Agenda item

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

n)     she urged reflection on the report, clearer data on student housing which existed but wasn’t accounted for.

 

The Assistant Service Lead (Local Plan) presented the report making the following points:

a)     comments were noted from the petition organiser and Councillor Palmer;

b)     he had personal and professional experience of the area in question;

c)     the report had been written in the context of the requirements of the NPPF;

d)     Article 4 worked as a planning tool which removed permitted development rights within a designated area. Planning permission for development and changes of use would be required which wasn’t outside of Article 4 areas;

e)     he had reviewed the NPPF to consider how best to recommend to respond to this petition and there was insufficient evidence therefore the recommendation was as stated in the report;

f)       Article 4 had been in place since 2010 and updated in 2014 and 2023. Revision was a labour-intensive consultative process;

g)     report comments on amenity and well-being as stated in the petition;

h)     paragraph 54 had sub-clauses as to when Article 4 maybe considered reasonable and section B referred to local amenity and wellbeing whilst section C referred to robust evidence and the smallest geographical area possible. This had been considered. Evidence to consider the presence of HMOs in the area came from two sources of data, HMO licenses and council tax exemptions data, for properties occupied by students. There were no records of either in the streets concerned. The most reliable datasets available did not provide evidence of HMOs.

i)       he had spoken to Devon County Council (DCC) colleagues who weren’t aware of any specific issues related to parking or accessing the two roads in question;

j)       NPPF paragraph 54, C stated that Article 4 should relate to the smallest geographical area possible which had been established and reviewed three times, most recently 2 years ago suggesting that another extension wouldn’t justify a revision; and

k)     a lack of quantitative data and clear restrictions therefore recommendation.

 

 

The petition organiser responded to Members’ questions in the following terms:

a)     it was known that there are a number of students living at one property alongside the family who live there;

b)     DCC wouldn’t be aware of parking issues as the road is private and managed by the residents; and

c)     he believed the interpretation of the NPPF was incorrect as there was high student occupancy at East Park which had been constructed and opened in 2023, since the previous review and this had caused material change and impact on amenity.

 

The Assistant Service Lead (Local Plan) responded to Members' questions in the following terms:

a)     he could not assume why an HMO did not show as the data belonged to other teams;

b)     the report was specific to the two roads in question as it was in response to the petition;

c)     the review in 2023 chose to use a measure of percentage of HMOs in a postcode area as the previous method had caused confusion;

d)     a threshold of 20% had been applied;

e)     the most recent review had been only been implemented for one year therefore it would be difficult to draw conclusions on the impact at this stage;

f)       he would note the point about considering what other evidence could be looked at, including the number of times refuse vehicles were unable to access a road;

g)     explained the different classes of use of properties including HMOs, Class C4, a dwelling house with 3-6 unrelated people living there;

h)     there was no specific trigger point for review of Article 4 areas and this was not within the Supplementary Planning Document;

i)       an area could be extended slightly further than data suggested due to the presence of HMOs but this had not been done in a preventative way and this area didn’t previously meet the requirements of the NPPF.

j)       Article 4 must have a boundary and there would always be areas which fell just outside and a balance must be struck in minimising travel distances for students against the needs of permanent residents;

k)     there was no current timetable for review;

l)       he would clarify whether PBSA or co-living blocks required their own postcode and therefore would not impact current postcode areas; and

m)   PBSA and co-living was not included in the criteria for Article 4, only HMOs.

 

The Chair invited the Leader as Portfolio Holder to speak on the matter.

The Leader stated that he would be asking questions of the Director with regard to this topic as he appreciated that it was a sensitive area and that the local community were affected. He also stated that he would like to discuss this with the Portfolio Holder for City Development as he was not aware if a petition was a trigger point for a review of Article 4 and that he would circulate a response. The Leader accepted that PBSA had not reduced HMOs although these had not expanded at the same rate as previously.

 

The Chair clarified that there were 25 homes in Hillcrest and 27 in Doriam Close.

 

Councillor Harding proposed, seconded by Councillor Knott, that the following be added to the recommendation:

“that the petition be held to inform any future Article 4 review”

 

During debate on the amendment Members’ made the following points:

a)     there was no timeframe for review and he believed that there was a need to look into this in greater detail now;

b)     there was no evidence on a technical basis that a review was required;

c)     this was important as all councillors were concerned about the in which HMOs encroached and changed an area not just a street; and

d)     the amendment firmed up what has been agreed with the Leader.

 

Following a vote the amendment was carried and became the substantive.

 

During debate on the substantive a Member raised concern that there was no timeframe for review which would not help the residents who had petitioned but he was reassured by the Leader regarding a selective licensing scheme and he would send information about other council who had implemented such a scheme.

 

The Assistant Service Lead (Local Plan) clarified technical planning policy stating that there was a lot of national change expected this year and one would be in relation to SPDs. This would involve a different type of document being put together and it may not be possible to amend current SPDs.

 

Councillor Kevin Mitchell proposed seconded by Councillor Moore an amendment, which following a vote was NOT CARRIED, “that a review of the council's policy with regard to updating the Article 4 directions be undertaken”.

 

The Assistant Service Lead (Local Plan) explained that this would be a substantial piece of work and the Local Plan examination was the team’s current focus and the hearing related to this would be held between March and May. A review of Council policy and procedure relating to how a new/amended Article 4 Direction could be considered would be a quicker process than an actual review of the Article 4 Direction itself.

 

Following a vote the substantive motion, as amended, was CARRIED.

 

The meeting adjourned at 1940 and reconvened at 1945.