Agenda item

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

 

The Assistant City Development Manager presented the application for the demolition of the King Billy pub to build a mixed use development scheme comprising of ground floor commercial units (use classes A1, A3 and A4) with 108 bed space student accommodation above over 6, 7 and 8 storeys.

 

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

 

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

 

• I will repeat some points from the previous meeting on 2 October with main concerns now being the need for a community balance as highlighted in the St. James Neighbourhood Plan and safety issues;
• Policy H5b of the Local Plan states that there should not be an over concentration of use in one area such that the character of the neighbourhood is changed or an imbalance created - this development will change the balance of the community. The main thrust of the St. James Neighbourhood Plan is to maintain a community balance;
• no one can believe that the provision of this student block will help redress the community imbalance in the St. James Neighbourhood;
• the main aim of the St. James Neighbourhood Plan is to re-balance the community and is the more relevant and up to date policy. Greater regard should be given to the Plan;
• aim of the PBSA is to redress occupation of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO’s) by students and to free up for family housing;
• it was stated on 2 October that figures relating to student numbers were 18 months out of date and that the annual report on student numbers was yet to be presented to the Planning Member Working Group;
• figures have shown that, in the last five years, approval has been given for 5,000 PBSA’s, including those not yet built, in the St. James area but that imbalance remains;
• the policy is not therefore working and a decision cannot be made on this, or future applications, for student accommodation blocks until policies are up to date and the current situation and policies have been reviewed;
• it is hoped that fire safety concerns have been addressed. However, when a Freedom of Information request was made to the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service, the advice given was that a notification of deficiencies visit was to occur in due course - it is understood that the visit has not yet occurred.
• an email response from the planning case officer relating to the checking of  external cladding referred also to a check on the stability of the John Lewis building and its relation to the adjoining building - no further information on these elements have been provided; and
• do not therefore believe that an informed decision can be made without addressing the above issues and a deferral is requested for an up to date report to be provided on student housing in the City together with further information about fire safety matters.

 

The Assistant City Development Manager advised that the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service were satisfied regarding the concerns raised at the October meeting in respect of potential fire safety issues including the condition of the cladding on the John Lewis building. The deficiencies review had been in respect of management arrangements which were being addressed by John Lewis and did not relate to materials or the building condition.

 

Councillor Mitchell responded, as follows, to Members’ queries:-

 

• accept need for PBSA’s but a combination of housing generally in the City is also required. The area already has a high number of PBSA’s which is in conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan which seeks a community balance;
• social housing would be a more acceptable use of the site for occupancy by single people with no cars and with easy access to the City Centre and transport links. This will dovetail better with the existing community; and
• most students are well behaved but many do cause problems returning from the main campus through residential areas of Pennsylvania.

 

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

 

• support comments of Councillor Mitchell;
• query position relating to the tree at the junction of New North Road and Longbrook Street
• concerned that the figures on supply and demand for student accommodation should be up to date to inform evolution of planning policy but was 18 months overdue. This data will assist in deciding the direction planning policy should take. Will figures be available soon or in the near future;
• a decision should not be made on this application on the basis of out of date figures. With up to date figures a different decision might be reached and the application should therefore be deferred.

 

The Assistant City Development Manager reported that, as stated at the October meeting, it was not appropriate to defer applications on the basis of changes in data or for policies to be reviewed but that applications should be considered on their merits. The City Solicitor and Head of Human Resources stated that it was not necessary for student numbers to be provided when an application for student accommodation was being considered but that each application should be determined in accordance with City Council policy.

 

Another Member asked that an update on the University’s capacity and its future expansion plans be provided together with the current and intended student numbers and how many would require accommodation in Exeter and whether there was a shortfall or enough accommodation available already. The Chief Executive & Growth Director stated that the current student number in Exeter was 18,652 with a forecast growth to 2012/22 of 20,375. Existing planning policy was that a minimum of 75% of the student population should be accommodated in PBSA’s. The growth in numbers therefore suggested a need for further PBSA’s. There was also a significant number of students accommodated in HMO’s, but there was a demand within this cohort to live in PBSA’s. There was therefore a gap in the market for PBSA’s.

