The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the proposal for a part 7, part 9 storey purpose-built student accommodation building comprising 146 bed spaces (Sui Generis use class) with ancillary amenity space, a ground floor community hub (proposed for Use Classes F2(b), E(b), E (3), E(f)) and associated landscape works and infrastructure.

The Committee were ‘minded to refuse’ a scheme on 27 July 2023 for a part 7, part 11 storey PBSA building providing 197 bed spaces, on the basis that PBSA of this size would be contrary to maintaining a sustainable mixed residential neighbourhood.

6 objections had been received, along with two neutral comments. The Planning Officer noted a further 31 objections had been received, raising similar concerns to those already raised. Over 100 students had signed a petition against the proposal, and a letter of support had been received. The Planning Officer stated that there was no policy-based reason to refuse the modified scheme. The modifications included reduced scale and reduced bed spaces.

Two objectors addressed the Committee, stating that the reduced scale did not address their concerns. They accepted that the site needed development but not PBSA. The development could increase anti-social behaviour with issues such as noise and litter.  The reduced development would still overlook nearby properties.

The applicant’s agent identified the changes made to address previous feedback. The proposal was now 30% smaller in volume and height, with 44 less rooms. The scale and mass are similar to other buildings in the area. The site is a blight on the local area. A Community space would be provided on the ground floor. All bedrooms, kitchens and dining areas now have large windows. The applicant’s agent felt the proposal to be no different to similar applications previously approved by the Committee. They noted that 20% of the bedrooms would be affordable.

A ward Councillor noted that this is a residential area, not a student area. The need for PBSA had not been shown, and the reduced scale and mass had not addressed their concerns. The changes did not alter the effect on the light at Cooper House. Nothing had really changed with the applicant not listening to the local community.

Another ward Councillor noted that student properties seemed to be progressing into residential areas. They noted ongoing issues with litter at similar developments, feeling there was no reason that this would not become an issue here. The trees have TPO’s which was being ignored. The development would be a disruption during its build. They felt a development for the needs and demands of local people was what was needed at the site.

The Planning Officer stated that the reduced scale and mass would make a difference.  Any highways issues throughout the build would be managed. There is a shortfall of around 10,000 student bedspaces. Students are residents and many live in the Hulme area. The Planning Officer noted that the upper level of the amended proposal would be around 1.5m closer to Cooper House. The applicant had committed to litter picking. The trees had not been ignored and the strategy was set out clearly in the report.

A member was concerned that the proposal had not addressed their concerns about whether the PBSA was appropriate for this area. They queried whether there had been any significant difference in square footage. A member noted that previously approved student accommodation was yet to be built. The litter picking offered by the applicant was insufficient. They had to consider the application as elected members and have a level of engagement with residents. A member queried if the shortage of 10,000 places in student accommodation included those developments approved but not yet completed.

The Planning Officer stated that the footprint was the same but had been reduced by two floors. It is predicted that up to 10,000 places would be required by 2030. The application must be considered in terms of Planning Policy and not in any other way. Applications for PBSA bring the same issues in any area but there was no reason for refusal that could be sustained in policy.

A member noted that the proposed site was close to the University’s but felt that was not a sufficient argument for the application. Students were an important part of the city, but that residential areas had to be preserved. The member recognised that family homes were being used by students due to a shortage of PBSA. However, they felt that there were still areas of the city that were not residential where accommodation could be situated. A member queried the size of the community room offered on the ground floor.

The Planning Officer stated that the community room was 85 square metres. The issues raised by the previous member would be the same in any area proposed for PBSA.

The Director of Planning reminded the Committee that a recent appeal, where distance from the universities had been an issue, had been lost and the development proposed in this application was closer than that proposed in the appeal case. They reminded the Committee that, in making their decision, they were a Planning Committee and had to make their decision based on policy, in terms of which there was no reason to refuse.

A member recognised the need for student accommodation but did not see the benefits this application brought to the area, except the community room. They felt that they were minded to refuse on the basis of disamenity and lack of benefit to the community.

Councillor Lovecy moved minded to refuse due to the need to have a sustainable community and that required a balance of students across the city, not in established residential areas. She also noted the level of disamenity brought by the application.

Councillor Johnson seconded Councillor Lovecy’s proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to be Minded to Refuse the application due to the development proposed having an adverse impact on the balance and sustainability of the neighbourhood, in keeping with city council policy, and also because of the disamenity brought by the application.