Councillor Connelly will give an update on planning and development issues in the Westcotes Ward.
Minutes:
a) Student Accommodation
Councillor Russell advised the meeting that the development of a large block of student flats at the side of the Equity Shoes development had been approved at the Council’s Planning and Development Control Committee meeting on 22 November 2011. This would have 5 storeys on the Western Road side and 8 overlooking Bede Park.
An artist’s impression of the new development, (provided by the developer), was circulated at the meeting.
It was noted that Councillor Connelly had spoken against this development at the Committee meeting, due to the proposed size of the development and the way it would overshadow Bede Park.
After the elections in May 2011, the possibility of holding a student accommodation summit had been discussed with the City Mayor, along with how current planning policy could be changed to address these situations. The summit had been held and planning guidance on student housing was being written, to try and find a balance between the need for student housing and the needs of the local community.
In the meantime, a moratorium on creating more student accommodation had been announced, although this only applied to new applications, not those already in the planning system. Residents questioned whether developers would be able to fill all of the student housing being provided, as student numbers were likely to decrease.
Steve Brown, (Team Leader – Planning Management and Delivery), confirmed that the planning application referred to above had been received in July 2011, so did not fall within the moratorium on creating more student accommodation. Officers had recommended approval of the application, after a long application process that had included substantial redesigns and reductions in the size of the building.
It was acknowledged that this would be a very large building, that would change the look of the area, but the view had been that, under current planning policy, the scheme was acceptable. If refusal had been recommended, this could have been challenged at appeal, which could have incurred substantial financial consequences for the Council.
Residents expressed concern that their properties would be devalued and they would not be able to sell them once the new accommodation had been built. In addition, many students had cars, so current parking problems would be made worse.
Steve Brown explained that potential parking problems had been considered throughout the planning process, including the impact that existing student accommodation had had on the area. Consequently, the approval for the development contained a condition that strictly enforced a management plan that stated that students could not bring cars to this accommodation. This would be enforced through not allowing students to buy in to the existing residents’ parking scheme. Any breaches would be investigated and appropriate action taken, (for example, issuing a breach of condition notice or prosecution through the courts).
Councillor Connelly explained that his general concerns were:-
· Pre-application discussions between planning officers and developers in 2007 had suggested that there could be 5 storeys on one side of the development and 8 on the other. This was exactly the application that was approved, even though he had no recollection of any consultation having been done in 2007. However, the meeting noted that all applicants were entitled to confidential pre-application discussions with the Council’s planning officers;
· The Council’s planning policy stated that a need for development on this scale had to be identified, but he did not feel this had been done;
· The report on the planning application had stated that, if too much student accommodation was being provided, that of a lower quality or further away from the university would not be used, but this would blight an area;
· Those attending the student accommodation summit had been told that student accommodation was being filled as quickly as it was built. However, people recently had been seen handing out flyers, (for which they had a licence), advertising student accommodation owned by this developer that was vacant;
· This development was detrimental to residential amenity, particularly along Western Boulevard;
· Students were being channelled to the area around Bede Park. The Park acted as a “pinch point” and the number of users was already beyond its capacity. Anti-social behaviour already was occurring in the Park;
· This development was detrimental to the visual amenity of the area, although it was recognised that this was subjective. The developer had stated that, as the ground sloped down from Western Road, the 8 storey side would not be seen from Western Road. It appeared though that the development would create a solid block of buildings and the 8 storey section would overshadow Bede Park; and
· The proposal for the management of the accommodation was welcome, but it could be difficult to regulate how the students travelled to and from the accommodation. It could be naive to say that students would not bring cars to the area, so pressure could be put on parking on the other side of Narborough Road. However, the Council had a traffic management plan, which could be useful in controlling this.
Steve Brown explained that the site would have on site management 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The management plan was for the whole site and much of it related to how vehicles arriving and leaving the site would be controlled. (Barriers would be used for this.) The only parking on site would be for students with disabilities.
The following points were then made in discussion:-
· The current building was not a historic building, but was of local historical interest;
· Planning officers should not have based their argument for recommending approval for the scheme on the possibility that the developer could lodge an appeal;
· It was very unfair that residents would have to pay for parking permits because of the number of students with cars coming in to the area. They already had to pay to park in the area on football match days and this would make the situation worse;
· The Upperton Road Residents’ Association was taking advice from a voluntary organisation that helped residents in situations similar to this. Those present were invited to leave their contact details, so that information on how to contact this organisation could be provided;
· Any decision to extend the existing residents’ parking scheme would depend on the support of residents for doing so. It would not be proposed by the Council;
· The developer had a right to appeal. If he did so, the Council would have to be present at the hearing to make representations;
· Some Councillors had supported this application, as they wanted to create more student accommodation of a higher quality;
· If the Council lost any appeal against a planning decision it could be faced with having to pay costs;
· If a planning application was amended by a developer at the request of the Council and that version was approved, any appeal could only be made on the version that the Council last made a decision on. However, the original submission would be looked at by the Planning Inspector to see if the Council had entered in to a proper negotiation with the applicant. In this case, the original application had been for 11 storeys on the Park side of the building;
· Current planning guidance encouraged all developers to engage with the local community over their applications, but they were not obliged to do so; and
· It was recognised that the planning system was imperfect, but planning officers were there to guide development within the system.
Steve Brown advised that all of the issues raised at this meeting had been considered during the application process and discussed with the developer. Public consultation had been undertaken but, in general, letters of support had not been received.
The meeting noted that:-
· The Council’s Planning and Development Control Committee had refused an application from Jamie Lewis Residential for illuminated signs at student accommodation on Uppingham Road, but this had been resubmitted;
· Councillor Connelly had asked that the planning application to convert accommodation above the Co-op store to student accommodation be considered at the Council’s Planning and Development Control Committee;
· Clarification had been sought on whether the moratorium on creating student accommodation just applied to new builds, or whether it also included the conversion of existing premises; and
· If permission had been given for the development of living accommodation, there was nothing in the planning regulations to prevent it from being used to house students. However, purpose-built student accommodation had lower space standards than applied to other living accommodation, so revised permission would need to be obtained to use it to accommodate non-students.
b) 20 Westcotes Drive
Councillor Russell reported that an application for lawful use of this property as a hostel had been considered by the Council’s Planning and Development Control Committee. In light of evidence and objections presented by residents and others, confirming that the premises had been used as a hostel for less than 10 years, the application had been refused.
However, the hostel did not have to close down immediately. The owners had until 5 December to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the decision, so no enforcement action was possible until then. If an appeal was made, no action could be taken until the appeal was resolved, which could take several weeks or months. However, evidence had been obtained since the Committee decision that it was felt could assist the Council’s case in an appeal hearing.
c) Changes to Housing Benefit
It was noted that housing benefit regulations were changing, so that from January 2012 single people under the age of 35 would only be able to claim housing benefit for a room in a shared property. Due to the amount of shared property in Westcotes, this could have a significant impact in the Ward.