Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
The Committee received an application for
full planning permission.
The application sought approval for the erection of student accommodation with 321
student rooms (following demolition of existing buildings), together with ancillary
accommodation comprising common/study rooms, porters lodge, laundry room, plant
room, bin and bike enclosures, landscaping and associated infrastructure
including a sub-station.
The Principal Planning Officer drew Members attention
to the lengthy appendices to the amendment sheet regarding this application. He
explained the elevations of the site and tabled additional images.
The Committee
received a representation in objection to the application from Mr Hair.
The representation
covered the following issues:
i.
Similar
plans to develop on industrial sites had been rejected.
ii.
Alternative
mixed use of the site had not been considered.
iii.
Eleven building, currently used as industrial
units, would be lost.
iv.
Proposal was not responding to an identified need
in the area.
v.
Application was premature as it was submitted in
advance of the emerging Local Plan.
vi.
Student rooms in this area were not wanted by
either of the Universities.
vii.
Large blocks would be situated very close to
existing residential accommodation.
viii.
Mitigation measure did not go far enough to make
the scheme acceptable.
ix.
Noise levels would be unacceptable.
x.
Surface water drainage was insufficient.
xi.
Parking and in particular, disabled parking, was
inadequate.
xii.
It would be impossible to police a no car policy.
Justin Bainton (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application.
Councillor Johnson
(Ward Councillor for Abbey) addressed the Committee regarding the application.
i.
Questioned
the accuracy of the images supplied by the applicant and suggested they had
used a wide angle lens rather than the 50mm used normally used for such images.
ii.
Local
residents had commissioned an independent study.
iii.
Buildings
would be visually dominant.
iv.
Revisions
had been made to the plan but these were not sufficient to make it acceptable
to local residents.
v.
Properties
adjacent to the site already suffered from poor light levels and additional
buildings would exacerbate the situation.
vi.
Building
D would be tall and would have a significant impact on neighbours.
vii.
Buildings
E and F would damage existing trees which currently screened the area.
viii.
Noise
levels would create conflict and result in loss of amenity value for the area.
ix.
Proposed
communal areas would abut sensitive boundaries.
x.
Proposed
management of the site was insufficient and no evening or overnight cover was
to be provided.
Councillor Roberts
(Ward Councillor for Abbey) addressed the Committee regarding the application.
i.
Site
not suitable for student housing.
ii.
Surrounding
area described as ‘hostile’ to development.
iii.
Proposed
buildings would be very close to existing homes.
iv.
Noise
would be an issue. Student units would disturb existing residents and
industrial units would disturb future student residents.
v.
Lack of
parking, lack of disabled parking and lack of drop off spaces will
inconvenience local residents and result in a resident parking scheme being
required.
vi.
A no
car scheme would be unenforceable.
vii.
Visitor
parking had not been addressed.
viii.
Proposals
were not supported by the target market.
ix.
Would
be unaffordable to Anglia Ruskin students.
x.
Contractual
arrangements make the upfront cost too great for many students.
xi.
Bidwell’s
assessment of the need for additional student housing was questionable and
lacked evidence to support the level of need.
xii.
Site
had poor transport links to the City Centre or the Universities.
xiii.
Would
be an unsustainable site.
xiv.
Would
be a gated community with no links to neighbours.
Councillor
Robertson (Ward Councillor for Petersfield) addressed the Committee regarding the
application.
i.
Represented
Petersfield Ward which contained Anglia Ruskin University.
ii.
Liaison
meetings with the University suggest that they did not support this
application.
iii.
Students
were unable to afford studio flats.
iv.
This
was a speculative student development and would not be used for this purpose
long term.
v.
Would
end up being accommodation for language school students.
vi.
Would
not ease pressure on family housing.
vii.
If
approved please add conditions requiring:
·
that it
may only be used be students attending Anglia Ruskin University or the
University of Cambridge;
·
that
any proposal to vary this requirement be brought to Planning Committee (not
delegated to officers; and
·
if a variation
was approved, 40% of the accommodation must become affordable housing.
Councillor
Whitehead (Abbey Ward County Councillor) addressed the Committee regarding the
application.
i.
Density
of the site was a cause for concern.
ii.
Development
would be overcrowded.
iii.
This
application, in common with similar application for the West of the City, was
motivated by profit.
iv.
Impact
on area would be detrimental to the local community.
v.
Application
does no address an identified housing need.
Councillor Baigent
(Ward Councillor for Romsey) addressed the
Committee regarding the application.
i.
The
City required more housing and not more student accommodation.
ii.
Site
under consideration would be a key part of wider development of the area.
iii.
Would
result in a lack of light for neighbouring properties.
iv.
Would
be unaffordable for many students.
v.
Would
be costly for the City Council as no Council Tax contributions would be
collected towards waste collection or other services to the site.
vi.
Parking
issues would have a detrimental impact on neighbours.
The Principal Planning
Officer confirmed that any variation of conditions would be brought back to the
Planning Committee suggested that any additional conditions regarding this were
unnecessary. He stated that the site had not been identified for Housing in the
Local Plan and that this was not, therefore, a grounds for refusal.
Councillor Blencowe
proposed that condition 28 be amended to require that approval of the
management plan be brought to Committee and not delegated to officers.
Committee resolved (Nem Con) that Condition 28 (management plan) must be discharged only
by Planning Committee and not under delegated powers, this fact to be
communicated to the applicant by an informative on the decision notice.
The Committee:
Unanimously resolved to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the officers and including the amended condition.