An Officer from Planning will be present to discuss the Student Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Consultation outcome.
Minutes:
The Chair informed the meeting that the SPD was now finalised and used to supplement Council policy. Councillor Clayton and Councillor Senior stated they would leave the meeting if specific planning issues were raised for which they would declare and interest and not take part in the discussions.
Mike Richardson and Ian Jordan, Planning, Transportation and Economic Development, presented the Student SPD, which was adopted by the City Council in June 2012, which supported planning policy guidance, and was available for viewing on the City Council’s website. The document was developed following concerns from residents on the high concentration of students in certain areas, and a consultation exercise that was undertaken.
Mike informed the meeting that there were concerns from the developer community that there was a need for student accommodation, but that each planning application would be looked at alongside the criteria outlined in the document. The meeting was also informed that the Council was proposing to introduce an Article 4 Direction, which means that planning permission would also need to be obtained for change of use from a house to shared housing. At present, change of use could be made for up to six unrelated people without the need for planning permission. The City Council was proposing to implement an Article 4 Direction later in the year in Castle, Westcotes, Freemen and Stoneygate Wards, where there was a concentration of shared housing, though houses that were currently shared would not be affected.
Residents stated that living in an area with a high concentration of students caused problems for residents, and that they commended Leicester City Council for bringing in the document.
Councillor Clayton left the meeting at this point as a property was then discussed in Clarendon Park in which he had a personal prejudicial interest. Residents stated that the property was the first test of the new policy but that development was going ahead. Residents also made the following points:
· Figures at the Universities had shown a decline in student applications because of increased fees.
· Student accommodation when changed to flats would make very small living accommodation.
· There would be a demographic imbalance with lots of young people in one area, i.e. 30% or households in the ward were student accommodation.
· There should be contracts for landlords to take responsibility of students accommodation when occupied and due to the mess left behind when students vacated the premises.
The Chair stated that part of the criteria for new development would be evidence of unacceptable cumulative impact, which would require a more specific breakdown on where the major concentrates of students were. Also demand would have to be evidence by developers to show need for student accommodation.
Mike informed the meeting that purpose built accommodation required a management plan, but the Planning Department would only know it was not meeting conditions if people complained, in the first instance to Planning or the Noise Team, and that residents should not assume that if there was a breach, that Planning would be aware of the issue. Residents were told that the Magistrates Court could fine landlords, and sometimes cases would go to Crown Court.
Residents asked how landlords would be informed of the need for planning permission in the future to convert houses into shared accommodation. Residents also asked that if the onus was on landlords, were there compliance orders in place. The Chair informed the meeting that there were powers to licence accommodation that came under Licensing Control, and that an officer from Licensing at the City Council would be invited to a future meeting to discuss issues, such as licensing accommodation.
The Chair thanked Officers for the update.