Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which set out details of a Pre-Application Presentation for a stepped block of up to 18 storeys providing student accommodation comprising some 99 units with ground floor communal spaces and a landscape scheme around the building at land to the north of Brunswick Point/Q One, Wade Lane, Leeds, LS2 8DS.

(Report attached)

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which sets out details of a

pre-application proposal for a stepped block of up to 18 storey’s providing student accommodation comprising 99 units with ground floor communal space and a landscaped scheme around the building at land to the north of Brunswick Point/Q One, Wade Lane, Leeds, LS2 8DS.

Site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

·  The site is 0.06 hectares in area and is currently in use as a car park for the adjacent Q One building. The adjacent Q One building is a seven storey building comprising 84 apartments that is also owned by the Developer and is managed on their behalf by YPP.

·  The site is located in the north of the city centre and is accessible from the main arterial route of Wade Lane / Lovell Park Road. The site sits above Leeds Inner Ring Road (A64) in a prominent gateway location which is visible from the surrounding area when approaching the city centre. As well as hard standing for parking, the site also includes existing soft/green landscaping, including trees, along its perimeters, two of which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders. Further trees in the grounds of the adjacent Q One are also subject to Tree Preservation Orders. A Public Right of Way runs along the eastern edge of the site, outside its boundary.

·  The proposed development seeks to construct a part 11, 15 and 18 storey (with roof top plant) building of student accommodation. The scheme would comprise 99 studio dwellings, for occupation by students, ranging in internal floorspace from 23 sq. metres to 25 sq. metres. The proposal would include a range of high quality communal facilities within the ground floor level of the proposed building, comprising a lounge, reception area with TV, a breakfast room and study rooms/pods. Occupiers would also be able to make use of the lower ground floor of the existing Q One building, which will provide a cinema room (c. 30 – 40sqm), a games room (c.80sqm), a storage area for students (c. 30-40sqm) and additional cycle stands.

Members raised the following questions:

·  Were the developers confident that the construction of the foundations would not impact on the Inner Ring Road

·  Would a wind survey be undertaken

·  More information was required as to the design/ appearance of the building

·  How would student drop off and pick up be managed

In responding to the issues raised, the applicant’s representatives said:

·  The developers confirmed that a structural engineer had been instructed and that they were confident that the foundations could be constructed without impacting on the Inner Ring Road

·  The developer confirmed a wind impact assessment would be undertaken

·  Referring to the design/ appearance of the building the applicant stated that the indicative proposals suggested a brick frame with vertical windows but other ideas were emerging

·  Car parking spaces would still be available on site to manage drop off and pick up at the start and end of term.

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

·  A number of trees would be lost which were covered by a Tree Preservation Orders but it was accepted that replacement planting would be carried out

·  The majority of Members expressed the view that this was a small site and the proposal was too large for the site.

·  The proposed development was too close to neighbouring properties, in some instances only 5m away

·  Members emphasised the need to have further details about the design/ appearance of the building

·  Turning within the site for cars would be tight

·  The free gym membership was a positive

In drawing the discussion to a conclusion Members provided the following feedback;

·  The majority of Members were supportive of the principle of the use (Councillors: Campbell and Leadley did not support the principle of the use)

·  Subject to further details being provided, the majority of Members considered the internal amenity including communal space was likely to be acceptable for student accommodation (Councillor Campbell was of the view that the internal amenity and communal space was inadequate)

·  Members were not supportive of the emerging scale, massing and design proposals. The proposals represented overdevelopment of the site

·  Members were supportive of the approach to tree planting including off-site mitigation

·  Further information was required around the approach to transport and access including details on pick up and drop off arrangements and the available car queuing space within the site

In summing up the Chair said Members required further details about the design/ appearance of the building and that it was the view that too much was being put onto a small site.

(Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16.5 Councillor G Latty required it to be recorded that that he was not supportive of the principle of student housing on this site)

RESOLVED –

(i)  To note the details contained in the pre-application presentation

(ii)  That the developers be thanked for their attendance and presentation