Agenda item

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

Councillor Denham declared a disclosable pecuniary interest and left the meeting during consideration of this item.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) presented the application for the variation of Condition 2 of planning application 17/0188/37 granted permission on 1 March 2017 to allow an additional 24 bed spaces/studio flats within an extended lower ground floor level; relocation of common room and bin stores; provision of outside cycle parking and re-arrangement of internal stair cores.

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

Councillor Owen, having given notice under Standing Order No.44, spoke on the item. He raised the following points:-

• request deferral of the application as another application for student accommodation originally set to be presented at this Committee had been deferred, the argument for deferring the application because it was a new application being irrelevant;
• a deferral was also necessary because of errors in the report as the statistics provided date from 2016/17, yet the latest figures on the University website covered the 2017/18 period. Moreover, all statistics included accommodation on the Cornwall campus and therefore did not accurately depict the Exeter situation;
• the update sheet provided details of the public objections but these were received prior to the publication of the original agenda and should have been included in that agenda which is another reason why the application should be deferred;
• if not deferred, the application should be refused as it impacts adversely on the community balance in the St. James ward, the need to retain balance specifically referred to in both the Exeter Local Plan and the St. James Neighbourhood Plan. The original report to Committee seeking permission for 312 units conceded that there was an impact on community balance but approval had been given because of other factors notably the need to ensure that the re-development of the adjoining St. James Park football ground could proceed - this reason is no longer relevant as the re-development will proceed regardless and the requirement for 24 more units has nothing to do with the Football Club. The reason for the application is to increase the developer’s profit;
• the student population of the ward at the time of the original application was 55% and this imbalance will now be increased; and
• the application should also be refused as the quality of the amenity space and facilities was inadequate. There is a darker outlook for the additional units which can impact adversely on students’ mental health. Government guidance requires adequate communal space as essential for student accommodations.

Councillor Mitchell, having given notice under Standing Order No.44, spoke on the item. He raised the following points:-

• accept that lower standards of accommodation apply for students but the quality of these additional units is not acceptable – the additional units look out onto cycle racks and the Big Bank of St James’ Park. The level of amenity is unacceptable;
• the application does not take into account the aims of the St James Neighbourhood Plan;
• the additional student accommodation leads to further community imbalance in the St James Ward. The Committee cannot judge the true impact as information is required on the number of purpose built units in the St James ward, the occupancy rate of the current purpose built units, how many units have received consent in St James and the percentage of student numbers  compared with the number of other residents;
• there is inconsistency between the student number figures provided. The 2007 supplementary planning guidance, in particular, is out of date and therefore misleading as it fails to show the changes over the past 11 years especially when compared with the St. James Neighbourhood Plan of 2013;
• the positive impact of the University on the City in financial, social and cultural terms as well as raising Exeter’s profile is welcomed but a review is needed of the impact of purpose built student accommodation on the City and local communities. The growth of this type of accommodation needs to be managed;
• a review of Council policy on student accommodation is necessary first before considering applications for purpose built student accommodation;
• question justification for the additional accommodation sought. During negotiations with the original developer and the Football Club there had been some reduction in the number of units but there had also been an insistence on provision of student units without which the Club’s re-development proposals could not proceed. This enabling argument for the Football Club is now irrelevant as the additional units will have no impact on the football club plans; and
• the application should be refused or deferred for clarification on all issues raised.

The City Development Manager, in response to the queries, stated that the figures on student numbers had been provided by the University Estates’ team and that officers had been aware that the objections had been omitted from the original report. He advised that the policy on student numbers would be reviewed. He also stated that, although it was not possible to disaggregate student numbers in houses in multiple occupation and that there was some increase in purpose built accommodation, there was sufficient information provided on student numbers to determine the application.    

