Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of a pre-application presentation of the proposed redevelopment of Hume House, Wade Lane, Merrion Way and Tower House Street, Leeds 2 to form a 36 storey student accommodation building.

(Report attached)

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

pre-application for the proposed redevelopment of Hume House, Wade Lane, Merrion Way and Tower House Street, Leeds 2 to form a 36 storey student accommodation building.

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:

·  It was proposed to demolish the existing building and to construct a 36 storey building in its place. The axis of the building would rotate to align with Wade Lane to the south-east rather than Tower House Street as with the current structure. The southern elevation of the building would project approximately 11m forward of the existing building towards Merrion Way, the lowest two levels above ground primarily around the frontage would be set some 3m further back. The upper body of the building also oversails areas of the lowest levels on the eastern and western elevations. At its closest point the northern elevation of the building would be 8.45m from the Arena Village tower.

·  The ground floor of the student accommodation building would comprise the reception and management offices, a common room including a double-height space around the southern entrance, and other supporting facilities such as laundrette and bin store. A plant room and bike store would be provided at Level -1. Level 1 would contain additional common room and study area facilities and the first level of student accommodation. Further study rooms are proposed at Level 24. Excluding the cluster space 563m2 of student amenity space is proposed. The accommodation comprises a mix of studios (22m2) and 4, 5 and 6 bedroom clusters (study bedrooms typically 14m2) with associated kitchen / living areas. In total, 102 studios and 652 cluster bedrooms are proposed, 754 bedspaces overall.

·  Active spaces at the lowest two levels of the building would have double-height glazing with a cantilevered soffit height of 7m. The upper levels of the building would be ordered and disciplined, formed of smaller domestic elements of which it would be composed. The architectural style would loosely be termed ‘stretched classicism’. It is intended that a high-quality artificial stone is used as the principal building material.

·  A new layby would be formed on Tower House Street to be used for deliveries and student drop-off at the beginning and end of years. It is intended to reduce kerb levels and to enhance the surface to make Tower House Street more pedestrian friendly. A new paved surface is proposed to the public realm immediately surrounding the development. Raised planters would be introduced towards the north side of the building, including new street trees, together with totem structures to assist in wind mitigation. Similar totem structures are proposed to the front, southern end, of the building as wind mitigation but also intended to serve the dual purpose of public art. A specimen tree would be planted closer to Merrion Way to replace the existing tree that would need to be removed.

Members raised the following questions:

·  Possible wind implications due to the proposed height of the building, had any testing been undertaken

·  Could further details about the security of the building be provided: how would residents gain access to the building, how would residents access the lifts and what security measures were proposed for the top floor.

·  Was the proposed external material cleanable

·  Could further details be provided about the proposals for the communal areas

·  Could further details be provided about the landscape and lighting proposals

·  What was the timescale for the completion of the building

·  Had any analysis been undertaking about the demand for student accommodation in this area

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

·  It was confirmed that wind testing had been undertaken

·  Entry to the building would be by the use of a key fob, the same key fob would allow access to the lifts. The building would be managed and would incorporate a CCTV scheme throughout. A suitable height balustrade would be developed for the top floor along with CCTV monitoring.

·  It was confirmed that the external materials could be cleaned

·  The communal areas were still being developed but it was envisaged that study rooms, a cinema, fitness rooms and lounges would be incorporated within this area.

·  New street trees would be located and planters would be incorporated throughout the ground floor area, a lighting scheme would be developed for the public realm areas and would also be included within the wind baffles/ totem structures

·  In terms of timescales, it was anticipated that work would begin on site summer 2018 with delivery 2021/22

·  In terms of demand for student accommodation within the city centre, it was reported that the student population had seen a year on year increase over the past 4 years, with a 5% increase in the last year alone. It was therefore anticipated that there was a demand with further growth expected

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

·  Impressive design, nice to see quality materials being used

·  Very attractive design

·  “Pinch point” at the extreme north end of the development could lead to possible wind funnelling

·  A small number of Members considered the room sizes to be too small

·  The design and quality of this building would set the standard for other tall buildings to follow.

·  Welcome proposals for tall buildings but the skyscape needs to be managed and the proposals need to be shown in the context of other committed development

·  Leeds has a vibrant, diverse city centre which welcomes people of all ages to live in, but there is a need for the Council to lead on a strategic vision.

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

·  Members considered the proposed student use was acceptable in principle

·  The majority of Members considered the living conditions within the student accommodation to be acceptable

·  Members were of the view that the emerging scale and design of the proposed new building and its relationship with the surrounding context was acceptable

·  Members were of the view that the development should deliver improvements to the public realm in the area beyond the immediate periphery of the site.

In summing up the Chair said it was heartening to see a design at such an early stage which all Members appeared to like. Members looked forward to the submission of a formal application

(Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16.5 Councillors: C Campbell and G Latty required it to be recorded that they considered the living conditions within the student accommodation to be unacceptable)

RESOLVED –

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

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