 

Members recognised that the existing policy was that a minimum of 75% of the student population should be accommodated in PBSA’s, and also with the inference that as much as possible should be accommodated in this way.

 

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

 

• on behalf of Exeter St. James Forum this Committee is urged not only to note the St. James Neighbourhood Plan but to recognise the significance as the most up-to-date planning document, support that plan and reject this application;
• thank Councillors Mitchell and Owen for their support for the Forum;
• the development is contrary to the overriding objective of the Neighbourhood Plan to create a better community balance between the settled and student population;
• the application is back before this Committee even though it is now stated that there may be a “potential for over-provision of student accommodation”. It is dispiriting to note that the report states that “opportunity for new purpose built accommodation should be welcomed” as it flies in the face of the Neighbourhood Plan;
• the development is out of character and will overshadow the adjacent residential accommodation on Longbrook Street;
• the Neighbourhood Plan became an important Planning Document some years ago. At that time, just under 50% of the residents of the Ward were students;
• in spite of the Article 4 direction and because this Committee consistently pays no more than lip service to the issue of community balance, the settled residents are fast becoming a shrinking minority;
• not opposed to students living in the ward and many resident associations go out of their way to welcome new students. Many students do not like the PBSA concept, preferring the shared house experience and that is why there are an increased number of HMO’s, not only in the St. James Ward, but all over the City;
• it is time to recognise the need for community balance and take decisive action to prevent yet further erosions in that balance. There are in excess of 5,000 people looking to be housed in Exeter, there are an unknown number of people who work and who would like to live in the City, but who cannot find affordable housing. Many Exeter residents do not own a car and this site would be ideal to provide housing for people who would like to live in the City;
• the figures for student numbers are not known. Is the occupancy rate of the already built PBSA’s known? Our evidence is that there is less than 100% occupancy at present. The report as to the number of units required is not available. To approve this application knowing that it is contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan and not knowing whether additional PBSA’s are required lacks logic;
• most PBSA’s cannot be converted into residential accommodation. Student accommodation is not officially classed as housing. It is known that, partly at least, because of the approval by this Committee of PBSA after PBSA that Exeter City Council falls short of a five year Housing Land Supply;
• require better forward thinking in approving student accommodation;
• additionally, the issue has been raised by the Forum of the nature and risk of the cladding on John Lewis following Grenfell Tower and the risk of fire spreading between the building and the proposed development because of the narrowness of the gap. The Forum do not accept that the fire risk has been sufficiently analysed; and
• the application should be rejected and this parcel of land should be developed in accordance with the strategy set out in the Neighbourhood Plan. It is the over-riding objective in the Plan that gives scope to reject or further defer this application.

 

In response to a Member’s question, she confirmed that some student accommodation on this site could be acceptable providing it was part of a wider mix which included general residential provision. A balance was important.

 

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

 

• architect at Grainge Architects speaking on behalf of the developer and their design team. The scale, mass and design of the proposed building have been arrived at through consultation with the planning officers as well as through the Design Review Panel process;
• the principle of student accommodation is accepted on the site in the already approved scheme and it is believed that the scheme complies with the St. James Neigbourhood Plan which calls for ‘large scale student accommodation’ to be permittedin areas not characterised by traditional housing, where the scale and mass is akin to its surroundings and where servicing requirements can be met without impacting on residents”. The proposal ticks all of these boxes;
• the scheme was presented to this Committee on 2 October when it was deferred over concerns over fire safety. The developer has since engaged with specialist fire safety consultants - the International Fire Consultants (IFC) Group - a team of highly experienced professional fire safety engineers who had been askedasked to report on sprinklers, spread of flame, proximity of windows to the John Lewis building and liaison with the fire service. The report detailed that sprinklers were nota building regulations requirement but the developer had confirmed that they would go over and abovethe statutory requirements and install sprinklers. The elevations facing the John Lewis building would be specified to achieve a minimum of 90 minutes fire protection in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements. This would be achieved through the use of suitable non-combustible materials as well as fire breaks at each floor level. This level of design information would be prepared during the next phase of the project;
• the report outlined the requirements for a maximum window opening of 1 metre squared every 4 metres or in every compartment where the elevation was within 1 metre of the site boundary. The current design complied with this requirement. The closest proposed window to the John Lewis building was 1.5 metres away and this was in the fire-fighting staircase, which would have 120 minute fire protection;
• the fire service had reviewed the IFC Group report and was supportive of it. They had no comments regarding the content of the report and requested no further information. The fire service had also confirmed that the design elements detailed within the report should notaffect a decision on planning; and
• the site was an appropriate location for student accommodation, together with the commercial units at ground floor, the proposal was appropriate in terms of scale and mass and, crucially, the design and construction of this building had been carefully considered and would be safe for residents and neighbours alike.

 

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 

• regarding the possibility of flat provision for professional young people rather than a retail function on the ground floor or elsewhere in the development, the design was in accordance with client requirements as they considered student accommodation would be more suitable in this location. The proximity of the large John Lewis building overlooking the site made it a more appropriate accommodation for the transient student population than professional singles; and.
• there was an option to convert some of the student cluster flats into residential accommodation but more suitable sites were available for such provision.

 

Although one Member felt that provision of student accommodation in this location was inappropriate others felt that, notwithstanding the great need for additional social housing and for cheaper housing generally, student accommodation on this site would be appropriate. It was pointed out that there was an obligation to adhere to existing policies and that the St. James Neighbourhood Plan sat alongside other policies. It was suggested also that consideration could be given to making the transition from HMO’s to PBSA’s more attractive noting also that not all HMO’s were occupied only by students. More PBSA’s would make the transition easier.

 

Without the PBSA policy, the choice for students would be reduced leading to huge concentrations in houses in residential areas. Because of the University’s significant contribution to the City’s economy pro-active policies in respect of student housing were beneficial and the Article 4 Direction was also helpful in protecting residential areas.

 

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

 

RESOLVED that, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing a Student Management Plan (to include a noise assessment from the roof terrace), and a financial contribution towards the delivery of District Heating in the area, planning permission for the demolition of the King Billy pub to build a mixed use development scheme comprising of ground floor commercial units (use classes A1, A3 and A4) with 108 bed space student accommodation above over 6, 7 and 8 storeys be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:-

 

In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within six months of the date of this Committee meeting, authority be delegated to the City Development Manager to REFUSE permission for the reason that inadequate provision has been made for matters which were intended to be dealt with in the Section 106 Agreement.

 

(1)        The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

Reason: To ensure compliance with sections 91-92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

(2)        The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance with the submitted details received by the Local Planning Authority on 28 July 2017 (dwg nos 1191/PL100; PL101; PL103; PL110A; PL111A; PL112A; PL113A; PL114A; PL116A and PL200A) as modified by other conditions of this consent.

Reason: In order to ensure compliance with the approved drawings.

 

(3)        Samples of the materials it is intended to use externally in the construction of the development shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. No external finishing material shall be used until the Local Planning Authority has confirmed in writing that its use is acceptable. Thereafter the materials used in the construction of the development shall correspond with the approved samples in all respects.

Reason: To ensure that the materials conform with the visual amenity requirements of the area.

 

(4)        Pre-commencement condition: A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development on site and adhered to during the construction period. This should include details of monitoring and mitigation measures to control the environmental impact of the development during the construction and demolition phases, including site traffic and traffic routing, the effects of piling, and emissions of noise and dust. The CEMPs should contain a procedure for handling and investigating complaints as well as provision for regular meetings with appropriate representatives from the Local Authorities during the development works, in order to discuss forthcoming work and its environmental impact.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: In the interest of the environment of the site and surrounding areas. This information is required before development commences to ensure that the impacts of the development works are properly considered and addressed at the earliest

possible stage.

