Issue - meetings

To hear evidence from the petition organisers and receive the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The Chair invited the petition organiser to present the petition.

The petition organiser presented the petition making the following points:

a)     he had seen the report and looked at the supplementary planning documents, policy and National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF), paragraph 54;

b)     he wished to paint a picture of who the petitioners were, a community right on the edge of the university and welcoming of students who were part of the community;

c)     this was a walking route and the entrance to the Belvedere estate;

d)     they welcomed the pedestrian linkage being added when East Park was developed;

e)     the roads in question had housing which was suitable for families and in an affordable price bracket but sadly a target for student landlords;

f)       there was a high proportion of bungalows which were suitable for the elderly or those with limited mobility;

g)     Hillcrest Park was very narrow, private and single track which presented issues such as restricted width and 40% of residents had to park on the street which made access difficult for emergency vehicles;

h)     Doriam Close had more issues with turning for vehicles;

i)       the NPPF focused on local amenity and well-being and there had been issues with refuse facilities, access and parking;

j)       more students would means more parking issues and likely more refuse; and

k)     last year refuse had not been collected for 6 weeks due to access.

The Chair invited Councillor Palmer to the table to speak as she had registered under Standing Order No. 44.

Councillor Palmer spoke on the item making the following points:

a)     she thanked residents for raising the matter;

b)     she was surprised by the report which she believed showed little understanding or empathy for the impact on the St James ward;

c)     entire streets were depleted of permanent residents and other streets spent half the year in isolation and the other half suffering from noise and anti-social behaviour(ASB);

d)     there was no evidence that PBSA returned properties to residential use in article 4 areas;

e)     outside Article 4 areas there was creep and residents were selling their homes after decades due to volume of cars and noise,

f)       Cowley bridge Road had suffered the same as half the road given Article 4 status and half was not;

g)     older residents had lost their community and gained a huge PBSA;

h)     the method for calculating the number of HMOs was flawed;

i)       she had campaigned for HMO licensing;

j)       there was a HMO in Hillcrest, 6 further in Patricia Close which were not highlighted here. The Office for National Statistics says council tax records should not be used for this purpose;

k)     Article 4 was often too late and reactive;

l)       2^nd and 3^rd year students wanted to live out of the university so this demand would not end. Landlords would continue to buy properties in non-restricted areas;

m)   the community welcomed students but wanted a preventative long term solution with community balance; and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32