Agenda item

Pre-application 21/00142 - Land at 76 York Street, Leeds

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a pre-application presentation for proposed demolition of existing building and construction of 10 storey purpose built student accommodation block



The report of the Chief Planning Officer informed Members of a pre-application presentation of proposed demolition of existing building and construction of 10 storey purpose built student accommodation block at land at 76 York Street, Leeds.


Members attended the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the presentation.


The applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel.  Issues highlighted included the following:


·  There had been pro-active work with planning officers during the pre-application stage.

·  The current vacant two storey building on the site was last used as a night club.

·  Brick Street was closed at the junction with York Street.

·  The area was in a commercial area and close to the city bus station.

·  A full redevelopment was proposed with a 10 storey student accommodation building.  The height had been reduced following discussion with planning officers.

·  The proposals would take the pressure off private housing for student use.

·  The site was accessible to the universities by sustainable travel modes.

·  There would be 121 fully furnished studio units all compliant with space standards.

·  There would be external and internal communal spaces.

·  Servicing arrangements – these had been agreed with the neighbouring medical practice and access would remain for Network Rail.  Student drop off bays would be available.

·  The applicant had discussed building issues with Network Rail.

·  The proposed siting of the building had been moved further away from the viaduct at the request of Network Rail.

·  CGI images of how the proposed building would appear were displayed.

·  Floor plans were displayed.  All studios were over 20 metres squared and ensuite.

·  There was generous amenity space with a gym, communal spaces and roof terraces.

·  There would be opportunity for some soft landscaping.


In response to questions and comments from the Panel. Discussion included the following:


·  Concern due to the undeveloped nature of the area and safety issues walking from the city centre.  It was reported that there were would be further development as there were other consented schemes and applications in the area.  There would also be natural surveillance with how the building would be developed.

·  The design was suitable within the constraints of the site.

·  Concern regarding the location of drop off and pick up points.

·  Could front entrance area be designed to protect people from passing cyclists.

·  Concern that an outdoor seating area could attract anti-social behaviour.

·  Concern that the area was not suitable for student accommodation.

·  Could work be done to the underside of the bridge and surrounds.

·  The applicant would be wiling to address any safety concerns.  There had been a previous permission for a backpackers hostel to be developed at the site.  This permission had now lapsed.  There was other activity in the area with the adjacent medical centre and bus stops.

·  The development would contribute towards the improvement of the area.

·  The design was good but it was questioned whether this would be suitable for student accommodation at the current time.

·  The area was in need of redevelopment but there were concerns whether purpose built student accommodation was the right kind of development to start the redevelopment.

·  In response to questions outlined in the report, the following was discussed:

o  Members considered that the proposed use of the site for student accommodation was acceptable in principle but there were reservations with regards to security while the rest of the area remained undeveloped.

o  Members supported the approach towards living conditions for the student accommodation.

o  Members considered that the proposed mass and form of the development and its relationship with the surrounding context was acceptable.


RESOLVED – That the presentation and discussion be noted.



Supporting documents: