Agenda item

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Project Manager (Planning) (KW) presented the application for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment with student residential accommodation and associated landscape works (Revised Plans reducing from 3 storeys to 2 storeys).

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

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

• understand the need to accommodate an ever-growing student population in the city with the preferred method being purpose-built accommodation to alleviate the dominance of HMOs in the residential housing market, but this is the wrong proposal in the wrong place;
• there are 75 objections, followed by another 16 to revised plans. Already subject to an imbalance in the community make up due to the high number of HMOs in Portland Street as well as the surrounding areas. Residents are subjected to a number of anti-social behavior issues, from littering to loud music, student parties and general late night noise. Adding a further 15 students to the area will tip the balance over the edge;
• imbalance in relation to Policy H5 can only be considered in relation to the wider ward rather than an individual street. The relation of HMOs may not be imbalanced when considering the whole area, but the sheer number of large, dominant purpose-built accommodation either built or approved for development combined with the high level of HMOs in Portland Street, leave the local residents feeling hemmed in and overwhelmed;
• other student developments include The Kingfisher, Printworks and the Picturehouse with approval for the Bus Station site, Honiton Inn and Heavitree Road with an expectation in respect of Heavitree Police Station and the Pyramids sites;
• properties on Portland Street are not currently permitted to be turned into HMOs on the basic of creating an imbalance so it should not be possible to change a commercial property set within the same residential area and likely to create the same issues;
• despite the reduction in height, this development is too tall for a two storey building, too large for the space and too close to neighbouring properties andthe residents of neighbouring properties still feel that there are irreconcilable issues to do with massing and scale compared to surrounding properties;
• the scale of the development and the effect on neighbouring dwellings is unacceptable. The development does not form a natural extension to the flats in Newton Close;
• overlooking was considered enough of a problem to reject a similar application in 1990 for residential purposes but the current proposal also reverts to overlooking the rear gardens/windows of the properties in Portland Street;
• with the distance between properties limited to just over 9 meters (rather than the recommended 22 metres required in planning law) there is a real concern that the new development would overlook the rear gardens and bedroom windows. The minor amendment to feature slanting windows does not solve the issue of overlooking;
• with no contextual images it is very difficult to fully appreciate the negative impact that the development will have on the overall scene of the area;
• the revised plans for the development have taken away the communal area that was in the previous three storey plans. This will cause the students to congregate outside the property and in the nearby Belmont Park with possible increase in antisocial behaviour in the area;
• rather than having a professional warden in situ to manage these issues, as is the case in other purpose-built accommodating, the warden would be a student;
• the local plan states that “75% or more of additional student numbers should be accommodated in purpose-built student housing.” However, it goes on to say that “New purpose built student housing should be located on, or close to, the University Campuses or in the City Centre.” The site on Lower Albert Street fulfils neither criteria; and
• if HMOs are not allowed due to the large proportion of existing HMOs in the vicinity, then how is it possible to erect a purpose-built accommodation block which will have a similar effect as they are so close to neighbouring properties. 

She responded as follows to Members queries:-

• great concern from residents regarding the high level of anti-social behavior experienced in the Newton area especially during Freshers week; and
• the site is close to an area of social housing in Clifton Road and Newton Close and in addition there is also a significant amount of families and older people in the vicinity.

