Agenda item

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) presented the application for outline planning application to build student accommodation (up to a maximum of 35,700 square metres) ancillary central amenity facilities (up to a maximum of 1,500 square metres) with associated infrastructure and landscaping (all matters reserved).

 

Following the original submission proposing up to 39,500 square metres revised plans had been produced, the changes relating to the proposed future siting and height of the buildings within the site and, as a consequence, the overall quantum of development had reduced from 39,500 square metres to 37,200 square metres, with a re-estimation of student bed spaces from 1,300 to between 1,150 and 1,220. The main changes were the reduction of the building heights close to the boundaries of the site and a reduction in the developable area alongside the western boundary together with a series of reductions in storey heights the various reduction being 12 to 8 storeys,8 to 6 storeys, 7 to 5 storey, 6 to 3 storeys and 6 to 5.5 to 3 storeys but with an increase in height within the central section of the northern part of the site from 3/4 to 5 storeys.

 

There would be no parking available for students other than provision for disabled students and drop off spaces, which was anticipated to equate to approximately 60 spaces across the site.

 

The Assistant Director City Development set out the Policy background with reference to the Exeter Local Development Framework Core Strategy, the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011, the Development Delivery Development Plan Document (Publication Version) 2015 and the University of Exeter Streatham Campus Masterplan Framework. The Masterplan adopted by the City Council in 2010 had identified East Park for up to26,400 square metres for development and had been prepared in the context of the University’s 2006-16 Estates Strategy to provide guidance on provision of accommodation for students including the opening of Duryard, Birks and Lafrowda that opened between 2010 and 2012. In that context, the Masterplan had reserved on-campus sites primarily for further academic expansion, with East Park expected to be a long term site. However, the City Council did flag up that there might be a need to consider at a later date whether some of the land identified for future development on campus should be devoted to more student housing and, when approving the Plan in December 2010, it wished to ensure that sufficient purpose built student accommodation continued to come forward.

 

The Assistant Director indicated that the development of significant further student accommodation at East Park was necessary to ensure good performance against the target of 75% or more of students in purpose built student accommodation to meet University aspirations that first year and overseas students have the opportunity of a campus experience and to reduce the impact of students imbalancing communities in popular student areas.

 

Members were circulated with an update sheet - attached to minutes.

 

Councillor Owen attended the meeting and spoke on this item under Standing Order No. 44. He made the following points:-

 

·         hundreds of objections have been received to this development and the reductions in heights and reduced number of blocks still do not justify this proposal. Academic or other buildings on this or larger scale would also be unacceptable;

·         objections come from a wide range of people both from the immediate neighborhood and from further afield and include academics and other employees of the University, two thirds of their objections relating to the scale and massing and to the high rise development being inappropriate for East Park;

·         the development will lead to the loss of green space and the destruction of a green lung in the north east of the City;

·         the University description on its website of the campus as beautiful with lakes and wooded areas and its description that the scheme will prove a positive contribution to the area and complement the wider area of the University does not square with this proposal;

·         with eight and six storey blocks still proposed this is not a sustainable development;

·         the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995 to 2001 Policy E4 requires that development will only be acceptable if the character and setting of the campus is protected - this development does not protect the campus. Similarly, the Development Delivery Development Plan Document (Publication Version) 2015 requires development to respect and contribute positively towards the character and appearance of the area - again the proposal fails to do this;

·         information in respect of ceiling heights should have been included in the report and not reported verbally;

·         the University cannot back up its statement that expansion will continue in next five years with firm evidence - the demand for places may be affected by other issues, for example, Brexit;

·         University staff state that there are other requirements on campus such as improved academic facilities, extending the library for students etc. which would be preferable to accommodation;

·         landscape and visual assessment and the balloon test were taken before the revised proposal was put forward and did not include the five storey block at the top of the central ridge. Therefore, this new element should also be subject to consultation and a further balloon test;

·         the balloon test was taken on a windy day reducing the overall height of the balloons and therefore the heights are misrepresented;

·         1,220 students will increase noise and light pollution. The mitigation measures proposed by the University to reduce noise are dubious as noise emanating from the campus currently causes problems; and

·         accepting this proposal at outline stage, with only reserved matters to be considered at a later date will change the character of the area for ever.

