Agenda item

To consider a report by the Chief Planning Officer which sets out details of a pre-application presentation of proposed Student Residential Accommodation development on the site of Commerce House, Wade Lane and St Alban’s Place, Leeds LS2 8NJ

(Report attached)

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

pre-application proposal for Student Residential Accommodation development on the site of Commerce House, Wade Lane and St Albans Place, Leeds,

LS2 8NJ.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting. 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:

·  Site / location/ context

·  Demolition of the existing office building and the construction of a multi-storey student residential accommodation development

·  Located within the tall building cluster

·  Key views

·  The proposed new development would comprise a stepped block, rising from 18 storey’s to 28 storey’s in height

·  The building would contain 362 studio flats designed for students

·  Bicycle/ bin stores and gym located at lower ground floor level

·  Main entrance located at ground floor level together with cinema room, general amenity space

·  Additional communal space, including study rooms would be located at first floor level

·  The studio flats would comprise 21m² of floorspace

·  Large floor to ceiling windows

·  Public realm/ courtyard area/ enhanced pedestrian facilities along Belgrave Street

·  Agreed new pedestrian access from St Albans Place

·  Turning head for deliveries, pick up and drop off area

·  Landscaping and tree planting (28 new trees)

·  The developers are aware that a wind assessment requires undertaking

Members raised the following questions: 

·  The proposal is for studio flats but isn’t there a move away from this type of accommodation following concerns about student isolation

·  Could the courtyard space be publicly accessible

·  Concerns about the lack of connectivity between the development, surrounding buildings, and the wider city centre

·  The size of the studio flats at 21m² was a concern

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

·  The Architect suggested there was a need for a mix of student accommodation across the area. In terms of student isolation, the developers were aware of such concerns and intended to provide communal facilities and social events to address these issues.

·  Members were informed that there was a proposal to locate some of the studio flats at ground floor level which had safety concerns for residents if the courtyard space was not managed privately and open to public access. Member’s attention was also drawn to the comments by West Yorkshire Police (Paragraph 5.9 of the submitted report) which suggested reducing the number of access routes into the site, the provision of gates, access control measures for authorised entry and visitor access being directed through the main reception.

·  It was suggested that students would not be unduly isolated from the wider community, as they will be able to access the public space at St Albans Place.

·  In addition, Members were told that opportunities for students to mix and interact would be enhanced if they could feel that there were safe and private communal spaces in which they could do so.

·  It was suggested that the provision of a private courtyard area is a reflection of the usual hierarchy of space which one expects to see in any city environment.

·  Members were informed that National Described Space Standards (NDSS) did not readily apply to purpose built student housing. The Council’s policies however require quality of the residential amenities to be provided to be taken into account in consideration of the proposals.

·  It was suggested that reasonable standards of general amenity space for occupiers had been met with an area of 638m² of communal space being provided. Members were also made aware that other similar schemes had been approved in the area. The City Centre Team Leader reminded Members that connectivity remains important within any city but is particularly important within Leeds, with its character of finer grain pedestrian routes which allow the public to move freely and have a choice of routes.  This can be balanced alongside the comments raised by West Yorkshire Police regarding crime and safety concerns, but with an understanding that public free-flow access and building design (e.g. large windows and a reception overlooking public courtyard areas) can also act as a form of natural surveillance to address safety and amenity concerns.

·  The Architect outlined for Members how the design of the development had evolved, with the context of the area having been the starting point (particularly in terms of the height of the structures proposed and façade treatment).  Further, natural light is seen as an important part of the development and hence the inclusion of tall windows within the studios.

In offering comments Members raised the following issues:

·  The majority of Members welcomed the modern design of the building.

·  A number of Members expressed concern about the size of the studio flats suggesting they were too small and without the mitigation of more substantial amenity space in close proximity as one would find with cluster-flats.

·  Some Members were of the view that a policy was required which specified the minimum space requirements for student accommodation.

·  There was concern from Members about “pure” student accommodation suggesting there was a need for more mixed residential accommodation and to remain mindful of the need for a mixed economy within the city centre.

·  Mixed views were expressed as to whether the courtyard space should be publicly accessible, some Members were of the view that routes through the development should be retained, while others welcomed the private space and the management of that space.

·  Could consideration be given to inclusion of trees in the landscaped areas to assist in reducing flood-risk and deal with surface water

run-off. 

·  Could some rooftop communal space be considered

·  Could carbon reduction measures be considered, such as renewable energy sources and use of sustainable materials in construction.

The Chief Planning Officer drew Members attention to the fact that there does remain mixed provision in this area, with a variety of office, residential, student and retail developments.  The three blocks immediately neighbouring the development site for instance are not solely student accommodation.

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

·  Members were generally of the view that the proposed use of the site for student accommodation was acceptable in principal.

·  Further details were required as to whether the living conditions within the student accommodation were acceptable.

·  Members were of the view that the proposed mass and form of the development and its relationship with the surrounding context was acceptable, provided the developer remains faithful to the design proposed at this pre-application stage.

·  Further information was required from the developer as to whether the courtyard space should be publicly accessible and / or how this might be ingeniously designed to maintain connectivity with the wider city centre area and surrounding locations.

·  Members were of the opinion that the development should deliver improvements to the pedestrian environment in the area beyond the immediate periphery of the site

The Chair thanked the developers for their attendance and presentation suggesting that Members appeared to be generally supportive of the scheme. Commenting on the public access issue he said a clever / imaginative design of the building may address some of the access concerns.

RESOLVED –

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

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