Report of the Chief Planning Officer

CITY PLANS PANEL

Date: 16TH JANUARY 2014

Subject: PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED WINDMITIGATION MEASURES AT BRIDGEWATER PLACE, JUNCTION OF WATERLANE AND VICTORIA ROAD, LEEDS (PREAPP/13/00693)

RECOMMENDATION: This report is brought to Plans Panel for information.The applicant will present the details of the scheme to allow Members toconsider and comment on the proposals at this stage.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This presentation is intended to inform Members of the emerging proposalsfor mitigation works to address the wind problems in the vicinity ofBridgewater Place.

2.0 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The site is a landmark tower building (up to 32 storeys high) located on amain gateway to the south of the city centre. It houses a variety ofconvenience uses at ground level arranged around a central covered atriumspace including shops and cafes. Within the upper floors it provides amixture of 21,000 sq.m. of office space and over 200 residential apartmentsin the upper 20 floors.

Electoral Wards Affected:

City and Hunslet

Specific Implications For:

Equality and Diversity

Community Cohesion

Narrowing the Gap

Originator: Paul Kendall

Tel: 2478196

No

2.2 The site is located at the junction of Water Lane and Victoria Road and liesin a mixed use commercial area to the south side of the River Aire.Immediately to the west and south is the former Halifax call centre buildingand the Grove Inn pub respectively and immediately to the north, acrossWater Lane lies the Canal Wharf Conservation Area which comprises anumber of former warehouse and mill buildings including some listedbuildings now in office and other commercial uses, as well as the GranaryWharf residential, hotel and commercial development. To the east acrossVictoria Road is the Asda headquarters building.

2.3 Water Lane and Victoria Road comprise busy three lane highways in thevicinity of the site. The site is separated from the surrounding highways by alarge forecourt sweeping around the northern edge of the site.

2.4 The site is located within flood zone 2.

3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

3.1 Planning permission for Bridgewater Place was granted in November 2001. Awind assessment had been required by condition prior to the building beingconstructed and this was carried out by BRE Ltd but did not identify anyunacceptable impacts or required design modifications. The condition wastherefore discharged and no design modifications were made to the building.

3.2 The current problems which are experienced in relation to high winds aroundthe Water Lane / Victoria Road junction adjacent to Bridgewater Place beganto be reported soon after the building was completed in 2007. Since 2008, anumber of complaints from pedestrians have been received and some veryserious incidents have occurred in relation to the pedestrian wind conditionsaround the building.

3.3 In response to this situation an independent specialist wind consultant(CPPI) was appointed jointly by Landmark Developments Ltd / Leeds CityCouncil and Bridgewater Place Design Build Company to identify apermanent solution to the problems being experienced on and off the publichighway by people driving high-sided vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians inthe vicinity of the building. The wind modeling work which has beenundertaken following the construction of Bridgewater Place hasdemonstrated that the unacceptable wind conditions are attributable to thedevelopment.

3.4 In addition to the above, Leeds City Council (L.C.C.) appointed wind expertsBuro Happold to advise on the appropriateness and validity of the windtesting being undertaken by CPPI. Buro Happold attended all meetings withthe Developers and advised the Council on the most appropriate solution toaddress concerns within the highway.

3.5 CPPI tested various canopy designs through wind tunnel modeling.However, although the canopy proposals did demonstrate improved

conditions for the public in the immediate vicinity of Bridgewater Place, noneof the options put forward materially improved conditions within the highway.

3.6 As a result of this, and being insistent that a holistic solution be found, theCouncil commissioned Buro Happold to look more broadly at further optionsnot previously considered. Buro Happold undertook a computer basedtesting method (as distinct from actual wind tunnel testing) known asComputational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) modeling on a number of scenariosduring the summer of 2012 and identified a proposal which offers significantwind mitigation within all areas potentially affected by high wind speedswithin the highway. In brief, this comprises a canopy on the building incombination with three tall vertical screens on the north-western corner ofthe Bridgewater Place building and baffles across the highway on WaterLane (this is explained in more detail in section 4.0 below).

3.7 In order for this to be validated, the CFD modeling test results underwentfurther wind tunnel testing at the CPPI facilities in America and thisconfirmed the validity of the proposal. This particular arrangement of bafflesand canopies became known as version ‘AH’.

