Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for proposed demolition works and erection of 10 storey building to create co-living residential development.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for proposed demolition works and the erection of a 10 storey building to create a co-living residential development at Holdforth Court, Brussels Street, Leeds, LS9 8AT.

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:

·  Photographs of views to and from the site were displayed.

·  It was proposed to have as much active frontage as possible to the building onto Brick Street and Brussel Street.

·  The existing trees at the junction of Brick Street and Brussels Street would be retained and there would be opportunity for more tree cover around the site.

·  Ground floor plans would include a gym, cycle storage and communal spaces.

·  Pedestrian routes were displayed.

·  Communal living schemes attracted contract workers on short term leases.

·  Floor plans showing studio apartments were displayed.  This would meet or exceed minimum space standards.  There would be communal kitchen facilities on each floor and the studios would have basic cooking facilities.

·  The top two floors would be in a recessed glass element and although they would meet space standard some of the space would not be usable.

·  The location of the site in relation to Leeds Minster, Quarry House and the area designated for tall buildings.

·  There was a further bat survey to be undertaken at the site and this could not be done until May 2025.

Representatives of Leeds Civic Trust addressed the Panel with concerns and objections to the application.  These included the following:

·  The site was in a pivotal location and any development would set a precedent for the area and needed a building that was well designed and would not act as a barrier to other areas.

·  The area needed more green space.

·  The building needed a full active and engaging frontage.

·  The ground floor would not contribute to the street life and place making.

·  Landscaping was insufficient.

·  The architectural form was not inspiring.

·  There would be an impact on the conservation area.

·  This a key gateway site to the city and needs an exemplar building.

·  In response to questions, the following was discussed:

o  The site was a key view from the Minster.  More activity needed introducing around the ground floor level.

o  Balconies could give the building more texture and variety.

o  There was no direct access to greenspace or outdoor space for residents.

o  There was no opposition to a new building on this site but not of this design.

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Panel.  The following was discussed:

·  There would be no impact on heritage assets in the area.

·  The design of the building did enable engagement with Brick Street and Brussels Street.

·  Not all aspects could be engaging at street level with the need for facilities such as bin and cycle storage.

·  In response to questions, discussion included the following:

o  There had been close work with officers in the design of the building.  The site was constrained with highways on three sides and this had influenced the design.  The top two floors were designed with reflective glass which would help the building disappear into the skyline.  There were also various other features in the design of the building.

o  There had been considerable changes to the initial proposals following discussion with officers.

o  There was need for this kind of accommodation in Leeds.  This was based on issues including demographics, employment rate, university retention and property demands in the city.

o  Materials had not yet been finally decided and would be covered by condition.

o  The possibility of a green wall on the Brussels Street fronatge could be considered.  The applicant would be trying to do as much as possible with regards to landscaping.

o  The external amenity spaces did not usually remain open till late in the evening and would normally close around 10.00 p.m. 

o  There would be small kitchenette areas within the studios.

o  A full sample panel of materials to be used could be made available.

In response to questions to officers, discussion included the following:

·  All apartments would have access to daylight – the majority would have one large window and one smaller window.

·  The apartments would have storage space as described in standard space requirements.  These kinds of apartments tended to be on short term lets and residents may not need lots of storage.

·  Existing parking restrictions in the area would remain. 

·  The proposals were good for a difficult shaped site – the design was simple and clear with the base, middle and top.

·  The building will have to be artificially ventilated to prevent noise disturbance from the road and the railway.  Installation of balconies would allow sound bleed and would not necessarily improve the amenity of the occupiers.

·  Possible connection to the district heating scheme was covered by a condition to the application.

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

·  Concern that not all apartments met space requirements and there was too much corridor space and not enough living space.

·  The design of the building was ok and not over dominant.

·  Could the condition regarding affordable housing be specific to the Hunslet and Riverside ward?

·  Could the stone setts be saved as part of pavement improvements?

·  Concern that the co-living facilities on the ground floor would not be suitable for or used by all residents.

·  The possibility of joining up the corner units to make 2 person studios.

·  All apartments met minimum space standards although four apartments on the upper floors had some space that wasn’t usable due to the shape.  Guidance referred to the overall space and not whether it was usable.  The communal spaces within the development would compensate for any shortfalls.

·  Concern that the smaller apartments on the upper floors were not acceptable.

·  Each floor had some communal space in the form of kitchens, dining areas and lounge areas.

·  The principle of a co-living development at this site was acceptable.

·  It was proposed to defer the application to allow for further discussion regarding the concerns of the Panel with regards to the smaller apartments.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred to allow further consideration of the design of the smaller apartments.