currently vacant having been previously occupied by Leeds Metropolitan University buildings until demolition a decade ago. Most recently it has been used as the site compound for the new student accommodation buildings on land immediately to the north-west. A new pedestrian route has recently been opened along the north-eastern boundary linking Portland Way and the heart of the new student accommodation, whilst also providing opportunities for enhanced routes into the university’s Portland and Calverley Buildings which flank the site.

2.2 The surrounding area is mainly characterised by institutional and civic uses. As noted, the LBU city centre campus is situated immediately to the north of the site. A new entrance to the campus via the Portland Building is nearing completion alongside Portland Way. Leeds General Infirmary is situated across Calverley Street to the west and the Civic Hall and the LBU Rosebowl building are located beyond Portland Way to the south east. The University of Leeds campus is located directly to the north of the Inner Ring Road.

2.3 The campus is located between the University Conservation Area, the City Centre Conservation Area and Queen Square Conservation Area. The Civic Hall is grade II* listed. Trees around the periphery of the site are protected by Tree Preservation Order (No.22) 2007.

3.0 Proposals

3.1 The feasibility designs were developed in line with the vision of LBU to deliver world- class teaching and academic facilities in a gateway location to the university campus. Briefs were prepared for each of the schools (film, music, performing arts and fashion) to assist the identification of accommodation requirements and key linkages. The complexity of the brief was further complicated by the need for more than a third of the building to be double or triple height volumes.

3.2 The building would be situated parallel to the recently completed student accommodation buildings and at a right angle to the LBU Portland Building. The northern end of the building would abut the recently opened footway linking Portland Way and the centre of the campus on the same alignment as the most recently constructed student accommodation buildings to the west. The southern face of the building would be set back approximately 5 metres from Calverley Street at its closest point whilst the most easterly elevation would follow the same building line established by the university’s Woodhouse Building on Portland Way.

3.3 The building would comprise a series of interlocking volumes situated above a deep basement. The element of the building closest to Portland Way would be 5-6 storeys above ground, equivalent to the height of the glazed hub of the Rose Bowl to the east. Beyond this, the building would rise to 9 storeys, a similar height to the closest new student building to the west. The eastern side of this element would be aligned with the gable end of the Portland Building. The front quarter of this segment of the building would step down to equivalent to 6 storeys, the same height as the front portion of the new buildings facing Calverley Street. The Calverley Street facing elevations of both sections of buildings would be cantilevered above the lower and upper ground floors. The elevations fronting Calverley Street and Portland Way would have active frontages. The building would contain the following functions:

• TV studio • Acoustic testing lab Page 80 • Theatre • Prop stores and workshops • Black box studio, recording studios, fashion studios, performance studios and film studios • Ensemble rooms and production offices • Social learning and café • Cinema • Teaching space • Academic and staff offices • Computer labs

3.4 There would be two principal entrances to the building. A “city entrance” would be located close to the junction of Calverley Street and Portland Way leading into a large social learning and café space. The “student entrance” would be situated at the northern end of this area, close to the Portland Building. Vehicular access into a loading bay would be taken from Calverley Street.

3.5 The university’s policy is for all applicable projects to reach a BREEAM Excellent rating to ensure energy efficiency, sustainable design and on-site renewable energy generation where practicable.

3.6 The areas between the building and the highway would be laid out as extended public space, potentially including street trees.

4.0 Relevant planning history

4.1 A seven storey hotel was approved at the junction of Portland Way and Calverley Street in June 2012 but not progressed (11/04582/FU).

4.2 Formal pre-application discussions regarding the current scheme began during the summer. During the course of the discussions the mass of the building has reduced by 20 per cent.

5.0 Consultation responses

5.1 LCC Highways - There is not enough information yet to enable a highways assessment and so further information on parking, access, servicing arrangements and proposed off-site highways works if necessary is awaited

5.2 LCC Flood Risk Management (Drainage) – the appropriate surface water drainage arrangements for the site should be determined by an analysis of the prevailing conditions in order to definitely discount the use of soakaways prior to the consideration of a positive drainage system to the public sewer as there are no nearby watercourses to which surface water may be discharged.