3.8 Tragically in March 2011 a 7.5t high-sided heavy goods vehicle was blownover in high winds adjacent to Bridgewater Place killing one pedestrian andseriously injuring another. The fatality was subject to a coroner's inquest. On3 December 2013, the coroner recorded a narrative verdict. The Coroneragreed that it was appropriate for the Local Planning Authority to have reliedon the BRE wind study report and that planning officers could not beexpected to have had a greater knowledge of wind impact mechanics thanthe country’s leading experts in the field (BRE). The Coroner made thefollowing recommendations to prevent the occurrence of future deaths:

1. Consideration should be given to standardisation of criteria for windspeed reports for tall buildings in the UK; there is none at present;

2. Wind study reports should consider not only pedestrian comfort but alsothe safety of all Highway users;

3. There may be merit in the Department of Communities and LocalGovernment (DCLG) issuing guidance to all planning authoritiesregarding the effect of tall buildings on vehicles, all highway usersand pedestrian safety;

4. The “AH” wind mitigation solution has been identified, Nick Sinfield, onbehalf of the building owner, said that money would not be an issue andthat the works needed to be delivered as soon as possible and gave atimescale of early-mid 2014. The building owner should take all steps toproperly ameliorate the wind conditions created by the building;

5. Pending AH being delivered, to prevent more loss of life and until suchtime as the works were completed, Leeds City Council should ensure thejunction with Water Lane, Neville Street and Victoria Street is closed to allhighway users as soon as wind speeds reach 20 metres per second.

3.9 In terms of these recommendations, it is considered that national guidanceneeds to be provided to address the issues raised in points 1-3 above. This

report deals with the emerging wind mitigation proposals in response to theCoroners recommendation at point 4. With regards to point 5, L.C.C isconsidering its position in a report which is scheduled to be taken toExecutive Board on 18th February 2014. However, Members should note thata protocol had already been adopted for ensuring highway safety aroundBridgewater Place which consisted of the following:

Employing a variable message sign on Victoria Road visible to trafficentering the city centre past Bridgewater Place giving a warning of gustywinds when wind gust speeds reach 15m/s (35mph);

Diversion of all high sided vehicles from the junction of VictoriaRoad/Water Lane/Neville Street when wind gust speeds reach 20m/s(45mph);

Closing the road to all vehicles when wind speeds of 30m/s (approx.65mph) are reached.

3.10 On Thursday 5th December 2013 high winds exceeding 65mph wereforecast. In accordance with the above protocol, Leeds City Councilimplemented a road closure to all vehicles (including cyclists) at the junctionof Victoria Road/Neville Street/Water Lane between the hours of 6am and4pm. This was the first time that the thresholds for a road closure under theabove Leeds City Council protocol had been reached and the first time theroad had been closed. Since that initial closure the road has also beenclosed on both 27th and 30th December. Also, in the interim, and prior to theExecutive Board meeting, L.C.C. have decided to follow the advice of theCoroner and implement a road closure when gusts exceeding 20m/s areforecast and will continue to monitor conditions at the site on an on-goingbasis.

3.11 The Coroner agreed with L.C.C.’s recommendation that wind impact studiesneed to be standardized and that planning authorities nationally wouldbenefit from centrally issued guidance. However, in the absence of thisstandardized approach, acting as a responsible Local Planning Authority, wemust now seek to ensure that the wind mitigation scheme achieves the bestpossible outcome for the pedestrian and vehicular environment in the vicinityof the building.

3.12 In addition to the protocol referred to above at para. 3.9, and in advance of apermanent wind mitigation solution, Leeds City Council has also undertakenhighway work to manage the current risks around the site for vehicles,especially high-sided vehicles (including public service vehicles - PSVs),pedestrians and cyclists/motorcyclists. This has included the provision ofguard rails to the edge of the pavement along Water Lane and theimplementation of permanent warning signage for cyclists and pedestrians.Guard rails were put in place pursuant to the existing Section 278 Agreementbetween the developer and the council.

3.13 A second anemometer (wind speed and direction measuring device) waserected at the site by the Council in 2013. Wind forecast data specific to thesite is also obtained from the Met Office.

3.14 It is intended that the emerging mitigation works detailed below will avoid therequirement to close the road and avoid adverse health and safety impactson the public highway. There is a clear desire from L.C.C. to achieve acomprehensive solution to this as quickly as possible.

4.0 PROPOSALS

4.1 Further to the collaborative approach undertaken by the Council and theowners of Bridgewater Place, the building owner has commissioned work todesign and obtain planning permission for wind amelioration measuresbased on the wind analysis findings and potential solution ‘AH’. Theproposed design will have to ensure that there will be safe vehicular, cyclistand pedestrian access to and from the site and on the adjacent highwaywhilst still delivering the wind mitigation benefits of the ‘AH’ solution. Thebuilding owners design team is looking at these detailed issues which will bepresented at Panel.

