Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on the redevelopment of university buildings to provide new student accommodation including refurbishment and new build, comprising 568 bedrooms, retail unit and landscaping

(report attached)

  Plans, drawings, photographs and graphics were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which sought permission for the major regeneration of part of the Leeds Metropolitan University city campus site, these being blocks F, G and H, which would provide student residential accommodation comprosing 568 bedrooms; a new retail unit; public square with enhanced pedestrian connectivity across the site and the enhancement of existing greenspace

A pre-application presentation on the proposals had been made to Members on 14^th October 2010 and a site visit had taken place.  Details of the issues raised in that presentation were included in the submitted report

  The proposals would see the removal of some of the existing buildings on the site, the retention, cleaning and repairing of the remaining buildings with some re-cladding in glass reinforced concrete at ground level to blocks F and H1

  The landscaping proposals would include a new tree-lined pedestrian route from Woodhouse Lane into the site and the provision of a public space to be known as Campus Square which would be on the site of block G which would be demolished.  Whilst some limited loss of trees would be necessary to provide accessibility, there would be re-provision of 32 new trees across the site

  Members were informed that the site was in a highly accessible location and that walking and cycling would be promoted as the means of transport.  The level of car parking would be rationalised, this being from 73 spaces to 44 spaces

  Officers were of the view that the proposals addressed the challenges posed by the site, particularly the changes in levels; that the scheme would provide new and refurbished buildings, new and enhanced greenspace together with improved connectivity and therefore recommended approval of the application to Panel

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  whether the proposals before Members represented the long-term vision for the site

·  whether the Section 106 money could be used to fund the free city bus which could lose funding due to the necessary cutbacks in expenditure by the Authority

·  the amount of greenspace being provided with concerns being raised that it might not be sufficient for the numbers wishing to use the area

·  the status in the UDPR (2006) of the area of greenspace outside the boundary of the site

·  the proximity of the Inner Ring Road to the site and the need to be satisfied that people were protected from unacceptable levels of pollution, especially when using the open area

·  that additional planting to screen the Inner Ring Road was required

·  that consideration should be given to having sedum roofs on the buildings

·  that the route into the site from the south on Woodhouse Lane was well used and that the desire line should be formalised with a path

·  the reduction in car parking and where the parking would be displaced to

Officers provided the following responses:

·  that the developer retained long-term aspirations for the site

·  that public transport contributions were set aside for major transport works such as the southern entrance to the railway station; that there was a list of schemes which did not include funding the free city bus service as this scheme already existed

·  that the scheme provided an extensive amount of greenspace compared to many other student residential developments, including a significant new public area

·  that the green area beyond the site boundary was designated as protected greenspace in the UDPR (2006)

·  that the issue of air quality had been considered and that Environmental Health Officers had undertaken an assessment which concluded that there were no further requirements to introduce additional measures into the buildings to improve air quality.  The Head of Planning Services stated there would be less buildings on the site with different uses and lower numbers of cars which should help with issues relating to air quality/pollution levels

·  regarding access to the site from the south, there already existed a narrow path and this would be looked at to see if opportunities existed for its enhancement

In respect of levels of car parking provision, Members were informed

that the reduced number of spaces from 73 to 44 would be restricted for use to staff and residents on the city campus only.  However, some additional parking, ie 40 spaces – had been agreed for LMU staff use in the Rosebowl car park

  Concerns were raised at this arrangement which was viewed as amounting to a net loss of car parking spaces; that the original agreement for the Rosebowl car park was that it would provide public, short stay parking; that an agreement had been reached to vary this without Members being informed; that the scheme lent itself by the differing uses, to lower levels of car parking and with that, the hope there would be fewer car parking permits, but this was not the case as re-provision was being offered and £26,000 was being sought towards pay and display parking

  Reference was also made to the extant permission for a hotel on Portland Crescent – currently the site of ‘D’ car park -  and when that scheme came forward, it would lead to further pressure on car parking space in the area

  The Panel’s Highways representative stated that people were being encouraged not to use their cars for work and that where restrictions on parking were being introduced it could, and did lead to people reconsidering whether they still wished to use their car for the daily commute

  The Central Area Planning Manager stated that the matter of car parking provision for LMU in the Rosebowl was not linked to this application and that whilst the intention had been for the Rosebowl to be for short stay parking, it was being under-utilised

  In terms of the contribution towards pay and display parking, this was to compensate the Council for lost revenue from the loss of pay and display space which was needed for the creation of a loading bay

  The Panel considered how to proceed

  A suggestion for further information to be reported back on the car parking issues was not supported

  RESOLVED -  To approve the application in principle and defer and delegate final approval to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report (and any others which he might consider appropriate) and the completion of a Section 106 agreement, to include the following obligations:

-  public transport contribution - £29780

-  travel plan and monitoring fee - £2625

-  management and accessibility to public areas

-  protection of a landing point for Inner Ring Road bridge

-  contribution of £26,000 towards loss of pay and display parking space on Calverley Street

-  employment and training initiatives

-  occupation of residential accommodation by full time students only

-  Section 106 management fee

In the circumstances where the Section 106 Agreement has not been

completed within 3 months of the resolution to grant planning permission, the final determination of the application shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer