Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning officer which sets out details of an application which seeks the erection of an 8 storey building providing student accommodation, comprising 88 studio rooms and communal facilities; associated vehicular access, basement car parking and servicing to land at the junction of Park Lane & Belle Vue Road, Woodhouse, Leeds, LS3 1DP

 

 

(Report attached)

 

 

 

The Chief Planning Officer submitted a report which set out details of an application which sought the erection of an 8 storey building providing student accommodation, comprising 88 studio rooms and communal facilities: associated vehicular access, basement car parking and servicing to land at the Junction of Park Lane & Belle Vue Road, Woodhouse, Leeds, LS3 1DP.

 

Members visited the site prior to the meeting. Site photographs and plans were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

 

Planning Officers addressed the Panel, speaking in detail about the proposal and highlighted the following:

 

·  Site/ location/ context

·  The area is mixed use in character including purpose built student accommodation.

·  The application site lies on a steep slope

·  Traditional housing is located to the north of the site

·  The proposal is to construct an 8 storey student housing block consisting of 88 studio rooms, communal facilities including a gym, a common room and laundry located at ground floor level, a sun room is located at the first floor level.

·  A pedestrian entrance is located along Park Lane

·  The building would be set back from the line of the current stone boundary which would be removed to allow the footway to be doubled in width from its current 1m.

·  The elevations will be in brick with recessed full height windows and integrated louvre panels. A vertical metal panel would be used to complete the composition.

·  The scale of the proposed new building is in context with the surrounding buildings.

 

The Panel then heard from Dr Deryck Piper, a local resident who was objecting to the proposal.

 

Dr Piper said this site had been raised to a level of notoriety due to its planning history, with a number of development proposals being put forward over the years but with no development proceeding on-site.  The site has been viewed by local residents as a derelict eyesore for the past 12 years. Dr Piper said the officer report was very comprehensive but he took issue with this being overly focused on interpretation of Core Strategy Policy H6(B)(i) and the controls around Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) suggesting the policy was not being consistently applied. He said this development will not take pressure off HMO’s in the Little London and Woodhouse areas but would result in the loss of much-needed residential accommodation and housing suitable for families.

 

Dr Piper made reference to Policy H6(B) (iii) as being more appropriate: “To avoid excessive concentrations of student accommodation (in a single development or in combination with existing accommodation) which would undermine the balance and wellbeing of communities”.

 

Dr Piper said that the policy was being applied in the Headingley and Hyde Park area which has a large student population and which sought to retain residential development but residential development in the Little London and Woodhouse areas was under threat.

 

Dr Piper stated that, albeit this is student accommodation, the residential space standards have not been met within this development such as to give adequate living space. In addition, this will bring an increased number of individuals into the area that are not contributing to the community, not paying council tax etc.

 

The proposed development is in the wrong place, the developer already had permission to build 18 residential flats on this site and he urged panel to dismiss this application and asked that the original scheme be completed.

 

Members raised the following questions to Dr Piper:

 

·  Were there any car parking or taxi pick up and drop off concerns

 

In responding Dr Piper said:

 

·  There were major concerns about taxis picking up and dropping off along Burley Road, where often the taxis would park up (sometimes double parking) and the development would add to congestion issues. This was a car free development but students travelling to the city centre on an evening more often used a taxi than walked.

 

The Chair thanked Dr Piper for his attendance and contributions.

 

The Panel then heard from Christopher Wickham who was speaking on behalf of the applicant.

 

Mr Wickham said it was the view of the applicant that this site was suitable for student accommodation, the relevant Core Strategy policy being H6 (B) and it is the criteria of that policy that is being considered. The proposal will assist in meeting continued demand for purpose built student accommodation in Leeds and will reduce pressure on existing family accommodation and HMOs by students. This scheme does not result in the loss of family accommodation. The site is located in a mixed use character area; commercial and residential. The development will make a sustained use of derelict land and would not undermine the community in land use terms.

 

The site is sustainable with direct links to the city centre and accessible to the university campus. The proposed student accommodation offers a wide mix of studio sizes which is in demand. The proposal provides good separation of building distances to Kendal Walk, with no material considerations about light or overlooking. The overall massing of the building has been reduced following consultation and pre-application discussions with officers. The site has good walking routes to the city centre and there are no highway safety concerns. The scheme is to be car-free and therefore taxi traffic generated would be no more than as would arise with any residential scheme. There will be no vehicle accumulation on the Belle Vue Road side. The scheme will be well landscaped with trees on both sides. Mr Wickham said a management plan had been developed, which would be subject to condition which would address end of term pick up and drop offs.

 

Members raised the following questions to Mr Wickham:

 

·  Provision of 2 bedroom apartments would be suitable for family accommodation if looking to longer-term and any possibility for later conversion to family accommodation

·  What is the likely student demographic envisaged to occupy the development

·  Could the use of green walls be considered

·  Picking up and dropping off appears to be a concern from local residents

·  There is an opportunity to include more carbon reduction measures, renewal energy source (could the use of photovoltaic cells be considered) and take an overall sustainable approach to the scheme’s construction

 

In responding Mr Wickham said

 

·  Regarding possible provision of 2 bedroom apartments there was no communal outside space or such other extra amenity space as would be expected if this was a family-led development, which would mean it may be unsuitable for children.

·  A mixed student occupation would be expected but the demographic of possible occupants is not a planning consideration.

·  It was confirmed that the use of green walls would be considered, with the landscaping for the site to be dealt with by way of condition.

·  There will be a management plan in place for end of term drop off and pick with a rota system to be put into operation. Day to day servicing will be achieved from Park Lane. Taxi pick up and drop off will be in Park Lane, with the footpath to be widened though a Section 278 Agreement and that side of the site notably improved.

·  The basement car park is not likely to need to be used by (or attractive for use by) taxis for pick up and drop off, given the limited time that this activity requires.

·  It was indicated that the client may be open minded to further carbon reduction measures being introduced and addressed by way of condition.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Wickham for his attendance and contributions.

 

The following questions were put to Council Officers:

 

·  8 of the studio apartments were 19sqm in size – were these apartments in accordance with National Space Standards

·  Was it possible to increase the size of these smaller apartments by possibly reducing the width of the footpath or by reducing the number of the smaller apartments from 8 to 7, to avoid setting a precedent that developments with smaller room sizes will be granted permission

·  Could a condition be included about the provision of green walls but could further consideration be given to improving this building’s sustainable credentials via conditions also

·  It was suggested that there will be an excessive amount of student accommodation in this area with many residents not having a stake in the community. Would it be possible to have more mixed housing in the area, as this appears to be too disproportionate in respect of the policy on student housing

 

In responding to the issues raised, council officers said:

 

·  The City Centre Team Leader said that the Council’s space standards did not apply to purpose built student accommodation but officers sought additional space in terms of access to communal facilities

·  This approach is similar to that previously adopted in other student accommodation developments considered by City Plans Panel such as the Vita and Unite housing sites

·  There were a number of constraints to be taken into account if the smaller apartments were to be increased in size, as overall floor space would be lost and there would need to be some reduction in footpath width at the side of the site facing Park Lane

·  Overall the smaller-sized apartments only number 8 out of the total of 88 to be provided on-site

·  Highways officers confirmed that they would wish to retain the 2m footpath as this is a minimum standard

·  Officers confirmed that there was opportunity to achieve more in terms of carbon reduction measures – draft Condition 24 already addresses sustainability and conditions can be utilised to ensure commitment from the developer

·   Landscaping is to be secured by way of condition, with there being plenty of opportunity for green walls in particular at the site

·  The Chief Planning Officer said there was a judgement to be made and much is dependent on how the area is defined when determining whether there is a high percentage of student occupation

·  Currently there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that, in general, the purpose built student housing developments in the Burley Road/ Kirkstall Road corridor, which had taken place in the past 15 years had directly led to what is to be regarded as an ‘excessive’ concentration of student housing which had undermined the balance and wellbeing of the existing community

·  There is no evidence to suggest that the purpose build student housing developments in the corridor have directly led to significant additional harm to existing residents in the Little London Woodhouse area and the likely impact of the development is the key planning consideration in this case

·  The Chief Planning Officer confirmed that officers have applied the correct policies when assessing this application and that officer recommendation is what Members can follow or not as they wish

·  The Chief Planning Officer also reminded Members that they are asked to make a decision on the application before them, rather than any hypothetical situation or hypothetical development that they would like to see on the site

 

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

 

·  In general Members welcomed the redevelopment of this derelict site, one Member remained against the principle of more student housing in this area

·  Members were of the view that officers had got the policy balance correct in their assessment of the site and development proposed

·  It was noted that the Little London and Woodhouse area is already such that there is a proliferation of student accommodation, such that a return to a residential family area is not practicable or feasible

·  The majority of Members were of the view that this was a difficult piece of land to develop but the proposed size and massing were acceptable and the development proposed fits well with the surrounding area

·  The were some concerns about the size of the smaller apartments

·  Mixed views were expressed about reducing the size of the footway to achieve more space for the smaller apartments

·  It was suggested that opportunities for more carbon reduction measures including the provision of green walls be pursued.

 

In summing up the Chair thanked all parties for their attendance and contributions, he suggested that the majority of Members appeared to be supportive of the application but further discussions were required about the size of the smaller apartments, be this via alterations to the internal design proposed (the preferred approach) or reducing the size of the footway to allow for increased accommodation provision within the smallest apartments.  Provision of further carbon reduction measures and landscaping will also be addressed via conditions.

 

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and delegated to the

Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions specified in the Appendix No.1 of the submitted report (and any others which he might consider appropriate) and subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to include the following obligations:

 

·  Restriction on occupancy to full-time students only during terms times

·  Local Employment Initiatives

·  Any other obligations which arise as part of the application process

 

In the event of the Section 106 Agreement having 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.