4.2 The emerging design comprises the following components:-

1. 4 wind baffles to be located across Water Lane. Each would measure4m deep and would be set 6m above the carriageway at their lowestpoint. This would result in a total height of approximately 10m. Eachstructure would be approximately 20m long.

2. A series of vertical screens to be placed on the north western corner ofthe building which vary in height between 12m & 18m. These would beboth ground and building fixed

3. 1 glass canopy covering approximately 50% of the forecourt depth butrunning the full length of the northern elevation to Water Lane andcontinuing along the north west elevation above the residential and carpark entrances;

4. A further local amelioration measure to the southern end of theBridgewater Place building to the east of The Grove public house. Thiswould take the form of a vertical screen approximately 4m high.

4.3 Although many variations of the baffles were CFD modelled, the optimumamelioration solution comprised 4 no. porous baffles (porous referring to thefact that the surface would be a perforated metal sheet, allowing some of theair to pass through it, in order to dissipate its impact). Each baffle would haveat least 2 support columns to each end. The impact of the scheme on thehighway is being discussed and developed with the Council and the HighwaysAuthority. Considerations for the detailed design of the baffles include:

(a) requirements for pedestrian and vehicle movements;

(b) existing utilities & underground services;

(c) acoustics;

(d) sightlines;

(e) street lighting;

(f) existing traffic lights, landscaping and street signage.

(g) Highway Standards

(h) Maintenance

4.4 It should also be noted that, due to the location of statutory undertaker’sequipment in this part of the highway, it is currently proposed that the bafflesupport columns on the northern side of Water Lane be located in what iscurrently the carriageway, with the kerb being realigned to accommodate this.This would reduce the length of the current tapered left turn lane from WaterLane in to Neville St, although a dedicated, but shorter, lane would still exist.Highways Services colleagues would expect to see traffic flow modelling ofthis junction as part of any future planning application to ensure that thejunction can still function efficiently. The flexible use of the highway is requiredto enable the mitigation measures to be constructed and demonstrates thecommitment of L.C.C. to achieving the best possible solution. The location ofthe support columns, and the way they are accommodated within the footway,will also have to be carefully considered to avoid creating a hazard topedestrians and to achieve a positive visual appearance.

4.5 The proposed canopy frame supports and the vertical screens will be formedfrom steel column and beam components to be finished in a similar style andcolour as the main Bridgewater Place building. The vertical screens at thenorth-western corner will be structurally designed to provide lateral restraint tothe canopy and horizontal components. Lateral restraint back to the mainbuilding is also proposed to support the canopy and screens. Considerationsfor the detailed design of the canopy and screens include:

(a) requirements for pedestrian and vehicle movements;

(b) acoustics;

(c) weather;

(d) drainage;

(e) maintenance;

(f) existing lighting;

(g) existing traffic lights, landscaping and street signage.

4.6 In addition, it is the owner’s intention to hold a public consultation event onSaturday 8th February 2014. This will take the form of an exhibition inBridgewater Pl at which members of the developer team will be available to

answer questions. This will be advertised in the local press and by directinvitation in the case of identifiable local stakeholders and residents. AStatement of Community Involvement will be produced in line with L.C.C.guidance which would accompany any subsequent planning application.

5.0 POLICY OVERVIEW

Unitary Development Plan Review (UDPR)

5.1 The site is located in a designated Prestige Development Area which havebeen identified to accommodate large scale city centre related uses and toprovide opportunity for achieving buildings which, due to their relative heightand design excellence, would act as landmarks, signaling a prestigious entryinto the city centre.

5.1.2 Other relevant UDPR policies include:

GP5 (detailed planning considerations to be resolved)BD5 (ensure a satisfactory level of amenity for occupants and surroundings)N12, N13, CC3 and BD6 (priorities for good quality urban design)T2 (development should not create or materially add to problems of safety orefficiency on the highway network)A4 (design of safe and secure environments, including accessarrangements, public space, servicing and maintenance, materials andlighting).T5 and T6 require satisfactory provision for disabled people, pedestrians andcyclists.

5.2 Draft Core Strategy (DCS)

5.2.1 The Core Strategy sets out strategic level policies and vision to guide thedelivery of development investment decisions and the overall future of thedistrict. On 26th April 2013 the Council submitted the Publication Draft CoreStrategy to the Secretary of State for examination. The examination tookplace in October 2013. As the Council has submitted the Publication DraftCore Strategy for independent examination some weight can now beattached to the document and its contents recognising that the weight to beattached may be limited by outstanding representations which have beenmade.