5.2.1 Where the use of soakaway has been discounted surface water discharges should be in accordance with the council’s Minimum Development Control Standards for Flood Risk with the allowable rate of discharge based on a 30% reduction of the existing rate of discharge from the site. . A surface water attenuation system would therefore be required to ensure that the allowable discharge rate is not exceeded for the 1 in 100 year event, including a 30% uplift for climate change. . 5.3 LCC Contaminated Land Team – a review of previously submitted information is required as part of a desk study. Depending on the outcome of the Phase I Desk Page 81 Study, a Phase II (Site Investigation) Report and Remediation Statement may also be required.

6.0 Policy

6.1 Development Plan

6.1.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the application to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the purposes of decision making, the Development Plan for Leeds currently comprises the following documents:

• The Leeds Core Strategy (Adopted November 2014) • Saved UDP Policies (2006), included as Appendix 1 of the Core Strategy • The Natural Resources & Waste Local Plan (NRWLP, Adopted January 2013) including revised policies Minerals 13 and 14 (Adopted September 2015). • Any Neighbourhood Plan, once Adopted

6.2 Core Strategy

6.2.1 Relevant Core Strategy policies include:

Spatial Policy 1 prioritises the redevelopment of previously developed land within the Main Urban Area, in a way that respects and enhances the local character and identity of places and neighbourhoods.

Spatial Policy 3 seeks to maintain and enhance the role of the City Centre as an economic driver for the District and City Region including (iii) valuing the contributions to the life, vitality and economy of the City Centre made by the universities.

Policy CC1(c) states that university facilities are to be retained in the City Centre.

Policy P10 requires new development to be based on a thorough contextual analysis to provide good design appropriate to its scale and function, delivering high quality innovative design and that development protects and enhance the district’s historic assets in particular, historically and locally important buildings, skylines and views.

Policy P11 states that the historic environment and its settings will be conserved, particularly those elements which help to give Leeds its distinct identity.

Policies T1 and T2 identify transport management and accessibility requirements.

Policy G9 states that development will need to demonstrate biodiversity improvements.

Policies EN1 and EN2 set targets for CO2 reduction and sustainable design and construction, and at least 10% low or zero carbon energy production on-site.

6.3 Saved Unitary Development Plan Review policies (UDPR)

6.3.1 Relevant Saved Policies include:

Page 82 N19 states that all new buildings within or within the setting of Conservation Areas should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

BD2 states that new buildings should complement and enhance existing skylines, vistas and landmarks.

BD5 requires new buildings to consider both their own amenity and that of their surroundings including usable space, privacy and satisfactory daylight and sunlight.

6.4 Natural Resources & Waste DPD 2013

6.4.1 Development should conserve trees wherever possible. Where removal is agreed suitable tree replacement should be provided on a minimum three for one replacement to loss.

6.5 Other material considerations

6.5.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

National Planning Policy Framework

The NPPF recognises the presumption in favour of sustainable development (para 14). The NPPF identifies 12 core planning principles (para 17) which include that planning should:

• Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development; • Seek high quality design.

Section 7 states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. It is important that design is inclusive and of high quality. Key principles include:

• Establishing a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit; • Respond to local character and history; • Reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation; • Create safe and accessible environments; and • Development to be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.

7.0 Issues

Members are asked to comment on the proposals and to consider the following matters:

7.1 Principle of the development

7.1.1 The university creative arts facilities are presently scattered across the city centre and beyond. The building would bring together university facilities for film, music, performing arts and fashion on a vacant, previously developed, site which forms part of the university’s city centre campus. The building would abut the university’s Portland Building and recent student accommodation constructed on the campus. The proposals accord with policies SP3 and CC1(c) of the Core Strategy which support the university’s role within the city centre. Page 83 7.1.2 Do Members consider that the proposed development is acceptable in principle?

