Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a purpose built student accommodation development of between 6 and 8 storeys in height with associated amenity space, roof terraces, servicing, cycle parking and hard and soft landscaping.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a purpose built student accommodation development of between 8 and 6 storeys in height, with associated amenity space, roof terraces, servicing, cycle parking and hard and soft landscaping at land including 16-22 Burley Street, Leeds, LS3 1LD.

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

Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  The site was under the ownership of Leeds City Council and objections had been submitted by Leeds Civic Trust and the Little London and Woodhouse Neighbourhood Forum.

·  The site was wedge shaped with Park Lane to the North and Burley Street to the South.

·  The site was located outside and to the south of the Hanover Square conservation area and there were listed buildings to the South West corner of the conservation area.

·  There was a significant level change across the site of 3.2 metres and elevation drawings displayed showed how the proposed building would step up from 6 storeys to 8 storeys.

·  There would be an accessible roof terrace.

·  The main entrance would be on Burley Street with active frontages to the building.

·  Materials would include different 2 different tones of brick with detailing and glazed tiles.

·  The building would be set back 3 metres from the telephone exchange with 2 metre wide pavements around the site.

·  There would be a loading bay to the front for servicing as well as pick up and drop off points.

·  There is a proposed Leeds City Council highways improvement scheme in development which would deliver a bi-directional cycle lane to the south and improvements to existing crossing points.

·  Floor layouts – servicing facilities and cycle storage was on the ground floor as well as leisure facilities.  Accommodation was on the upper floors.

·  Photo voltaic panels and a green roof are proposed.

·  There would be landscaping which included planters and tree planting.  There would also be outdoor seating areas.

·  There had been comments from Yorkshire Water regarding the safeguarding of sewer assets within the site.  Due to the proposals for trees there would need to be the installation of root barriers.

·  It was recommended that the application be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval.

In response to questions from the Panel, discussion included the following:

·  The cobble stones on the road were part of the Council owned land and further investigation would be done to see if these could be re-used.

·  In terms of landscaping there were constraints due to the size of the site and there were no policy requirements to deliver outdoor greenspace in this case.

·  The materials to be used would be controlled by condition.

·  The gap between the building and telephone exchange was required to provide space for emergency exits.

·  It was calculated that there would be a bio-diversity net gain and this met policy requirements.

·  The main entrance to the building would be on Burley Street with emergency access on Park Lane.

·  There was no formal crossing provision proposed on Park Lane but an informal crossing with dropped kerbs and tactile paving.

·  The required visibility would be achieved at the junction with Park Lane and Burley Street and there would be a wider footway.

·  There had been 5 collisions with slight injuries in the past 5 years near the site.

·  There was no car parking provision.

·  Further to concern from Leeds Civic Trust regarding concerns over access and drop off points, it was reported that the proposals were acceptable in highways terms.  To alter these would lead to a loss of accommodation due to the level changes across the site.

·  Concerns regarding health provision.  Public Health had been consulted and had not made comment on the application.  Wider strategic consideration was being undertaken with regards to health provision across the city.

·  The applicant was invited to address questions from the Panel.  Discussion included the following:

o  The applicant would be happy to retain the cobble stones and incorporate them within the hard landscaping.

o  It had been attempted to maximise the amount of landscaping within the site.

o  Materials – the final decision on materials had not yet been made but would reflect those elsewhere in the area and further details of examples could be made available later.

o  The gap between the building and the telephone exchange was necessary to assist the construction of the building and also for emergency access.  There would only be access to this area for maintenance purposes.

o  Pavement widths had been enhanced and an informal crossing point would be installed.  Formal crossing points had been considered but primary movements would be met by the informal crossing point.  Highways reported that there could be scope to narrow the junction which would shorten the crossing distance.

o  There would be a condition to limit the use of the roof terrace and it would be closed by 11.00 p.m.  The specifics of the use of the roof terrace could be detailed in the management plan.

o  The layby would be situated on Burley Street due to the level changes and inefficiencies of entering the building at first floor level.  There would also be a potential conflict with traffic from Hanover Square if it was on Park Lane.

o  Management staff would be available 24 hours a day, but not necessarily on site.

o  There was scope for the use of heat pumps and energy would be primarily electricity based.

o  The applicant would recycle and re-use materials from the existing buildings where possible.

·  The installation of a controlled crossing would require the junction to be signalised.  To put a formal crossing further away from the junction could affect visibility.  Further discussion would be held with traffic engineers.

In response to comments from the Panel, discussion included the following:

·  Concern that another large building so close to others would create a cramped streetscape.

·  Was the area appropriate for another student block?

·  Concern regarding the highways issues and the need for more information about pedestrian movement.

·  Lack of clarity regarding health provision.

·  The need to increase the bio-diversity at the site.

·  Lack of amenity space for residents.

·  Concern regarding the design.

·  Concern regarding the space for students.

It was noted that there were concerns regarding the design and provision of health infrastructure.  There were also issues relating to pedestrians crossing and materials to be used.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred for further consideration to be given to the following:

·  Design

·  Health Provision

·  Pedestrian Crossing

·  Landscaping

It was also requested that a further condition be made for the re-use of the cobble stones.