Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on the current position in respect of an application for demolition of existing buildings and erection of a 6 storey library with ancillary landscaping and Conservation Area application to demolish 2 office buildings

(report attached)

  Further to minute 11 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 27^th September where Panel received a pre-application presentation for a proposed library at Leeds University, Members considered a position statement on the scheme

Plans, photographs, graphics, story boards and sample materials were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report and stated that the proposed student library would enable Leeds University to compete effectively to attract student numbers

  Members were informed that the site was a sensitive one and was surrounded by heritage assets, some being Grade II Listed Buildings

  One particular building which lay within the site was the former bank building which was now being used as a security office.   Whilst the façade of the building was of interest, it was not Listed and that consideration had been given to its retention on site, however, due to the level changes of the building it was not felt this could be retained.  For information, Members were informed that English Heritage supported the demolition of the former bank building as the replacement scheme was of higher quality

  In terms of landscaping, there would be some loss of trees but replacement planting and new public realm would be provided

  In addition to the library use, an ancillary café use would be included, with the ground floor being fully accessible to the public, schools, colleges and other universities.  The upper levels would be for use by Leeds University only and would comprise study and book stacking areas, with feature windows providing views across the city and to the adjacent church

  Roof top plant would be discrete and not impact on the overall visual effect of the building

  The building would provide two entrances; the main entrance being off Woodhouse Lane, with a secondary entrance off Hillary Place

  In response to Members’ previous comments, the elevation to Hillary Place had been revised to reduce its dominance to the street.  The building had been stepped back and an open podium level had been provided.  Whilst the building required a wide footprint, it was not possible to increase its height, so architectural features had been used, e.g. slot windows, to increase the appearance of height.  The building frontage now aligned with the smaller building on the adjacent site and benefitted from a simplified and refined palette of materials, comprising mainly Portland Stone and glass.  The inclusion of a glass box ‘lantern’ at the top of the building provided vertical emphasis and created a presence on the skyline

  Officers reported an objection received from Leeds Civic Trust but felt that this related to the previous version of the scheme and not the one being presented to Panel

  Members commented on the following matters:

• the revisions which had been made to the scheme, which were an improvement but whether the building fitted in with the surrounding gothic buildings
• that the loss of a bank building was acceptable
• an acceptance that the development could not be built in the gothic style
• the lack of any relationship to the building above it, i.e. at the eaves line
• the Hillary Place elevation and that concerns remained about its massing
• the possibility of creating some interest on the glazing to link the building with the churches and the university, with wording relating to learning being suggested, which would echo the statement on the former BBC building on the opposite side of Woodhouse Lane
• that Members’ comments had been taken on board but that further detailing was needed to indicate the building’s use as a library, rather than just another University building
• the community use of the ground floor which was welcomed
• concerns about the blandness of two elevations when looking from the site to the former BBC building, as shown on the images
• the entrance on Hillary Place with concerns that this appeared dark, unwelcoming and required lighting.  Concerns were also raised about the decorative grill element; that this did not add much to the design and required further thought
• the need for both entrances to make a statement and whether the steps on the Hillary Place entrance would be used in view of a lift also being included
• the number of car parking spaces being lost in the scheme and where cars would be displaced to

Officers provided the following responses:

• that the ground floor of the building would be open to everyone and this included the study areas as well as the café
• that the two elevations shown on the graphic facing the former BBC building were existing campus buildings and that their detail had not been included on the graphic but would be when the image was presented at the point when the application was ready to be determined
• that some VIP car parking existed on the site and that this would be relocated. The Panel’s highways representative stated that there would be no new car parking provided in the scheme and that about 70 car parking spaces would be lost, however discussions were still ongoing with the University about the number of spaces which would need to be relocated, together with cycle parking, although the University was keen to encourage public transport use and the site was in a highly sustainable location in terms of bus routes.  Members were also informed that for the NGT, there would be the need for a rearrangement of the road network on Woodhouse Lane and Hillary Place, which would be opened up to University traffic, with further information on this being provided in the proposed NGT workshop for Panel Members, early next year

In response to the specific questions raised in the report,

Members provided the following responses:

• that the proposed use was appropriate for this location
• that the design refinements were considered to be acceptable but that further detailing was required in view of Members’ comments about the Hillary Place entrance; possible decorative glazing to link the building to the University and the nearby churches, and detailing/signage to properly indicate the use of the building
• that the demolition of the existing buildings was acceptable and that the decorative façade of the former bank building could be salvaged and relocated if required

·  Members noted that further details would be provided  about the relocation of car parking but were supportive in principle of the proposal to reduce the level of car parking on the site

• that the loss of the existing trees and the proposed tree replacement plans and other landscaping was acceptable but there was a need to ensure the proposed fruit trees did not overhang the footpath, in order to avoid accidents

Members discussed the possibility of deferring and delegating determination of the formal application to the Chief Planning Officer, however the majority of Members favoured the scheme to be considered by Panel

  RESOLVED – To note the report and the comments now made and that the Chief Planning Officer be asked to submit a further report in due course, to enable Panel to determine the application