Agenda item

To consider the report of the Director City Development.

 

Councillor M. Mitchell declared an interest and did not participate in the debate or vote on this matter. He spoke on this matter from the floor as a member of the public.

 

The Service Lead City Development presented the planning application for the demolition of the garage workshop and construction of four three-storey (plus basement) purpose-built student accommodation units, numbering 26 bedrooms.

 

The Service Lead City Development described the site’s location through the site plan, an aerial view, a location plan, photos, floor plans and plans of the front and rear elevations and a contextual street scene showing the height of the building with the height of neighbouring properties. The site comprised a wide plot with a large, corrugated garage building over six metres in height, formerly used for vehicle repairs. The area was dominated by terraced housing, predominantly inhabited by students on this part of Howell Road, Danes Road and Hoopern Street. The site was in the Longbrook Conservation Area. The building did not positively contribute to the area.

 

For the original submission (comprising 29 beds), 54 public comments had been made in objection to the proposed development. A further 26 representations had been received following a re-consultation on the revised scheme for 26 beds. All but three were objections; two were neutral, and one letter of support from the immediate neighbour at 67 Howell Road superseded a previous objection. This was because the applicant had addressed concerns about the relationship between the properties, and the use was appropriate in this location.

The report also set out the following key elements:-

 

·         the principle of development;

·         impact on heritage assets and amenities;

·         parking and accessibility;

·         contamination;

·         energy; 

·         scale, design, impact on character and appearance; and

·         impact on ecology.

 

 The Service Lead City Development advised that the key issues were:

 

·         scale and massing;

·         principle of student housing;

·         amenity; and

·         landscape.

 

It was considered that the proposal was compliant with Exeter Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP5 - Student Accommodation, CP10 - Meeting Community Needs, CP15 - Sustainable Construction and CP17 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and to Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011 policies AP1 - Design and Location of Development, AP2 - Sequential Approach, H1 - Search Sequence, H2 - Location Priorities, H5 - Diversity of Housing, T1 - Hierarchy of Modes, T2 - Accessibility Criteria, T3 - Encouraging Use of Sustainable Modes, T10 - Car Parking Standards, C1 – Development in Conservation Areas, EN2 - Contaminated Land, EN5 – Noise, DG1 - Objectives of Urban Design, DG2 - Energy Conservation and DG7 - Crime Prevention and Safety and to the NPPF.

 

The following responses were given to Members’ queries:-

 

·         Policy H5 of the Local Plan deals with accommodation for students stating that the scale and intensity of use should not harm the locality nor create an overconcentration in one area of the city which would change the character of the neighbourhood or create an imbalance in the local community;

·         in the absence of a clear definition of a community imbalance in a neighbourhood, there would be a risk at an appeal of not being able to demonstrate community imbalance;

·         there were three criteria in the St. James Neighbourhood Plan Policy C2 where student accommodation would be acceptable, being the presence of a gap in the residential provision, parking would not have an unacceptable effect on the area and where scale and massing were broadly similar to surrounding buildings. The proposal met all three;

·         the area had a residents’ parking scheme; and

·         a similar scheme at Well Street had been refused but not challenged on appeal.

 

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

 

·         am predominately here to protect and support the principles of the Exeter St. James Neighbourhood Plan;

·         the report omitted several aspects that it has not covered and chosen not to state several issues;

·         whilst the report says that the target of Policy CP5 of the Exeter Core Strategy to provide 75% of new student accommodation since 2012 has not been met, it does not set the context. The Planning Member Working Group report of 18 October 2022 stated that, although 64% of the additional student numbers are housed within Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA), due to existing consents for PBSA’s, mainly at the Universities Clydesdale site and the University itself projecting its student numbers will fall between now and 2026/27 the report demonstrates the 75% target will be met by 2024/25 at 75.4% and will increase to 79.8% in 2025/26 and 83.8% in 2026/27;

·         once that 75% target is met, areas with a high proportion of student housing should be protected in favour of areas that do not. There is not, therefore, a justification for this accommodation in this location;

·         concerning the Exeter Local Plan Policy H5 (b), which states that there should not be an over-concentration of student accommodation in an area to change its character or create an imbalance, the Planning Member Working Group report of October 2022 showed that 47% of properties within the St. James Neighbourhood Plan area was student housing, so there is an imbalance - yet the report states that the Council has not defined the Policy H5 (b) community imbalance;

·         regarding the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Houses in Multiple Occupation agreed by the Council’s Executive on 5 July 2011, the Council proposed to resist any further changes of use to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) where the proportion of homes exempt from Council Tax already exceeds 20%. In other words, the Council will regard a proportion greater than 20% as an over-concentration of HBO use for Policy H5 (b);

·         in the Executive report of January 2014, the adopted Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) identified that proposals for HMOs would be resisted where the proportion of properties exempt from Council Tax due to entire occupation by full-time students exceeded 20% in a ward or part of a ward covered by an Article 4 Direction that removed ‘Permitted Development’ rights for changes of use from Class C3 (family homes) to Class C4 (small HMO’s for three to six persons);

