Agenda item

Professor Dominic Shellard, Vice Chancellor of De Montfort University, will be present at the meeting to discuss student accommodation and associated green space.  Rick Moore, representing Jamie Lewis Residential lettings agency, also will be present.

Councillor Connolly introduced the following people to the meeting, who were in attendance to discuss student accommodation and associated green space:-

·            Rick Moore – Jamie Lewis Residential Lettings;

·            Dominic Shellard – Vice Chancellor, De Montfort University;

·            David Carrott – Director of Estates, de Montfort University;

·            Steve Brown – Team Leader (Planning Management and Delivery), Leicester City Council; and

·            Neal Moore – Team Leader (Planning Policy and Design), Leicester City Council.

Dominic Shellard explained that he was aware of previous concerns raised by residents about student accommodation and associated green space, and student behaviour.  The University currently had 22,000 students and it was likely that it was only a small proportion of these who caused problems, but any problems were nevertheless taken very seriously.  The University had a policy of trying to deal with all reported problems occurring outside the University, so residents encountering problems were encouraged to report incidents, in order that they could be investigated fully.

There was a perception that the University was building all over the City, but approximately £150 million had been invested in the campus.  All of the work done had been approved through formal planning processes.  However, it was recognised that, as an institution, the University could do more to provide green space, and plans were being considered through which this could be achieved.  For example, it was hoped to open up the centre as a green lung, which could be used by the public, as well as the University, and to provide a green walk way at the side of the canal. 

It also was hoped to redevelop the Fletcher Building, to create a green square to the side of it.  This also would involve the demolition of another building.  It was hoped that work on this could start in approximately 18 – 24 months, but no firm commitment could be given to the project at present, due to the current economic situation.

In conclusion, Dominic Shellard stated that he was happy to take individuals’ contact details, so that engagement with them could continue.

The following points were then made during discussion on this item:-

·            The viaduct at the site of the former bowstring bridge was being demolished and a planning application for a new sports centre would be considered in January 2011.  If this was approved, it was hoped to start building work in April 2011. so that it would be ready for use in July 2012, just before the Olympic Games in London.  This would be a high quality centre, with a wide range of facilities;

·            It was very important to the University that this sports centre was seen as a community facility.  Commitments regarding this had been given to the City Council and local residents.  For example, university users would not have priority use of the centre most of the time, and charges for using the centre would remain comparable to those at local authority facilities;

·            Lessons had been learned from the way in which decisions had been made over the site of the proposed sports centre;

·            The University had adopted a development Master Plan ten years ago.  This was a rolling programme, that changed as needed.  It would never be completed, as it always was looking at potential developments ten years ahead;

·            In response to concerns that there appeared to be a lot of accommodation being developed, but very little green space provided, it was noted that De Montfort University only owned two blocks of accommodation, (at Bede Hall and New Wharf Hall).  The rest was privately owned and managed.  However, if problems arose in privately operated accommodation, there was an agreement that University security personnel could go in to the accommodation to address the situation;

·            There was a perception that there was no control over the number of large scale blocks of student accommodation that were being created and that there was no plan for how many more were to be developed.  It had been heard that some of this was empty and, if student numbers dropped in future years, following government changes to the amount to be charged for tuition fees, this situation could get worse;

·            Although the provision of purpose built student accommodation took pressure off accommodation in Westcotes Ward, it also could lead to a lot of students being located in just a few parts of the City.  If this happened, the students living there would not become part of the community;

·            A lot of housing in Westcotes Ward was used by students and other transitory populations, so a lot of properties were in multiple occupation.  There was nowhere else for these people to go, but it also meant that the area was very crowded.  It therefore would be useful if students could be encouraged to also use other parts of the City;

·            It would be useful if someone from De Montfort University could respond to “bad press”, so that it could redress the balance by explaining what it did for the community;

·            Students only seemed to be aware of the open space at Bede Park.  No-one wanted to stop students using any parks or other open spaces, but it would help ease the pressure there if the University could help promote other areas of open space.  The University undertook to do this each term;

·            The holding of barbeques in parks was a problem.  This was against the City’s bye-laws, but it could be difficult for the Parks Officers to move people who were holding barbeques.  The University suggested that signs could be put up advising that barbeques were prohibited, as it then could help enforce this;

·            It was hoped that the City Council could acquire an area of land next to Tesco.  This could then be used as a barbeque area.  Alternatively, a barbeque area could be created along Great Central Way, (next to Upperton Road);

·            There had been reports that some people found Bede Park intimidating when other park users had been drinking.  It was recognised that gathering together to drink could be a cultural issue, but it was something that needed to be addressed; and

·            Many local businesses relied on the University for trade, so were not against it.

Rick Moore then explained that Jamie Lewis had hoped to be at the meeting, but was unable to attend.  He tabled some brochures showing the type of accommodation provided by the Jamie Lewis Residential Lettings company.

It was noted that every room they had was let and they had already had 500 enquiries about accommodation for September 2011.  In view of this demand, the company was looking for more sites.  The latest one to be investigated was a 480 space development on Upperton Road.  (Discussions had been held with the Council’s Planning officers about this site.) The site would have 24 hour security, CCTV and a 24 hour hot-line for residents to report anti-social behaviour.  Anything reported on the hot-line would be responded to within one hour.

Sometimes Section 106 contributions were made as part of the conditions on which planning permission was granted for developments.  With regard to the Equity Shoes site, the Section 106 payment had been for the creation of a ball court on Bede Park.  (This project had been selected by Council officers, not Jamie Lewis.)  In addition, a £100,000 Section 106 contribution had been suggested for the creation of a green space opposite the site being considered on Upperton Road.  It was noted that there was a formula for determining the size of a Section 106 Agreement and the developer did not decide how this money would be spent.

Details of Section 106 funding currently available were tabled at the meeting for information, a copy of which is attached at the end of these minutes for information.  As this highlighted, one problem with Section 106 payments was that they tended to be received in small amounts.  Steve Brown reminded the meeting that Section 106 funding had to be for a specific project, the need for which could be related to that particular development.

Rick Moore invited anyone with views on how future Section 106 contributions could be spent to contact Jamie Lewis, as he would be grateful to receive these.

The Ward Members advised the meeting that it was hoped that future Section 106 Agreements relating to this Ward could be discussed with the community, to ensure that the funding was going to the most appropriate projects.

Residents expressed some concern that having a ball court on Bede Park would make the Park smaller.  The Ward Members advised that they had not been consulted on this proposal and did not support its proposed location.  They reminded the Meeting that, when this had previously been considered, people also were against having an enclosed area in the Park.  As an alternative, they suggested that the provision of outdoor gym facilities in that location could be considered.

The view also was expressed that a ball court could be better located, as parts of Bede Park were underused.  For example, the land leading down to the river could easily be made accessible and was an attractive site.  Putting a path to the river by the Briton Street bridge also would make the area accessible to canoeists and other water users.

It was suggested that the provision of on-site green space could be included in planning permissions granted.  Steve Brown advised that there was not room on the Upperton Road development to provide green space on site, but in principle it would be possible to negotiate the provision of amenity space on such developments.  If a large green-field site was being developed, (for example, with 200 – 300 houses), green space would be required as part of the development.  However, student accommodation tended to be provided on small, infill sites, which had limited land available.

Jess Phillips, Senior City Warden with Leicester City Council, asked that consideration be given to making proper provision for bin storage at developments.  This enabled the area to be kept clean, by reducing the amount of fly tipping that happened, and reduced the need for skips when students all moved out of their accommodation at the same time.