Minutes:
The Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) presented the application for residential accommodation for students.
A total of 166 bedspaces (138 student bedrooms within cluster flats, 19 self-contained studio flats and 9 accessible studios) were proposed on five levels with the basement comprising a plant area, gym and cinema. Vehicular access would be through a secure main entry gate with landscaped and outdoor seating areas. There was a reduction of 26 bedspaces from the original scheme, refused under delegated powers which was currently at appeal. The Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) explained the changes at the different levels and the differing impacts on the surrounding area.
The Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) detailed proposed changes to the conditions including an additional condition in respect of drainage. He reported that further verbal comments had been received suggesting better integration between students and the local community; a more robust student management plan, the transplantations of the walnut tree, use of CIL money towards community provision in the St David’s area and concerns regarding drainage run off into Looe Road. Responding to a Member, he confirmed that the development would be 20 metres from the adjacent terrace in St David’s Hall.
Councillor Sills, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on the item. He raised the following points:-
· St. David’s and St. James’ wards both suffer from an excess of student populations;
· the decision to refuse the previous application was correct and this decision should be upheld for the revised application where there has only been a minimal reduction in the number of units;
· the proposal remains unsuitable in terms of size and massing and is cramped and unsuitable for the St David’s ward and will impact adversely on the character of the area;
· 1,800 students are registered in the St David’s Ward with an excess of 50% in some streets which impacts advesely on the community feel;
· this historic area with the Ironbridge, the St David’s and St. Michael’s Churches as well as the Almshouses should be protected and towerblock developments of this nature opposed;
· there will be an adverse impact on vulnerable young people in the area such as the occupants of Esther Community and the YMCA; and
· although the County Council are supportive of pedestrian and cycling improvements feel that further improvements are required.
Councillor D. Moore, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on the item. She raised the following points:-
· thank Crosslane for meeting on site to show key features of the application and have also met residents across the neighbourhood;
· object on three grounds - first it doesn’t meet the Council’s own planning policies, second significant loss of amenity for the neighbourhood if the development is not controlled and thirdly material matters which do not make this application acceptable;
· proposal conflicts with Local Plan Policy H5(b) as it is an over concentration of purpose built student housing changing the character of the area and creating an inbalance in the community. It is an area of multiple deprivation and a lower super output area so a balanced community is crucial to its stability and viability as set out by the Local Community in the Vision 2020 Community Plan. If this development proceeds, increasing the numbers of the transient community will further erode that balance. The site should be allocated to mixed use residential accommodation;
· the Council’s Heritage conservation policy states that developments must demonstrably improve the appearance and functioning of an area and must not have a detrimental effect on the character and setting of adjacent listed buildings. Purpose built student housing will not improve this Conservation Area. Students bring cars and there will be deliveries and other service vehicles;
· a large block designed for students must be properly managed in order to avoid conflict and distress. Staffing during the day only is not an acceptable approach, for students or neighbours. Proper 24/7 paid staffing is required, especially if any noise and nuisance in the garden just outside Walnut Cottages where students will gather. A clear condition for this is required;
· the tree planted in memory will no longer be accessible by the public and a condition is required that if the tree doesn’t survive its relocation that it is immediately replaced. There must also be a plaque put up in the garden in her memory. Proposal is required for the listed garden;
· Crosslane are keen for the students to be a part of the community, through volunteering. The Vision 2020 community plan sets out a myriad ways volunteers can get involved in the community but this has to be organised and managed safely and a planning condition is required to help pay for this activity;
· a condition is required to bring forward a biodiversity improvement plan for the site and the provision of replacement trees to the Devon standard;
· residents have also identified two further concerns that are not properly addressed in the application. The development is on the edge of a steep slope overlooking Bonhay and Looe Roads. Reassurance required that both construction and the management of drainage and run-off does not result in soil/land slippage down the very steep slopes above properties in Bonhay and Looe Roads; and
· have Highways approved gates on the boundary of the Walnut Gardens property because of vehicles needing to stop on the road, open the gates and gain access at a point that is just at a brow of a hill? A clear proposal and the agreement of Walnut cottages residents much be secured.
Jill Hughes spoke against the application. She raised the following points:-
· speaking on behalf of neighbours in Montpelier Court and vicinity where the proposed development will have a considerable impact. A large development for 166 young people who are only there temporarily and therefore have no roots in the community is inappropriate in a settled residential area with retirement and family homes;
· the St. David’s Ward has a large amount of student accommodation, both purpose built and multi occupancy - in 2017 the University recorded 1,805 students in the area with a further 475 in development, so there is already an inbalance;
· impact of increased pollution and noise is a concern. St David’s Hill is a busy road with constant traffic and congestion. The development will result in increased traffic from administrative staff, gardeners etc;
· increased noise will also be a problem as a result of a late night style of living. This already occurs and will increase. Walnut Cottage residents will also be affected by noise from students collecting or returning bicycles at the cycle racks;
· the open space allocated for reading and smoking is immediately behind the cottages and under bedroom windows so there will be pollution from cigarette smoke. A 7pm curfew may not be enforceable. The management company is proposing to employ a mature student at night instead of professionally trained personnel. This student’s authority might not be accepted and the policy raises major concerns about the handling of any crisis; and
· object to this application.
