Agenda item

Outline application for the erection of student accommodation comprising 332 student bed-spaces in 7 blocks and separate 1 no. flat with associated landscaping and access after demolition of existing dairy. [Fishergate Ward] [Site Visit]

Consideration was given to a major outline application, submitted by Uniliving Ltd, for the erection of student accommodation comprising of 332 student bed-spaces in 7 block and with a separate 1 no. flat with associated landscaping and access after the demolition of the existing dairy.

Officers referred to a letter forwarded to Members from the applicants Planning Consultant, which raised a number of issues and requested deferral of the application. The Consultants had pointed out that as the principle of the use was acceptable that time should be given for Offices to consider and re-consult on the recently submitted revised proposals rather than refuse the application which they felt would delay the development during a difficult economic time by at least 12 months. Officers circulated an update in response to the letter (copies of which are attached to the agenda for this meeting)

Officers went on to update Members on the following points and circulated plans of the proposed site layout:

·         The second reason for refusal required the deletion of the first word ‘Officer’;

·         Reason 3 for refusal was no longer required;

·         If the application was approved an additional condition would be required in relation to remediation and piling works;

·         Paragraph 3.1 - Highway Network Management comments - no agreement had as yet been reached on these points. If members were minded to approve consent then further negotiations would have to continue with the developer. These details would have to be agreed prior to any future development being approved;

·          The Applicant had now confirmed that if tenants parked vehicles off site this would result in the termination of their tenancy agreement.

Officers confirmed that this matter was procedurally complex in that new plans had only recently been received from the applicant which contained substantial amendments to the original scheme.

The Legal Officer made reference to the agent’s letter and request for deferral. He pointed out that it had been custom and practice for Members to accept and consider plans containing minor amendments however, if the changes were more fundamental, then it would be inappropriate to deal with them. He recommended that Members could either determine the application with the plans as submitted with the original application or defer consideration pending receipt of a new application. He pointed out that either course of action would not materially affect timescales or disadvantage the applicant.

Officers stated that the substantial amendments made to the scheme would be better dealt with through a new application. They confirmed that they would work with the applicant as a matter of urgency to take the scheme forward.

Representations in support of the scheme were received from the applicants Planning Consultant. He referred to the difficult economic times and to this much needed development, which would free up family housing in the area. He referred to the proposed amendments to the scheme and pointed out that he felt the scheme could be progressed without the need to resubmit the application.

Members questioned details of the amendments and the following points:

• Details and siting of cycle and car parking;
• Waste disposal;
• Scheme density;
• Drainage and flood levels;
• Basement cycle parking and affects on archaeology;
• Concerns regarding siting of Block B in relation to the Hull Road Air Quality Management Area.

Following further discussion it was

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused for the following reasons:

REASON:    1.           The development is considered an overdevelopment of the site. The excessive height and footprint of the proposed blocks close to the boundaries with residential properties on Devon Place and Nicholas Gardens in particular will further result in a development which will overlook and dominate these neighbours to a degree which seriously harms their outlook and privacy resulting in an unacceptable loss of their amenity. The overdevelopment of the site will also lead to sub-standard on-site separation distances between blocks and this, together with a poor level of on-site amenity space, will result in a poor living conditions for future occupiers of these units, whether students or otherwise. The development is therefore considered contrary to national planning guidance in PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and PPS3 (Housing) and local plan policies ED10 and GP1 of the Deposit Draft Local Plan (4th set of Changes).

2.        Consider that the design, height and appearance of the development, in particular Blocks A-D, is inappropriate in this location and will harm the character of the street scene of Hull Road and the wider context within which the development stands. It will consequently look incongruous and dominant within the more traditional pattern and scale of development of this part of the city. The massing of the buildings is overbearing both in relation to the internal courtyard and the wider street environment. The development is therefore considered contrary to national planning guidance in PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) in particular paras 34 and 35 and PPS3 (Housing) and local plan policies ED10 and GP1 of the Deposit Draft Local Plan (4th set of Changes).