Mrs White spoke against the application. She raised the following points:-

• representing the community of Newtown which is felt to be at tipping point. being eroded by developments affecting the demographic of the ward;
• 75 objections to this development when original plans were submitted, followed by an additional 16 when plans were revised. The development is still too tall and too large for the space, too close to neighbouring properties, and doesn’t follow the traditional building forms of the area;
• impressions of the area were circulated showing how the new development may look from the rear gardens of Portland Street;
• a planning application has been previously rejected on this site due to overlooking and lack of privacy;
• the distance between facing windows in the development and the rear windows of Portland Street, is only 9.5 metres, even though planning guidance states that a minimum distance between facing windows should be 22 metres. Some Portland Street residents will have a building as tall as the three-storey Newtown Close flats, and as close as just two small car lengths away from their rear windows;
• because of its proximity, 19 windows from the proposed development would directly overlook the gardens, bedrooms and bathrooms of Portland Street. The angled windows will not address these privacy issues due to the proximity of this building;
• concerned that the scale of this building is disproportionate to the surrounding area of Portland St and Clifton Road and natural light will be severely diminished for some existing properties. The line drawings submitted by the developer do not show the building in the context of its surroundings;
• the 24 hour warden will be a student resident who will not have the authority to control behaviour. This will not work within a residential area and is a vastly different service to a permanently staffed front desk such as provided at the Printworks;
• regarding Article 4, it is felt that an imbalance is already occurring. Councillor Branston suggests that the amount of students on just Portland Street exceeds the 30% figure supplied by the City Council and is closer to 60-65%;
• Newtown is already accommodating a transient population from the Printworks and Kingfisher developments and the bigger the transient population, the fewer people will be invested in the community; and
• the development will affect the quality of life, including that of children. Please support the families and long-standing residents of Newtown and reject this proposal.

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

• the applicant has read all the letters, acknowledged concerns and made amendments to the scheme but had been unable to engage with local residents to respond to their concerns because of delays in negotiations with the owner of the builder’s yard;
• dramatically reduced the size of the scheme to minimise the impact on the community, the key changes being reduction of the building from three to two storeys, changing the type of accommodation to solely studio rooms which favour mature and returning students and discouraging anti social behaviour found in cluster flats and omitting outdoor communal areas so there are no opportunities for students to congregate and cause disturbances to its neighbours;
• the developer was born in Exeter and has lived his whole life here, has a proven track record in delivering high quality schemes in the city and will operate this site. It is not the case of an outside national developer backed by an investment fund with no sense of care or responsibility for the city or neighbourhood;
• the proposal supports the involvement of a local contracting team and a local supply chain as well as CIL contributions;
• the University of Exeter is expanding and this development satisfies all the criteria set out in the core strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework. The only subjective matter however is whether the proposal creates an imbalanced community. There is no definition in the NPPF as to what constitutes a community in terms of catchment area. The report suggests Portland Street, Clifton Road and Newtown Close have a 12.9% concentration of students not the suggested figure of 32%. If a singular street is to be chosen then it should be the street the site sits on and Lower Albert Street and Newtown Close have 0% students;
• the statement “ an over concentration of students in any one area is created and so therefore undermines the balance and well being of a neighbourhood and community detrimentally” is not the case here. The site is previously developed land, in a sustainable location in very close proximity to the student campuses;
• the massing and scale of the proposals do not impact on the character of the area. The scheme is modern in appearance but is predominantly brick in construction; the proposal creates no overshadowing of neighbouring properties and does not cause any neighbouring properties to suffer any loss of privacy; and
• this proposal is part of a movement of new build student accommodation that in turn is forcing improved quality of HMO's which is slowly seeing landlords revert to permanent private accommodation therefore helping address housing shortage across the city.

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

• 15 units will be provided which, it is believed, will attract mature and overseas students; and
• with the rooms some 30% bigger than those in cluster flats, the likelihood of students congregating to socialise and disrupting residents is reduced.

The Project Manager (Planning) confirmed that the distance from neighbouring residents was between 12.5 and 13 metres.

Members expressed concern at the close proximity of student accommodation to private residential dwellings, noting that the site was immediately adjacent to residential dwellings in Newtown Close and Portland Street. Because of the existing number of students currently residing on Portland Street, it was felt that the addition of student accommodation would change the character of the neighbourhood and create an imbalance in the local community.  It was suggested that arterial routes offered preferable locations for students developments.

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

RESOLVED that, planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment with student residential accommodation and associated landscape works (Revised Plans reducing from 3 storeys to 2 storeys) be REFUSED as the scale and intensity of use would harm the character of the building and locality and would cause an unacceptable reduction in the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. It would create an overconcentration of the use in any one area of the city which would change the character of the neighbourhood and create an imbalance in the local community contrary to Policy H5 (A) and (B) of the Exeter Local Plan First Review.