Agenda item

The City Development Manager introduced the report and reported that the applicant had submitted a written statement in support of their application which was circulated to Members by e-mail today. Amended plans have also been received relocating the refuse store as suggested by the Highway Engineer.

Comments have been received from the Highway Engineer confirming a car free development would be acceptable in this location and suggesting that the location of the refuse store be relocated to allow collection from Cavendish Road rather than from Victoria Road South. Condition 2 had been updated to reflect the amended plans. Following a recent judicial decision of the High Court a project management fee could form part of the requirements of a planning obligation only in limited factual circumstances, which did not appear to apply in this case; therefore the project management fee had been removed from the recommendation.

A deputation was made by Ms Hannaby, objecting to the proposal whose points included:

·         Ms Hannaby agreed that something needs to be done with the property and would support the property being converted into a family home.

·         Major concerns about parking and potential for 15 additional cars in the area as there is no more capacity for further cars.

·         No car parking surveys have been completed.

·         8% of students commute to university by car.

·         numerous surrounding student properties where many of the student residents have cars or motorcycles.

·         University of Portsmouth Estates figures indicate that the student population is projected to decrease by 41% by 2020, therefore why are more student halls of residence required?

·         There are numerous new build halls of residence planned which would be a better environment for students.

·         Adding further students to an area where there are already numerous student houses does not create a balanced and mixed community.

A deputation was made by Mr Parsons, legal counsel for the applicant whose points included:

·         He had submitted a written submission in advance of the meeting detailing why local residents should not be concerned about this application.

·         If the property did not change to student halls of residence, it could become residential flats, which he felt the impact and consequences of this would be worse for neighbouring residents.

·         The external building would not be changed.

·         Misconception about car use; B2B properties would ensure the terms of let for the students would mean they would not be permitted to keep a car at the address.

·         Students are not necessarily noisier than other residents.  If there were noise complaints these would be easier to police than if other residents lived in the property and these would be swiftly dealt with.

A deputation was made by Councillor Michael Andrewes, ward councillor objecting to the application, whose points included:

·         B2B properties run similar student halls of residence in Elm Grove and he was unsure whether this example had been a positive experience.

·         Application is unsuitable for area and it does not preserve or enhance the conservation area. Better suited closer to the university.

·         Will impact on the local community considerably. 

·         Contrary to PCS 23.

·         Unsure if all the bedrooms meet the minimum size requirements under the SPD guidelines. 

·         Dubious about whether this would be a car free development.

Members' Questions

In reference to the points made by Councillor Andrewes, clarification was sought on the size of the bedrooms and also further information sought on the property on Elm Grove that it was claimed that B2B also manage.  Officers sought clarification from Councillor Andrewes about the property he was referring to and advised that this was not a B2B managed property. Officers drew members' attention to the plans and advised that all bedrooms do exceed the size standards with the smallest bedroom being 10 square metres. 

A question was raised about whether a condition had been recommended by officers that habitable rooms fronting Victoria Road South and Cavendish Road have suitable insulation. Officers advised that this had not been included as a condition, however the applicant could choose to do this anyway.  With regard to a condition on parking, officers advised that the application has not met the relevant tests for imposing a condition and this would be problematic to enforce. There was a willingness from the applicant to ensure it was a car free development however the Council could not enforce this under condition.

With regard to the management of the property, officers advised that a management plan had not been submitted with the application, but the supporting documents circulated before the meeting did include details of how the halls of residence would be managed.

A question was raised about cycle storage.  Officers advised that the application provided one cycle per study bedroom which accorded with SPD guidance.  The S106 agreement would control the occupancy of the bedrooms and ensure that students living in the property are enrolled on a recognised course.

Members' Comments

Members felt that additional cars would be inevitable with this development and had concerns over how it would be policed in future years to ensure that only students rent the accommodation. Members had concerns over supply and demand, particularly following Ms Hannaby's information that the student population is predicted to decrease. Members' also commented that there is a well-known parking issue in this area and although noted that the university encourage students not to bring cars and this was proposed to be a car freed development, this could not be enforced. The Senior Solicitor (Planning) gave legal advice and advised that under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act the Council could impose a restriction on the use of the property so that during term time the property is restricted to full time students enrolled at colleges (including the University) in the vicinity of the development.  This would be monitored anonymously using the student registration numbers.  If such a restriction is breached the Council can apply to the High Court for an injunction. 

RESOLVED that the planning application be refused for the following reasons:

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed development, by reason of it making insufficient provision for the parking of cars, is likely to give rise to an increased demand for on-street parking in an area with no capacity to accommodate additional demand and as such would result in harm to the amenities of the occupiers of existing residential properties in the area by increasing the demand for on-street parking. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies PCS17 and PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan and the Parking Standards SPD.