5.2.2 Policy T2 identifies satisfactory accessibility requirements. Policy P10requires new development to be based on a thorough contextual analysis toprovide good design appropriate to its scale and function, delivering highquality innovative design and enhancing existing landscapes and spaces,and requires that development protects and enhances the district’s historicassets in particular existing natural site features, historically and locallyimportant buildings, skylines and views. Conservation Policy P11 states thatinnovative and sustainable construction which integrates with and enhancesthe historic environment will be encouraged.

5.3 Natural Resources and Waste Local Plan 2013 (NRWLP)

5.3.1 The Natural Resources and Waste Local Plan was adopted by Leeds CityCouncil on 16th January 2013. Policy Water 4 requires developments inflood risk areas to consider the effect of the proposed development on floodrisk, both on-site and off-site including through submission of a flood riskassessment (Water 6).

5.4 Supplementary guidance

5.4.1 Tall Buildings Design Guide Spring 2010 requires that the design of tallbuildings create active ground level frontages to adjacent streets and shouldprovide high quality public realm, user friendly and legible entrances, goodstreet level architecture and a good microclimate and comfort zone withcounteraction to downdraughts.

5.4.2 City Centre Urban Design Strategy September 2000 seeks to reinforce thepositive qualities of character areas, re-establish urban grain, provideenclosure to streets, create visual interest, encourage excellent design,improve pedestrian connections, and promote active frontages.

5.4.3 Leeds Waterfront Strategy 2002 (Review 2006) guides the regeneration ofLeeds Waterfront through use, links and appropriate environmentalenhancement.

5.5 National Planning Policy Framework

5.5.1 Planning should seek to secure high quality design and a good standard ofamenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings (para. 17).Local Planning Authorities should recognise town centres as the heart oftheir communities and support their vitality and viability; Design requirementsare set out in section 7 noting that developments should establish a strongsense of place creating attractive and comfortable places to live, work andvisit (para. 58).

6.0 ISSUES

6.1 Wind mitigation

6.1.1 Much work has already been carried out in an attempt to find a solution tothe problems that currently exist. The design which is emerging from thewind modeling and testing work has established that physical alterations canbe made, both to the building frontage and within the adjacent highway,which would help to address the identified wind problems around the site.The applicant will demonstrate in their presentation the potential to resolvethe cyclist and pedestrian distress conditions which have been identifiedaround the building in extreme weather conditions. The proposed mitigationwork would also improve wind conditions within the adjacent highway.However, it must be remembered that work is still in progress and that

testing will continue to be carried out as the design is moved towards thefinal scheme

Are Members satisfied that all potential wind issues around the sitehave been considered and will be appropriately mitigated?

Are Members satisfied with the extent of the area covered by the windstudy?

Is there any further work Members would wish to be undertaken by theowner/applicants?

6.2 Design

6.2.1 The design of the mitigation works is still evolving, however, it is clear thatthe proposal will represent a significant physical intervention both within thestreet scene and to the base of the building. Given this fact, it is clear thatthe appearance of the mitigation measures is an important consideration.The applicant will present a model and visual images of how the proposalscan be designed to provide visual interest and coherence with the moderndesign of Bridgewater Place, whilst still performing the necessary task ofameliorating the adverse wind conditions around the site.

6.2.2 It is considered that the emerging design of the glass canopy with roundedsteel columns relates well to the modern aesthetic and form of the base ofthe tower building and would be seen as a sympathetic extension to itspodium element. In addition, although large in nature, the mitigation workswould be seen from the north, west and east, in the context of a tall dominantbuilding with a large frontage and this will help to reduce their visual impacton more distant views.

6.2.3 The impact of the baffle support columns on the footway is another importantconsideration. They will be located on both sides of Water Lane and, as thereare at least 4 no. columns for each baffle, this means that a minimum of 16no. columns will need to be accommodated. They also have to be of a sizewhich will enable them to withstand the forces to be placed on them andpositioned to avoid statutory undertaker’s equipment. The development ofthis aspect is on-going and will be informed by structural considerations aswell as on-site survey and underground investigation work.

6.2.4 With regard to impact on the adjacent Canal Wharf Conservation Area, thehistoric nature of the area is clearly defined by Water Lane with the contextchanging immediately to the south of Water Lane to more modern and largerscale buildings. Also the former listed mill buildings are sited back fromWater Lane and further to the west than the proposed baffles. It is thereforeconsidered that the emerging proposals would very much relate to themodern scale and character of Bridgewater Place and would not adverselyaffect the setting and character of the adjacent conservation area.

Given the size of the structures to be in place in this prominentlocation, are Members supportive of an approach which achieves thenecessary wind mitigation but also advances an attractive design aswell?

Are there any other issues which Members would wish to seeconsidered?

Background Papers:Application reference 20/337/00/FU (as amended by application reference20/339/04/FU)