7.2 Heritage and townscape considerations

7.2.1 The proposed building represents the final piece of the masterplan for the redevelopment of the site envisaged when Leeds Metropolitan University buildings at the junction of Portland Way and Calverley Street were demolished in 2007-2008. The site is located in close proximity to the City Centre conservation area and to listed buildings including the Civic Hall. The site is seen in the context of these buildings when looking north along Calverley Street. Special regard needs to be paid to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings and their setting. Additionally, special attention needs to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

7.2.2 The position of the proposed building maintains the orthogonal order established by the original 1960’s masterplan and continued by the more recent City Campus development by Downing. At the eastern edge, the building follows the building line of the Woodhouse Building to the north, critically set back from Portland Way so as to preserve the spatial character of the street present along Calverley Street and Portland Way. The set-back also helps to ease the relationship with the Civic Hall. In common with its neighbours the proposed building steps forward towards Calverley Street. However, the building would be 5 metres wider than the most recently constructed ones fronting Calverley Street and 5 metres closer to its neighbour than ideal to continue the rhythm of space and development produced by the new buildings. The northern edge of the building would be constructed on an identical alignment to the two newly constructed ones, 7.5 metres from the Portland Building, and thereby strengthening the newly created footpath link.

7.2.3 The massing of the proposed building utilises key principles established by neighbouring buildings. The building would, at its tallest point, be approximately 1 metre taller than the new building to the west, in itself, a difference that would not be readily discernible. The front piece of the building, 16.5 metres in depth, steps down 18 metres to an identical height to the front section of the two new buildings to the west. The width of this front section would be approximately 3 metres wider than its recently constructed neighbours. The easternmost element of the building would be the same height as the front piece helping to mediate the change in scale from the tallest element of the building and the Civic Hall and Rose Bowl located to the south and the east.

7.2.4 Do Members consider that the scale and position of the proposed new building and its relationship with the surrounding context is acceptable?

7.2.5 The proposed building is a combination of different volumes carefully assembled to function effectively and to present a cohesive form. Differing functions within the building also have a variety of requirements, from black acoustically sealed boxes such as the cinema, to areas such as the café and performance areas which could be more transparent and activate the streetscene. Detailed architecture has yet to emerge although the applicant is mindful of the need for the architecture, and materiality, to have a calmness that respects its juxtaposition with neighbouring buildings such as the Civic Hall. A combination of stone and glazing is likely albeit the architect is keen to utilise these materials in a more contemporary way rather than to simply replicate the detail on the two new neighbouring buildings to the west.

Page 84 7.2.6 Do Members have any comments regarding the emerging architectural approach?

7.3 Landscape

7.3.1 Mature trees, primarily located around the junction of Calverley Street and Portland Way, presently enhance the appearance of the wider site and the streetscene. The trees are protected by TPO. However, it is likely that these trees would need to be removed to enable the development. Their loss would have a far greater impact than other previously removed trees further along the Calverley Street frontage given their prominent, corner, location. Consequently, notwithstanding other benefits of the scheme it is important that new street trees are planted to mitigate for any loss and also to help provide a suitable setting for the new development.

7.3.2 Indicative site plans suggest that the space between the new building and the highway would be laid out as an extension of the existing footway, in part, to provide a route to the new entrances to the building but also to create a new area of public realm. The proposed arrangement has the capacity to create a much improved pedestrian experience around the junction of Calverley Street and Portland Way.

7.3.3 Do Members consider that the layout of the new public realm needs to fully mitigate for any tree loss and to produce an attractive setting for the new development and the wider streetscene?

7.4 Conclusion

7.4.1 Members are asked to note the contents of the report and the presentation, and are invited to provide feedback, in particular, on the issues outlined below:

Do Members consider that the proposed development is acceptable in principle? (7.1.2)

Do Members consider that the scale and position of the proposed new building and its relationship with the surrounding context is acceptable? (7.2.4)

Do Members have any comments regarding the emerging architectural approach? (7.2.6)

Do Members consider that a hard and soft landscaping scheme needs to fully mitigate for any tree loss and to produce an attractive setting for the new development and wider streetscene? (7.3.3)

Page 85 PREAPP/16/00385

CITY PLANS PANEL © Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey 100019567 Page 86 PRODUCED BY CITY DEVELOPMENT, GIS MAPPING & DATA TEAM, LEEDS CITY COUNCIL SCALE : 1/1500 ° CopCopyrightyright HawHawkins\Brownkins\Brown AArchitectsrchitects