 

Councillor Mitchell attended the meeting and spoke on this item under Standing Order No. 44. He made the following points:-

 

·         represent hundreds of objectors and endorse comments of Councillor Owen;

·         objectors do not object in principle to further development and many support accommodating students on campus in accordance with Local Plan First Review Policy E4, providing the character and appearance of the campus is protected. However, there has been an increase from a proposed 26,400 square metre development as set out in the 2010 Campus Master Plan to 37,200 square metres, which is a 40% increase;

·         scale and massing is excessive and will have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the campus and is contrary to Policy H5A which states that the scale and intensity of use should not harm the character of the building and locality and is also contrary to the Development Delivery Development Plan Document (Publication Version) published in 2015;

·         the density of the development will be detrimental to the ecological, amenity and landscape setting of the area. Devon Wildlife Trust state that species will be affected by the close proximity of the envisaged buildings and sought a wider buffer area of wildlife friendly habitat, separating buildings from these boundaries, in order to allow scope for the avoidance of disturbance to legally protected species; and

·         with a large number of  purpose built student accommodation such as at the Football Club, Honiton Inn and the Bus Station, the argument that still further accommodation on the campus is necessary in order to exceed the 75% level is not accepted. Further, with the Article 4 designation covering many areas in the City there will be a limit on houses that can be converted to houses in multiple occupation which can be occupied by students.

 

Councillor Holland attended the meeting and spoke on this item under Standing Order No. 44. He made the following points:-

 

·         the development will exacerbate parking difficulties in the St James, St David’s and Pennsylvania areas of the City where parking of student cars is an increasing problem with specific problems likely for fire engines in negotiating tight corners;

·         a fractured relationship exists between Pennsylvania residents and the University. Although the University produces many documents on transport, future plans etc. it is slow to respond to public concerns The University took five months to respond to my views on the University’s Sustainable Transport Plan;

·         in the 1980’s student numbers were in the region of 5,000 but this has now quadrupled to 20,000 which is one fifth of the City’s population which could increase to a quarter of the population if expansion continues, bringing with it an escalation of current problems. There has been no improvements to roads and car parks to match this growth;

·         of a student population of 20,000, 3,000 bring cars to the City and this development will see at least an additional 200 cars who will park in roads not covered by residents’ parking or restrictions. These will add to the problems of pollution and lead to increased parking in residential areas - cars along the streets can already be identified as connected with university students. Other Universities such as Cambridge, Loughborough and Nottingham insist that students do not bring cars but Exeter only advises;

·         a £20,000 financial contribution is sought towards a review of the existing residential parking zones, the making and implementation of traffic orders and meeting costs of design, road markings etc. This is seen by many residents as a stealth tax. Furthermore, its introduction of residents’ parking in one area will push the problem parking to other streets such as Upper Rosebarn Lane;

·         circulated photographs show the parking problems with one being of an empty street taken during vacation time. Research has shown that some vehicles are not taxed but abandoned in this area;

·         because of the parking problems bus sizes have been reduced with congestion leading to the termination of one service. This service was used by students of St Peter’s and parents now use their cars for the school run leading to further congestion;

·         other objections referred to include increased noise, light pollution – lights in the stairwells will be on 24/7 - loss of green open space and visual impact across the wider area; and

·         believe that a line should be drawn and the development resisted.

 

Mr Hayes spoke against the application. He raised the following points:-

 

·         two photos of East Park, a highly valued communal green space used by thousands of people, not just local residents were circulated;

·         the site had been earmarked for development primarily for low rise academic buildings. It was acknowledged that there was pressure to house more students on campus;

·         the Masterplan, approved by this Council, defines how this historic park should be treated with three clear directives of respecting the distinctive landscape setting and high visibility from surrounding areas, retaining and enhancing the biodiversity of the Taddiforde and Hoopern Ponds Valleys and the need for “a light touch” and not detract from the enjoyment, layout and setting of this park. The development does not meet these directives. It is 40% bigger than agreed, has no academic space and now has 13 tower blocks of five storeys or more. It is a radical departure from the agreed Masterplan. Priorities may have changed but the site has not;

·         the report states that a development of this magnitude needs careful consideration due to its significant impact;