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

• approval has already been given for 312 student flats and rejection of the new site owners’ application to increase this number is requested. It may only be 24 additional units but it will be a further nail in the coffin of the over-riding objective of the St James Neighbourhood Plan to create better community balance;
• there remains doubt as to whether additional numbers of student flats will be required and this building could not, as currently designed, be put to alternative use;
• there is no evidence in St James, where it is understood that the figures will show that Council Tax exemptions continue to rise, that purpose built student accommodation’s are reducing the demand for residential houses;
• 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. The settled residents of St. James are fast becoming a shrinking minority. The residents should be supported as they have spent many hours creating a plan they believed would deliver the long term goal of a balanced and vibrant neighbourhood. They have been repeatedly let down by this Council. Show the residents of St. James that the importance of the Plan is acknowledged;
• the new site owners knew the number of units when they purchased the site from Yelverton – presumably they undertook due diligence on what they were acquiring and balanced cost with profit before paying the price. These plans can therefore safely be rejected without jeopardising the development;
• the residents of St. James are not opposed to students and do not wish to see them living in a basement that overlooks nothing more attractive than cycle lockers and a blank space. It should be seen as an unacceptable proposal contrary to any notion of good design contrary to Neighbourhood Plan Policy D1;
• the six storey block is one storey higher than the listed buildings on Old Tiverton Road;
• a further 24 students means a further 24 drop-offs at the start and end of each term. Most of these take place during the football season and all have to use Stadium Way already congested with football traffic and pedestrians. This is unacceptable, particularly for the residents of Lucombe Court;
• if approval is granted, the Section 106 Agreement should contain a requirement for at least a monthly clean of the gap between the new wall and the listed walls of Old Tiverton Road;
• only approve the building of a wall not a wall/hybrid wood panelled structure. It should be made clear in the Section 106 that any member of the student housing company on site 24/7 is a properly paid employee or employees; and
• please reject this application and support the settled residents of St James.

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

• the proposed amendments enable the reinvestment of the added value back intothe development, provide increased common room facilities, and also increase green space. The amendments do not result in any increase in height to the approved building, or negative visual impact from the surrounding properties;
• the additional fit out works can be finished within the current construction period, so there will be no increase in time on site;
• GSA purchased this development after the current consent was obtained and, since this point, the scheme has been enhanced and key features added such as a full sprinkler system, card access control, increased management facilities and a BREEAM rating will be sought;
• the building will be managed by the company’s operations team, who have been awarded student operator of the year for three years running. In addition, a student wellbeing programme will be applied at this building. GSA is proud to be leading the way with this programme and have been commended by Universities. Literature has been provided on the programme and the additional common spaces proposed with this amendment will help further enhance the wellbeing activities provided;
• GSA are excited about joining the local community and helping to keep it a balanced and vibrant place;
• there is still headroom and need for further well managed student beds in the City. The proposed additional 24 beds are in the form of cluster bedrooms; and
• the amendment will allow the provision of more amenity space and support a wellbeing programme. It will make better use of the site, with no negative visual impact, and help meet the current demand for student beds.

He responded to Members’ queries:-

• the scheme was reviewed with view to both a better use of the value asset of the land and to re-invest back into the scheme by providing more communal facilities;
• the lower ground floor will, in fact, be at ground floor level with an outlook onto softer landscaping than previously proposed - the occupants will look out on to a cycle block not the cycle racks themselves and the block itself will be softened in appearance. Light to these units will be in excess of legislative requirements and there is no issue regarding the quality of the scheme;
• the amended proposal improves the investment potential, whilst providing more amenity space overall, improving the quality of the customer with no impact on neighbouring properties; and
• negotiations will be entered into with neighbours regarding the party wall to achieve consistency of design and the company will maintain landscaping and the appearance of the overall site to a high quality.

Members felt that there would be an unacceptable impact on the community balance of the neighbourhood, noting that the original application had been approved because of the implications on a wider development proposals for the area, specifically the desire to provide for the community through improving the existing community facility of the football club. 

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

RESOLVED that the application for the variation of Condition 2 of planning application 17/0188/37 granted permission on 1 March 2017 to allow an additional 24 bed spaces/studio flats within an extended lower ground floor level; relocation of common room and bin stores; provision of outside cycle parking and re-arrangement of internal stair cores be REFUSED as the application is contrary to the aims of the St James Neighbourhood plan leading to a further imbalance in the community because of the increase in student numbers.