NNoo implieimpliedd lilicencecence eexists.xists. ThiThiss drawdrawinging sshouldhould nnotot bbee uusedsed ttoo ccalculatealculate aareasreas fforor tthehe pupurposesrposes ooff vvaluation.aluation. DDoo not sscalecale tthishis drdrawing.awing. AAllll DDimensionsimensions ttoo be ccheckedhecked oonn tthehe sisitete bbyy tthehe concontractortractor aandnd ssuchuch dimedimensionsnsions ttoo be ttheirheir rresponsibility.esponsibility. AAllll worworkk mumustst ccomplyomply with relerelevantvant BriBritishtish SStandardstandards anandd BBuildinguilding RegRegulationsulations rrequirements.equirements. Drawing errorerrorss and omiomissionsssions ttoo bbee rreportedeported ttoo tthehe aarchitect.rchitect. TToo be rreadead iinn cconjunctiononjunction wwithith AArchitect'srchitect's sspecificationpecification anandd ootherther conconsultantsultant ininformation.formation.

ReRevv DescripDescriptiontion DaDatete PP0201 I Updatenitial Is stou einclude trees along 212.10.202.09.16 Portland Way 16

Page 87 Page

Ri

El

DN s

e

e

r

c

A

.

1 1 H

Ci

S

8 8

U

t

5

n

m u

m

e De de

²

m ²

n

c

a

t

k F

E

i

l n m

t

3

r

a

8

Pi R

n

m

p e

c

e I c

Ri ² T Y e

C

e

s 1

2 l

Co p

e S A

e

r

t

m

t a

i

3

u

o

1

m n ²

L W

d 8 m

n

L

1

e

o

e m

m 2 ²

o

r

b

n

T

c El D s ² m

S 3

b

t

u

k

0 e

y

² t

B

e

t c N

o

o

m .

r

o

r

r 5

s A

e Pi

² a i

2

a

F p

r L

l m

d e l /

e

Se T

²

R x

Ba

i

6 o R n

m

F 5

So

7 PORTLAND WAY

2 o

g

l

s

i e

m m

n O

m

e

T

x c

S a

²

m ²

i i

e P

b a r

Ba m 7

a

l l e

2

e UP

a UP c

5

n

m s

h 2 l

T

t

l

e

²

i

m S e R

n

m

S

Ba

a g

² e

o

m e

c

m

o

n

h

s

a f

5

F CALVERLEY STREET i

t

l

i

e n

0

i l

n

g

l

l R

m

a

e

g

Ch

m S h

Ba

r Te o

x

1

e

t

² e

i 2 o

b

Ri

n

a 5

m

s

f

a S

m

l

0

t

l

n

1 ProjeProjectct e

e

El

i

s

c

i

g h

1 R

²

n

g m

m

0 e

h

T h

Ba

o e

a

i

m

o NeNeww PePerformingrforming AArtsrts LLeedseeds 0 ²

r n i

e t

we e c n

7

r

S

o

5 ²

g

n .

a g

s

W

f m

6 m

L 7 Calverley St, Leeds, LS1 3DB

t 7 Calverley St, Leeds, LS1 3DB

l

c

e

r i

1 S

² g

e s R

h

C a

m

h

Ba

p

a

i

l

o

n

l

e t

a r

9

o

P g

n

n

0

8

c

s

f

i

r

7

t

e l

n e

m

i o

g

R

Bl m g m

p f

²

h

Ba

o

5

. o

²

Su e

t

S Drawing 8 Drawing +

r Ri Bo

o

n

t s

P m

s f

Co

a x

t l

p

e e

i Site Positioning GA

e Site Positioning GA ²

f g

r R

p

m

f

r

h

s

o f

M o

o e

t

t

r

3

o

u

r n t e

8

m f

m

t l e

i m

g

R a t

e

i

² h

n

n

o

St t

g c

o

e

f

o S

l

i

r Scale Date

g Scale Date p

e

h a

t c 1 : 550000 @ AA33 09/123/09/20165/16

C e DrDrawnawn BByy CheCheckedcked BByy A L SSBB MSHB V JJobob NuNumbermber SStatustatus PurpoPurposese of IIssuessue E R 16165959 SS20 PEndreli mofi nStageary L E DraDrawingwing NoNo.. ReRevv LLBU-HBA-00-XX-DR-A-00_0001BU-HBA-SW-XX-DR-A-00_0000 PP0201 This page is intentionally left blank