·         if there has been such consideration why is the highest building now located at the top of the hill and on which there has been no balloon test, no consultation, no design review and no landscape and visual assessment;

·         there has been no traffic modelling for a huge site, in natural bottleneck, on an already over-crowded campus and no environmental impact assessment;

·         corridors between densely populated tower blocks cannot promote the public realm, health and well-being benefits require by policy;

·         the concerns about buffer zones from Devon Wildlife Trust have not been addressed;

·         valid objections such as noise and light pollution have been shelved as “conditions”. Are Members convinced that a noise survey will provide ways to mitigate the noise from 1,200 students living so near to so many residents;

·         without answers and key details, a scheme of this enormity cannot be approved;

·         critical objections cannot be dealt with at reserved matters as there is no certainty that they will be adequately addressed and almost 70% of the objections relate to the scale of the project being decided now, not at the reserved matters stage;

·         in conclusion, this is not about being anti-student, quite the opposite since people freely recognise the economic benefits that the student population brings to Exeter. The decision is about good stewardship of the beautiful campus, respecting a treasured green space, balancing economic and environmental needs, and maintaining the integrity of the planning process; and

·         we urge the Council to refuse this application.

 

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 

·         the tabled information showed a photograph taken in the summer of 2016 and an accurate artists 3D impression of how the student residences would look from the east; and

·         believe that the conditions do not address the objections.

 

Mr McCann spoke in support of the application. He raised the following points:-

 

·         the University of Exeter is one of the top 100 research Universities in the world and within 1% overall and wishes to encourage more students, for which additional living space is required;

·         East Park has been identified for a potential development since the 1970’s;

·         provision of student accommodation on campus will reduce pressure for housing in areas of the City traditionally occupied by students and residential provision which accords with Policy E4 Exeter Land Plan First Review 1995 - 2011;

·         on campus residential provision is a requirement of the students themselves and the University in particular wishes to provide such accommodation for first year students;

·         the development will protect the landscape with additional planting and linear planting in the centre, with 70% of the site remaining as green open space;

·         cycling and walking routes through the site will be provided;

·         following a balloon test and, in light of general concerns, revised plans were submitted with the heights of the blocks reduced; and

·         the proposal is a good addition to the campus and will add to its existing character.

 

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 

·         the public will be able to access this site in the same way as the rest of the campus;

·         as set out in the Masterplan, the existing campus layout has the academic and social/administration buildings located within central areas with purpose built student accommodation concentrated to the western and eastern boundaries;

·         the only figure of future student numbers that can be provided at present is that of the 1,400 - 1,500 additional students numbers anticipated. The University is a dynamic institution and it is difficult to assess future post graduate and international student numbers;

·         the University wishes to be sustainable and, in respect of heating, looks to achieve the highest standard. Whilst unable to link to the District Heating programme and therefore unable to contribute towards decentralised energy infrastructure the University is looking to a BREEAM excellent standard for a combined heat and power system. Other heating systems would also be investigated;

·         the change from identifying this site from academic to student accommodation is necessitated by the addition of new students; and

·         the University aim is to use the campus as efficiently as possible.

 

 

Responding to Members’ queries in respect of comments that there are enough purpose built student flats and there is no need for further accommodation of this type in the City, the Assistant Director City Development stated that the Core Strategy Policy CP5 provides the strategic context which supports additional student accommodation to meet housing need. Whilst there were existing planning consents for a substantial commitment toadditional student bedrooms, further student accommodation at East Park was necessary to ensure good performance against the target of 75% or more of students in purpose built student accommodation. He set out the current statistics which backed this position. He also advised that in the Article 4 Direction areas there were also a number of small flats which were used as student accommodation legitimately within the policy.

 

Members referred to the absence of comments from both the Police Liaison Officer and the Fire Service and that the revised plans had not been put to the Design Review Panel.

 

The recommendation was for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

RESOLVED that, the application for outline planning permission to build student accommodation (up to a maximum of 35,700 square metres) and ancillary central amenity facilities (up to a maximum of 1,500 square metres) with associated infrastructure and landscaping (all matters reserved) be DEFERRED to provide an opportunity reconsideration of the quantum of development and parameter plans within a revised outline application for consultation with local Members and the community to achieve a more acceptable design.