Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on a planning application for Proposal for Student Residential Accommodation Building Comprising 117 Studio Flats, including Ancillary Communal Facilities and Associated Landscaping at Woodhouse Square Leeds.

 

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for student residential accommodation comprising of 117 studio flats including ancillary communal facilities and associated landscaping at Woodhouse Square, Leeds.

 

Members attended a site visit prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

 

Further issues highlighted in relation the application included the following:

 

·  The site was to the north west of the City Centre and was the site of the former St Anne’s School.

·  Original buildings at the site had been demolished and the site was now in use as a temporary car park.

·  The proposal was for student residential accommodation of 117 studio flats and the design of the building would reflect the character of the area.

·  The building would be aligned with existing buildings to face Woodhouse Square.

·  There would be communal facilities at ground floor level which would include common rooms, study areas and a gym.

·  The size of the studios would range from 22 to 31 square metres.

·  There would be angled windows to the northern walls facing existing residential properties to protect privacy.

·  The existing boundary wall to the site to Brandon Road would be repaired and retained.

·  Floor plans were shown.  Studio sizes were smaller than national standards but due to the regular shapes of the rooms it was demonstrated that they were adequate for everyday living needs.  In addition to this there was also significant ancillary/communal provision within the development.

·  The style of the building would reflect the character of the existing buildings in the area.

·  There would be no on-site parking provided.  The development was close to the Universities, City Centre and services.  The developer would provide some on street disabled parking and some on street parking opposite the development.

·  Additional letters of objection had been received following the publication of the report.  New issues included concern regarding lack of consultation, issues relating to the right of light and the loss of a sliver birch tree.  In response to this it was reported that the application had been advertised within the usual procedures, right of light was not a planning matter and there had been an amendment to the plans to retain the silver birch tree.

 

A local resident addressed the Panel with concerns and objections to the application.  These included the following:

 

·  The Little Woodhouse Neighbourhood Planning Forums aim was for the area to remain a balanced and sustainable community.

·  The proposals would mean an excessive student population which was contrary to policy as it would undermine the balance of the local community.

·   Reference was made to the density of the student population in this and surrounding areas.

·  Loss of opportunity for family housing.

·  The proposed building would overshadow and overlook properties on Back Claremont Grove.

 

The applicant’s representative addressed the Panel.  Issues highlighted included the following:

 

·  The applicant had provided student accommodation in various locations across Britain and had been well received in other areas.

·  There had been extensive work with planning officers in developing the proposals.

·  The development would enhance this part of Woodhouse Square and the conservation area.

·  It was recognised that there was a level of angst regarding proposals for student accommodation.

·  The area had an eclectic mix of housing and was not just student accommodation.

·  More purpose built student accommodation could potentially release HMOs for family housing.

·  The plans had been significantly reduced from an initial proposal for 152 studio flats.

·  The applicant was willing to work with local residents and community associations to address any concerns.

·  In response to questions from the Panel, the following was discussed:

o  Room sizes were larger than what was typical for student accommodation.  There was a range of different sizes to suit market needs.

o  It was felt that shared communal areas would be sufficient in size.

o  With regards to concern that the building could cause a wind tunnelling effect it was reported that it had not been felt necessary to carry out a wind assessment.

o  A report had been submitted regarding the operation of student arrivals.

o  With regard to concerns of overshadowing/overlooking properties on Back Claremont Grove, it was reported that the distances involved would exceed minimum space standards.  The building would also be at a lower level.

o  In response to concerns regarding disturbance from students, it was reported that managed student accommodation would not present the problems that unmanaged student housing could.  Students had to sign a tenancy agreement which made reference to expected behaviour.

o  The unadopted road to the rear was not in the applicant’s ownership.

o  Lease length for the studios would be for a period of 51 weeks.  These would be more suited to postgraduate students.

o  There would be one 8 person capacity lift within the building and entrances would be wheelchair accessible.

o  There would be internal and external CCTV for the security of the building.  This would not overlook other residential properties.

o  There would be planning conditions controlling the facing materials to be used for the construction of the building.

o  There would be hard landscaping for pedestrianized areas and the courtyard and towards the boundaries some planting, shrubbery and lawn areas.

 

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

 

·  There would be potential for disabled residents to have off site permit parking during their tenancy.

·  The amount of communal space required had been assessed on its likely use by future residents.

·  There was a clear aspiration from the universities deliver purpose built student accommodation that was both close to the learning facilities and the city centre.

·  It was felt that the impact on established communities in the area would be minimal as the general flow of the student occupiers would be in the other direction towards the universities and the city centre.

·  A previous scheme had been recommended for approval 9 years ago but this had been refused by the Panel at the time.

·  There was a view that the communal space was sufficient.  This was not based on a calculated formula but on experience of other similar schemes.

·  Concern that not all upstairs areas could be accessed by lift.

·  Concern that the rooms and communal areas were not big enough.

·  With regard to use of national space standards, the Panel was advised that only limited weight could be given to this as Leeds did not yet have a local policy in relation to this.  It was also mentioned that a student scheme with similar sized studios had been approved by the Panel at its last meeting.

·  Further to concerns regarding detail and design it was reported that Members could be consulted at the condition discharge stage for the proposed materials.

·  Size and massing of the building – the relationship of the proposed building to those already in the area was discussed.  There was a view that a building of the proposed size was needed to fit with existing buildings.

·  Concern that Little Woodhouse would be the next area to have a high concentration of student accommodation.

·  A gable ended roof would be preferable to the proposed hipped design.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the specified conditions set out below and any others which he might consider appropriate, and also the completion of a Section 106 agreement to include the following obligations:

 

·  Use of residential accommodation only by students in full-time higher education;

·  Restrictions on student car ownership and use through lease agreements

·  Cooperation with local employment and training initiatives

·  £10,000 for the delivery of the revised Traffic Regulation Order required for the proposed off-site highway works

·  Section 106 management fee (£750)

 

In the circumstances where the Section 106 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.

 

Members to be consulted at the condition discharge stage regarding use of materials.