The original Kirkstall Distict Centre on Kirkstall Lane was fatally undermined by the Morrisons development in 1999. There was no way that a small local supermarket with 160 parking spaces and constricted access could compete with a much newer and larger retail outlet with over 600 parking spaces. The adjacent site was a former tannery that had been converted into a printing works. This area has now been demolished and cleared for redevelopment, but there are issues about the form that such development should take.
Kirkstall District Centre Site
(contours at 5m intervals)
The land is steeply sloping, which creates design problems and opportunities, and increases costs. In addition to residential and some fairly limited retail development, it is hoped to have a local medical facility specialising in outpatient procedures, a library and other Leeds City Council facilities on the site.
Unfortunately, there are problems in assembling all these components at the same time, and there are major traffic problems caused by congestion on the A65 and the traffic generated by the Morrisons development itself. Despite additional traffic signals at both ends of Beecroft Street, it is proving very difficult to devise a highway solution that works.
The outline planning application 24/572/05/OT is scheduled for discussion at the Panel Meeting on 19 April 2007.
Link to the report in the Yorkshire Evening Post 13 April 2007
Download the Report to the Plans Panel for 19 April 2007.
The Panel are recommended to 'defer and delegate' the application to officers for final approval. All three Kirkstall councillors have written to the senior planning officer who is dealing with the proposals.
Cllr Illingworth wrote:
"I am writing to object to the recommendation to defer and delegate to the Chief Planning Officer the decision to grant outline planning consent on application 24/572/05/OT at the Kirkstall District Centre.
I think this recommendation is premature. Important issues of principle remain to be decided. Public consultation has not been effective on the most recent, and most controversial aspects of the proposals.
I would like to attend the panel hearing on Thursday and speak against the recommendation to defer and delegate.
In particular, I object most strenuously to the lack of affordable housing on this site. In my view we should require the full 25% envisaged in current planning guidance. I am totally unconvinced by the developer pleading poverty and site abnormals as a reason for abandoning this essential requirement.
I note that the developer's financial arguments have not apparently been published. I would like to inspect this document, and I would be grateful if you could send me an open access copy, that I can freely discuss with my electors. We will need time to consider it properly.
If the developer has paid too much for the land, then that is his own fault. He is working at risk. It is no part of the planning process to rescue venture capitalists from the harsh consequences of their own commercial misjudgements.
I also object most strongly to the statement in section 2.8 on page 34 that "The proposed alterations to the Kirkstall Hill / Kirkstall Lane junction have been the subject of further discussions between the applicantīs highway consultants and the Highways department. Amended plans were agreed and formally submitted on 16 February and the public consultation period for these expired on 27th March."
This process did not adequately engage the local councillors or the general public.
The proposed alterations at Kirkstall Hill are environmentally damaging and represent a substantial deterioration in conditions for pedestrians. They do not accord with our hierarchy of users. I do not agree with the highway officers trite assurance that there will be no detriment to pedestrians. The advertisement and public consultation on these changes has not been adequate.
I am not yet convinced that the developer has identified the optimum highway arrangement. Outline planning consent should not be granted until this has demonstrably been achieved.
Traffic problems in central Kirkstall are of such severity that the present piecemeal approach is no longer adequate. The highway authority must put in place an overall traffic management plan for the entire area, and require a phased and equitable reduction in vehicle movements from all existing and future commercial users. If this cannot be achieved by voluntary agreement, it should be imposed through the use of additional traffic signals controlling egress from commercial sites."
Cllr Minkin wrote:
"I presume the applicants will be informed of this objection. In order to be helpful and allow for preparation time, rather than wait for the meeting itself on Thursday, I write to confirm that I did express some doubts myself about the highway design matters, especially at the Morris Lane / Kirkstall Hill junction, at the briefing meeting. It would be helpful if the Panel were told what will be the phasing and timing of the lights for pedestrians and how this compares with the existing timings. I understood Graham Robertson to say that he thought they would be better so to have the facts would be best. I think the position for pedestrians at the bottom of Beecroft Street should also be made very clear please. Another question which has occurred to me is the design of the Kirkstall Lane access and egress: though I understand that this is an outline application I think it must be very clear whether it can be accommodated without a very high and sheer concrete retaining wall dominating a long stretch of Kirkstall Lane."
Cllr Atha wrote:
Back to the top"I think that it is premature to refer the matter to the Chief Planning Officer though I have great respect for yourself and many of your colleagues. The development however is fraught with issues of a considerable nature and are of such gravity they need to be dealt with by Panel.
I also agree entirely with Cllr Illingworth's contention that there should be a considerable contribution of affordable housing. This condition is being enforced elsewhere and certainly should in this new centre. If the argument is that it makes the schme unworkable so be it. If such a consideration can torpedo the scheme then the scheme is not seaworthy, to muster a maritime metaphor."