507-bed student accommodation at Hadrian House, Newcastle upon Tyne

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing Hadrian House and linked walkways to build three interlinked student accommodation buildings with 507 bedrooms and improved public realm.

“Proposal: Demolition of Hadrian House and interlinked raised walkways and construction of a purpose-built student accommodation building (Sui Generis) (of varying heights, up to 21 storeys) (23 floors including lower ground, upper ground, mezzanine and floors 1-20) comprising 507 units, provision of enhanced pedestrian route and public realm and associated hard and soft landscaping and engineering works, (amended description)”

“The planning application relates to the redevelopment of Hadrian House which is located on Higham Place. The proposal includes the demolition of Hadrian House and the interlinked raised walkways constructed circa 1970. The new building will provide purpose built student accommodation across 3 separate but interlinked buildings. The new development would provide 507 bedrooms together with ancillary communal facilities as well as new public realm to the west of the site.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The vacant eight-storey office building occupied a 0.34-hectare urban-core site beside car parks, listed buildings, student accommodation and Northumbria University.

“To the south lies The Laing Art Gallery (Grade II Listed), residential and office uses within a Grade II Listed terrace on Higham Place and purpose-built student accommodation within Oxford House. Slightly further to the south east is the Oxford Street multi storey car park and The New Bridge Hotel.”

“To the north is Ellison Terrace (Grade II Listed) also owned by Northumbria University, and also Saville Place which includes listed buildings and contains a mix of uses including a café, GP practice, physiotherapy and student accommodation.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Demolition of the office building had already been approved, while earlier permissions concerned the original office development.

“2024/1244/01/NOD Notification of prior approval for demolition of 8 storey office building Grant Conditionally 23-05-2025”

“1970/0972/02/RES Details Of Office Block With Showroom And Car Parking Facilities (As Amended By Plans Received 14 June 1971 And Letter Received 23 June 1971) - (Now Renumbered To:- 74/1045/01/DCC) Grant Conditionally 24-06-1971”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended permission because the scheme would reuse brownfield land, provide needed student housing and public benefits, and outweigh identified heritage harm.

“The proposed development seeks the comprehensive redevelopment of a sustainable brownfield site within the Urban Core, delivering purpose-built student accommodation alongside significant public realm enhancements.”

“The development would result in some harm to the setting of designated heritage assets and localised visual impacts arising from its scale and prominence. However, this harm has been assessed and is considered to fall within the lower to moderate end of the spectrum. In accordance with the NPPF, this harm has been weighed against the public benefits of the scheme, most notably the area of public realm.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Northumbria University supported the scheme, while transport, environmental, heritage and other consultees raised no objections subject to conditions or requirements.

“Transportation Development (acting as local highway authority) recommended amendments to the originally submitted scheme. The amended scheme would not be harmful to highway safety subject to conditions.”

“Flood Management (acting as local lead flood authority) has no objections to the amended scheme subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Objections and support

Neighbours objected over daylight, enclosure, ground-gas contamination and safety, while the Northumberland and Newcastle Society welcomed public-realm improvements but criticised the building’s height.

“The proposed development would result in a harmful loss of daylight and an unacceptable sense of enclosure to residential accommodation at 7 Higham Place, particularly to ground- and first-floor habitable rooms, due to the excessive scale, height and proximity of the building; • The loss of daylight distribution to the property, as set out in the applicant’s daylight/sunlight assessment, are dismissed as “marginal” without sufficient regard to the lived experience of…”

“A geological report has found the development site at Hadrian House is at "High Risk" of toxic ground gas contamination, which may impact the future safety of residents; • The Phase 2 Intrusive Investigations into potential ground gas contamination are carried out prior to planning approval being recommended or granted; • Queried whether the Local Lead Flood Authority original objection had been withdrawn (The LLFA withdrew their objection).”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer introduced the proposal, a residents’ representative presented objections, and the applicant’s representative spoke in support.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed height, possible tall-building precedent, student demand, family housing, local services, the remaining bridge, land ownership and wider regeneration planning.

“Concerns about the impact of the height of the development on the surrounding area, and that it could set a precedent for more tall buildings in this part of the city.”

“Concerns about the impact on retail amenities in the area that would be used by students, such as local supermarkets, and whether there was any potential to develop those in order to meet increased demand. • The evidence to support a need for more student accommodation in the city, and the recognised need for more social and affordable family housing. • Concerns that the bridge to Mea house would not be demolished as part of the development.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Gallagher moved the recommendation, Councillor Fitzpatrick seconded it, and members voted four to three in favour.

“Decision Councillor Gallagher moved the recommendations as set out in the report, seconded by Councillor Fitzpatrick. By a majority vote of 4 in favour to 3 against it was:”

“RESOLVED – That Committee was minded to grant planning permission for application reference 2025/2070/01/EIA:”

Minutes

The decision

The committee was minded to grant permission subject to the section 106 agreement, listed conditions and delegated authority to amend the requirements.

“(iv) It was also agreed that delegated authority be given to the Assistant Director Planning, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chairs of Planning Committee, to amend, add or omit conditions and heads of terms of the section 106 legal agreement, where appropriate, to ensure the application complies with relevant development plan policies and national planning guidance.”

Minutes

Agreement and conditions

The decision required contributions, student-use restrictions, public-realm and walkway obligations, environmental measures, highway arrangements and 45 planning conditions.

“- Training employment plan contribution £10,000 and monitoring fee £2,500; - Maintenance of habitats and monitoring fee £4,988; - SuDS Monitoring Contribution £10,000; - Restrict occupation to student accommodation; - Highways contributions for off-site works; - Parks and recreation £195,930; - Open Space Contribution £51,024; - Securing demolition of walkways; - Private refuse collection for lifetime of development; - Submission of a scheme for the public realm works prior…”

Minutes