 

(5)        Pre-commencement condition: No development shall take place on site until a full investigation of the site has taken place to determine the extent of, and risk posed by, any contamination of the land and the results, together with any remedial works necessary, have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The buildings shall not be occupied until the approved remedial works have been implemented and a remediation statement submitted to the Local Planning Authority detailing what contamination has been found and how it has been dealt with together with confirmation that no unacceptable risks remain.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: In the interests of the amenity of the occupants of the buildings hereby approved. This information is required before development commences to ensure that any remedial works are properly considered and addressed at the appropriate stage.

 

(6)        Pre-commencement condition: No development related works shall take place within the site until a written scheme of archaeological work has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include on-site work, and off-site work such as the analysis, publication, and archiving of the results, together with a timetable for completion of each element. All works shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the approved scheme, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: To ensure the appropriate identification, recording and publication of archaeological and historic remains affected by the development. This information is required before development commences to ensure that historic remains are not damaged during the construction process.

 

(7)        Prior to commencement of the development, details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority of secure cycle parking provision for the development. Development shall not be commenced until such details have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and prior to occupation the cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the submitted details.

Reason: To provide adequate facilities for suitable transport

 

(8)        No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use until the pedestrian footway on the rear service yard as indicated on Appendix A of the "Proposed service yard strategy" have been provided in accordance with details and specifications that shall previously have been submitted to, agreed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To provide suitable facilities for the traffic attracted to the site.

 

(9)        Travel Plan measures including the provision of sustainable transport welcome packs and details of the arrangements of how student pick up/drop off will be managed, shall be provided in accordance with details agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and Local Highway Authority in advance of occupation of the development.

Reason: To promote the use of sustainable transport modes and in the interests of highway safety, in accordance with paragraphs 32 and 36 of the NPPF.

 

(10)      Prior to occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, details of provision for nesting swifts shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the RSPB. Upon written approval of the details, the scheme shall be fully implemented as part of the development and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of preservation and enhancement of biodiversity in the locality.

 

(11)      Before the cafe/bar hereby permitted opens, a scheme for the installation of equipment to control the emission of fumes and smell from the restaurant/bar use shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and the approved scheme shall be implemented. All equipment installed as part of the scheme shall be thereafter be operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby occupants.

 

(12)      Before commencement of the student accommodation development the applicant or the developer shall submit a SAP calculation which demonstrates that a 14% reduction in CO2 emissions over that necessary to meet the requirements of the 2013 Building Regulations can be achieved. The measures necessary to achieve this CO2 saving shall thereafter be implemented on site and within 3 months of practical completion of the student accommodation the developer of the student accommodation will submit a report to the LPA from a suitably qualified consultant to demonstrate compliance with this condition.

Reason: In the interests of sustainable development and to ensure that the development accords with Core Strategy Policy CP15.

 

(13)      No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for the full period of its construction has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system must satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site.

Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area.

 

(14)      No development shall commence until a noise assessment report, including noise from the any plant machinery (not to exceed the following noise levels 07:00 to 19:00 43dB (LAr); 19:00 to 23:00 41 dB (LAr) and 23:00 to 07:00 35 dB (LAr) as show 1m from the façade of any residential receptor) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority providing details of any sound insulation measures and mitigation measures required and shall thereafter be provided in accordance with such details:

Reason: Insufficient information has been submitted with the application and in the interests of future residential amenity.

 

(15)      The residential accommodation shall be constructed with centralised space heating and hot water systems that have been designed and constructed to be compatible with a low temperature hot water District Heating Network in accordance with the CIBSE guidance "Heat Networks: Code of Practice for the UK". The layout of the plant room, showing provision for heat exchangers and for connection to a District Heating Network in the Highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved details shall be implemented on site unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Reason: To ensure that the proposal complies with Policy CP14 of Council's Adopted Core Strategy and in the interests of delivering sustainable development.

 

(16)      The development hereby approved shall comply with the recommendations as stated within the Rear Service Yard Access Strategy dated September 2017 produced by IESIS unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure this area remains operational for all users.

 

(17)      The development hereby approved shall comply with the recommendations as stated within the Fire Safety Report dated October 2017 produced by International Fire Consultants Limited unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the building meets fire safety requirements.