·         the recent Article 4 Review report referred to a 20% threshold, and the Inspector, regarding the appeal for 4 Dinham Road, referred to the vulnerability of the existing policies but did reference 20% as the level within the policy that causes imbalance. However, he highlighted that Dinham Road had not hit that threshold, so he allowed the appeal. According to the Planning Member Working Group report last year, Howell Road has 27% HMOs, with most of the HMOs concentrated adjacent to or near the proposed site, and the St. James Neighbourhood Plan area has 47% HMOs. Therefore it would be reasonable to expect an inspector to accept an imbalance already exists at this location;

·         there is an over-concentration within the neighbourhood of St. James. Therefore this application should be rejected;

·         the report only refers to the Neighbourhood Plan Policy C2 and therefore does not give the context of the Plan as a whole. It also gives a barrister’s opinion provided by the applicant and arguably takes the Plan out of context. The Neighbourhood Plan was adopted via a referendum, with 91.6% in favour of its adoption. The overarching aim of the Plan is for a balanced community with the desire of the residents of St. James to have a diverse population which includes people at all stages of their lives and which is not dominated by a single group of the population. The City Council has defined ‘balance’ using the number of Council Tax exemptions in a given area as a proxy for HMO and student accommodation. When over 20% of properties in a defined area are Council Tax exempt, it is generally considered that additional HMOs would change the character of the area and undermine the maintenance of a balanced and mixed community; and

·         the application should be refused as it will cause a further imbalance contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan’s overarching aims, there is no further need for PBSA’s within this locality and the application is contrary to the overriding purposes of the Exeter St. James Neighbourhood Plan.

 

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

 

·         It is essential to defend the St. James Neighbourhood Plan as much as possible;

·         Section 8(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that where there are two conflicting policies, the precedent should be given to the latest document approved, and the last published document is the Neighbourhood Plan which was adopted after a referendum with support of over 93% in favour. Therefore the policies within the Neighbourhood Plan superseded the Local Plan. All the policies referred to in the Local Plan supporting the proposal should be disregarded entirely; 

·         the barrister’s opinion cited by the applicant is only there to intimidate the Committee; it is not an independent opinion and should be disregarded;

·         it is a windfall infill site, as referred to in Policy SD3 of the Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal for student accommodation runs roughshod over this policy - it is not affordable housing for residents or even high-quality residential property but a PBSA;

·         a similar garage windfall infill site at Well Street was refused on the grounds of imbalance and was accepted by the developer without challenge, and

·         the area is entirely imbalanced with excessive student accommodation and HMOs. As it is an exempted area within the Article 4 provision, it is already imbalanced, which is further exacerbated by this proposal.

 

Councillor M. Mitchell, speaking as a member of the public, made the following points:-

 

·         am speaking in support of refusal;

·         if approved, the application will undermine critical aspects of the Neighbourhood Plan and Policy 5H (b) of the Local Plan and would open the door for further recommended approvals in other wards;

·         many in the community have objected in detail to the application;

·         much in the report is an opinion and should be subjected to critical analysis;

·         there is a statement on the application form that states that the area is dominated by student housing; however, Howell Road is made up of long-term residents and students and is, therefore, a mixed community;

·         nine buildings adjacent to this site are HMOs, so the number of students in that small area will be doubled with a consequence for community balance in the area;

·         the community is not opposed to the re-development of the site but to the nature and impact of the proposal, particularly concerning community balance and conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan;

·         two applications in the area should be considered - the 2016 planning application regarding the garage site at Well Street for 95 students was refused, citing Policy 2C (a) of the Neighbourhood Plan and 5H (b) of the Local Plan with no appeal. That decision should be relevant to this application;

·         the other site is in Hoopern Street, a former Victorian School and then a warehouse. Four two-bed infill terraced houses were granted planning permission in 2018 with two positive comments and no objections because it was compliant with both the Neighbourhood Plan and the Local Plan; and

·         as with other areas, more housing is required but not for students.

 

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 

·         this is within a large area covered by residential parking, but no spare parking capacity exists on this street. The application seeks parking spaces on the road at the front of the site, but this will impact adversely on fire engines from the Fire Station, effectively making the area from Horseguards to Prison Lane a one-way street; and

·         there are many cars in the area but few bikes, and parking is already a critical issue for residents.

 

Ms Connett, speaking against the application, made the following points:-

 

·         the report had serious flaws, and the recommendation was unsound;

·         the application did not meet the requirements of Policy C2 of the St. James Neighbourhood Plan;

·         the application was non-compliant with National Planning Policy Framework and, therefore, was in breach of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004;

·         it failed to consider the Neighbourhood Plan in reaching its recommendation or to acknowledge the claims of the Exeter St. James Forum, as a statutory consultee, that the application was non-compliant with four Development Plan policy clauses;

·         it quoted from a barrister’s opinion on Policy C2, obtained by the applicant, but there was no mention of this opinion in any of the published documentation;

·         the report claimed that the applicant had demonstrated compliance with all three clauses, abrogating the duty of the Planning Authority to present its unbiased professional assessment;

·         it appears the barrister may have misread the policy wording in reaching a flawed conclusion, but the report failed to address this;

·         the report quoted the barrister’s ‘frightener’, a warning of costs following appeal should the application be refused; and

·         to meet legal requirements and avoid further endangering St. James’s fragile social sustainability, the application should be rejected.

