Decision details

The Committee received an application for change of use.

 

The application sought approval for change of use of first and second floor of Block B and ground floor DDA room (no. G01) in Block A from Student accommodation to Student accommodation and/or Apart-hotel (sui generis) – in the alternative.

 

The Principal Planner asked for an addendum regarding s106 for student use to be added to planning conditions.

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from local residents.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

       i.          Previous schemes for the site had been rejected.

     ii.          Had initially thought the development would not impact on neighbours, but now believed it would through “backdoor” changes.

   iii.          Was unaware of a transport assessment for the site.

   iv.          Suggested the application did not meet similar criteria to similar developments in the area.

    v.          Various local residents had replied to the planning consultation as the application would exacerbate existing parking issues and impact on peoples’ ability to travel for work/leisure.

   vi.          The application led to a loss of confidence in Council processes.

 

Mr Bainton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Scutt (Arbury Ward County Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Parking and transport.

a.    Parking was at a premium in the area.

b.    The hotel would attract guests with cars, but there was no room for parking.

c.    A high volume of traffic and 3 schools in the area led to safety concerns.

     ii.          Disability and pastoral care.

a.    The application could breach conditions of the Equalities Act 2010.

b.    Students and guests could mix in part of the hotel. It would be more appropriate if they had separate sections.

   iii.          Process and precedent.

a.    The developer appeared to be able to put in a proposal then seek a change of use to get a different application.

b.    If the above point occurred, this would set a precedent for other developments to seek change of use.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 3) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Unanimously resolved to defer the application to a future committee and to resume with a report from officers concerning potential reasons for refusal in respect of:

 

       i.          Loss of student accommodation with reference to the Student Study and NPPG.

     ii.          Lack of commercial vehicle and servicing provision as per policy 8/9.

   iii.          Loss of disabled student accommodation and the appropriateness of the location of the aparthotel wheelchair accessible room (policies 3/12(b), 3/7(m), 7/10(d)

   iv.          Impact of parking from hotel visitors on the amenity of local residents (policy 3/4).