Agenda item

Further to minute 148 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 13^th February 2014, where Panel considered a position statement on proposals for student accommodation, key worker and apartment buildings, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the formal application

Included in the appendices to this report is a document considered to be exempt under Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3)

(report attached)

  Further to minute 148 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 13^th February 2014, where Panel considered a position statement on proposals for student accommodation, key worker accommodation and apartment buildings, Members considered a further report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the formal application.  An exempt report relating to a viability appraisal was appended to the main report.  It was noted that a site visit to a similar development in Derby had taken place in April, which had been attended by some Panel Members and Officers

  Plans, photographs, graphics and a sample panel of materials were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which sought approval of a residential development comprising student accommodation; key worker accommodation and apartment buildings, together with two new commercial units on land at the former St Michael’s College and Police Depot at St John’s Road and Belle Vue Road LS3.  It was noted that the 1908 element of the former college would be retained and refurbished within the scheme but that this was not a Listed Building

  Members were informed that the number of bedrooms for use by students with disabilities had been increased from 1 to 4, with 12 further rooms being capable of being converted to accommodate disabled students, which provided the required level for such facilities

  In respect of the demand for further student bedspaces, the level of planning permissions in place for student accommodation was provided, for Members’ information

  Details of the key worker accommodation were provided, with Members being informed the smallest rooms would be 25sqm in size, compared to that seen in Derby which had been 22sqm.  Communal facilities would also be provided, which would include seating areas, TV lounge, reading room, gym and laundry.  Undercroft parking space for 61 vehicles would be provided under the private apartment block

  Revisions to the design of the proposals were also outlined

  Reference was made to the level of S106 contributions which were being offered and that the greenspace contribution fell far short of that required by policy

  At this point, the Panel considered the financial information contained in Appendix 3 to the main report, in private

  The Chair welcomed a representative of the District Valuer who had been asked to consider the financial information submitted by the applicant and who had also carried out an analysis of the issues

  Members discussed the information and commented on the following key issues:

·  the profit levels of the scheme indicated by the applicants

·  the different components of the scheme and how this could affect profit levels

·  the minimum planning contributions being offered; the level of need in the area and that from the information provided, that a significant uplift in the greenspace contribution should be considered

·  the size of the key worker accommodation and whether enlarging these units would impact on viability

·  the condition requiring the development to commence within 6 months from approval; whether if a longer period was allowed, the full S106 contributions could be achieved and what constituted a start on site

·  the contribution the scheme would make towards the Council’s target for new homes

Following this discussion the press and public were invited back into

the meeting

  For clarity, the obligations of the S106 agreement were outlined

  The Panel discussed the application with the main issues relating to:

·  the public transport contribution and that this should not be used for the NGT in this case.  The Transport Development Services Manager confirmed that this sum would be spent on improvements to St George’s Bridge and would not be directed towards NGT

·  the extent to which purpose-built student accommodation was enabling HMOs in Headingley to be returned to family housing; that information from the Working Group considering student housing indicated there would be an oversupply if all schemes were approved and that Members therefore would not expect Officers to recommend approval of all such applications

·  the impact on local areas of high levels of students and that accommodation for post-graduate or mature students could have less of an impact, especially in terms of creating a longer-term community

·  the lack of community benefits from the development and the need for a significant improvement in what was being offered by the applicant in terms of the S106 contributions

·  the importance of refurbishing the 1908 college building and the need for this to be part of the legal agreement

·  design issues relating to the new build elements and that the poor design of these reduced the quality of the historic college building

·  the design and size of the key worker apartments with the view  these would not support lengthy tenure.  Concerns were also raised about the suitability of the proposed living accommodation for the 21^st century and that people wanted privacy rather than communal facilities

·  the definition of key workers, with the Chief Planning Officer stating this should be detailed in relation to salary level

The Panel considered how to proceed

RESOLVED -  That determination of the application be deferred to 

a future meeting to enable negotiations to continue with the applicant on issues raised relating to the size and nature of the key worker accommodation, the design of the new build elevations and the level of S106 contributions and that the Chief Planning Officer be asked to submit a further report addressing all of the outstanding issues, for Members’ consideration