 

Mrs Jones, speaking in support of the application, made the following points:-

 

·         the St. James Neighbourhood Plan, made in 2013, 10 years ago, accepted that student accommodation would be required in this area, given it is so close to the University;

·         a planning barrister, following objection to the proposal from residents stating that it is contrary to Policy C2 of the Neighbourhood Plan, had concluded the development site was an infill site that would be restored by the development and was not contrary to Policy C2 as the development is not in an “intact” street but in a street which is not intact as it contains a gap;

·         the report states that no harm has been evaluated as arising and, instead, only positive planning benefits are concluded, particularly as the current site does not make a positive contribution to the neighbourhood;

·         the appeal decision reinforces the barrister’s view in respect of an application in St. David’s where the Inspector held “local opposition… is not itself sufficient grounds to withhold planning permission” for student accommodation;

·         the scheme is not a barometer for the wider debate about the University, students and the city;

·         Section 62 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) supports the objective of supplying housing, including student accommodation;

·         since the original submission, the number of student bed spaces has been reduced, and the size, bulk and massing have also altered.  The applicant has accommodated every change that the planning department has asked for;

·         the neighbour closest to the scheme supports the application and accepts it would be an improvement to the street scene; and

·         the scheme will allow for removing the double yellow lines in front of the site for additional parking or short-term delivery bays as the Highways Authority see fit.

 

She responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 

·         the applicant first approached the planning department during the Lockdown, and there were no objections until the documentation had been made public;

·         concerning contributing to a mixed and balanced community, Section 62 of the NPPF lists several dwelling types, one of which is student accommodation;

·         the developer’s approach was to consider the need for PBSAs generally in the area; and

·         the proposal was not discussed with the Bury Meadow Residents’ Association or the St James Neighbourhood Forum.

 

The Service Lead City Development advised that there was no St James Neighbourhood Plan policy to justify refusal on the grounds of community imbalance. Policy SD3 of the Neighbourhood Plan referred to affordable housing development in respect of an infill site, not student accommodation. Whilst Policy H5 of the Local Plan was relevant, relying on the St. James Neighbourhood Plan was not possible. He reiterated this advice following a query by a Member on the policies that should be relied on in determining the application.

 

The Planning Solicitor advised that consideration had been given to the letter from the barrister for the applicant and that its content agreed with the references in the report to the policies in both the St. James Neighbourhood Plan and the Local Plan.

 

It was noted that the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service had not objected to the proposal.

 

Members expressed the following views:-

 

·         Policy SD3 of the St. James Neighbourhood Plan seeks affordable housing on windfall infill sites. The Plan’s vision is for a balanced community, and as the student percentage has increased from 48% to 60%, there is an imbalance;

·         it would be appropriate to test policy, particularly around community balance;

·         the barrister’s advice should be disregarded, and the determination on the application should have regard to the decisions on the Well Street and Hoopern Street applications;

·         one of the prime reasons for the Neighbourhood Plan coming into being was the concern regarding community balance. The Hoopern Street application had been supported because community balance would be improved, but putting 26 students in 11 square metre shoeboxes would further disrupt the balance in the neighbourhood and cause further loss of amenities to the residents;

·         Policy SD3 should not be ignored and should indicate to a developer that affordable housing on this infill site would help address the imbalance issue and would be supported by residents;

·         the area benefits from an active Residents’ Association, which the developer should have consulted. This showed a lack of understanding of the local community;

·         if the application is approved, a condition should be added that no parking permits be issued;

·         students dominate too many wards in the city, and the application should be refused;

·         the application should be supported as additional family homes are needed, and students also need to be housed, so housing, in whatever format, should be welcome;

·         having a view on community balance is not an anti-student stance as they play an essential part in and contribute to local communities;

·         the higher proportion of HMOs and PBSAs in a community results in a transient population, making it challenging to develop a community spirit;

·         the ward Councillors and the chair of the St. James Neighbourhood Forum have made it clear that the objective of the Neighbourhood Plan is to foster a balanced community, and this objective is also set out in Policy H5 of the Local Plan;

·         planning policies should seek to create areas that are suitable for both short-term and long-term residents regardless of status and role in society; and

·         it is a good design, but the developer should be encouraged to seek an alternative proposal.

 

The recommendation was for approval, subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the conditions as set out in the report.

 

Members were minded to refuse the application, and accordingly, it was moved that the Service Lead City Development be requested to report back to the next meeting of this Committee with the full technical reasons for refusal. The motion was seconded, voted upon and carried.

 

RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED for the Service Lead City Development to report reasons for refusal to the next meeting.

 

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 19:32 and re-convened at 19:43.