Lisa Timberlake spoke in support of the application. She raised the following points:-
· the Crosslane Group will develop, and subsequently manage, the proposed accommodation and will remain stakeholders in the local community;
· Crosslane require high standards of behaviour and respect for the amenities of neighbours. The on-site management teams provide a point of contact for neighbours;
· Crosslane have carefully assessed the market for student accommodation. Findings support the Council’s assessment confirming a student population in need of housing of just under 20,000, against an existing supply of circa 7,750 student bedspaces which could increase to over 10,000 if all potential pipeline supply is delivered. A ratio of approximately one student bedspace for every two students suggests that Exeter has not yet reached a position of oversupply of Purpose-Built Student Accommodation;
· there remains substantial unsatisfied demand for good quality accommodation in appropriate locations where students wish to live;
· the only alternative is to compete in the market for normal rented accommodation which places pressure on housing for families. Housing students in purpose-built accommodation will reduce pressure on the local housing market. It will also potentially reduce conflicts arising from students living in unmanaged accommodation next to general market housing;
· the development will be car free and occupiers will not be eligible for parking permits; and
· the site is an optimal location for student accommodation.
She responded as follows to Members’ queries:-
· wardens will be on duty 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 5pm on Saturdays with student ambassadors on call during other times. The latter will benefit from reduced rents and will be paid a fee. All entrances are monitored by CCTV with security alarms for medical/fire emergencies. There will be 24 hour support but regular staff will not be on site after 6pm. Any wider issues raised by the local community can be discussed with staff during day time;
· there will be a mix of cluster flats for 2nd and 3rd years and studios for overseas students and postgraduates;
· anti-social behaviour will not be tolerated and it is anticipated that many students will not wish to jeopardise their accommodation by behaving unacceptably;
· students will sign an undertaking not to bring cars. Although this cannot be policed by the company, where such usage is reported when parked off site, a “three strikes and out” policy will operate. The company has issued warnings in other student developments;
· co-living, involving both students and the wider population, was an unproven model but was being developed by the company in London though its co-living department. It could involve extra provision for non-students such as larger accommodation and parking spaces; and
· cinema/gym provision would occupy the basement space where accommodation could not be provided.
Members felt that the scale and massing of the proposal was unsuitable in this area of the city. They referred to the village feel of the area, the eclectic style of surrounding properties and the historical aspects of the neighbourhood concluding that the design failed to add positively to this important part of the city. They emphasised that it was the unsuitable nature of the proposal in terms of size, massing and design in the context of its wider setting that was of paramount concern rather than the fact that it would herald a further increase in student numbers in an area already considered by many to be overpopulated with this cohort. In this context, it was suggested that a shift from the city centre to the more peripheral areas of the city as locations for purpose built student accommodation would be preferable to avoid the growing ghettoization of certain inner city areas.
Other Members referred to the design being inappropriate for a Conservation Area, the unacceptable thinning out of trees on the lower boundary and the potential impact on Looe Road because the steep bank overlooking those residences could be destabilised by the development because of increased drainage pressures.
The recommendation was for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.
A proposal to refuse the application was moved and seconded voted upon and carried unanimously.
RESOLVED that the application for residential accommodation for students (166 bedspaces) be REFUSED for the following reasons
The proposal is contrary to Core Planning Policy Section 4, 11, 12 and 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Objective 9 and Policy CP4 and Cp17 of the Exeter Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies H5(a), C1, C2, C3, T3, DG1 (b) 9c) (d) (f), (g) and (h) of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011 because by virtue of:-
i) its siting, footprint, height, massing and design, the proposal would appear as a cramped and overly dominant form of development of excessive density, unsympathetic with and detrimental to the character of the St Davids Conservation Area failing to respect it local distinctiveness;
ii) its dense, bulky and uniformed appearance would appear as a visually intrusive form of development that would be visually detrimental when viewed from St Davids Hill and the wider views from the west of the City unsympathetic with, and detrimental to, the character of the historic townscape of the area;
iii) its height, massing and design has a detrimental impact on the residential amenities in respect of No. 55 to 61 St Davids Hill specifically in respect of loss of light, outlook and privacy not allowing existing and future residents to feel at ease with their home and garden;
iv) the building’s siting will result in the removal of existing trees within the site that contributes to the character and appearance of the area. The siting and footprint of the existing building will allow limited opportunity for replacement planting and have a detrimental impact of the character and appearance of the St Davids Conservation Area;
v) the proposal would result in the overconcentration of student accommodation on the site to the detriment of nearby existing residents amenities to the extent that it would change the character of the area and exacerbate existing problems of imbalance in the local community.