Agenda item

Planning application documents

The Planning Officer, Lucy White, presented the application, which related to the temporary dual use of up to 205 bedrooms for either student accommodation (C1) or serviced apartment accommodation (Class C1) for an 18 month period commencing in August 2021 at Pittville Student Village, Albert Road, Cheltenham. It had been brought to committee at the request of Cllr Fifield due to the lack of parking provision and the subsequent effect on residents. The Officer recommendation was to permit.

Speaking in favour of the application, Catherine Hoyte stressed that the university recognised residents’ concerns. Any lettings would be managed by the university and travelling by car would be discouraged, with individuals pointed towards public transport. The university had committed to making 75 spaces available between 6pm and 8am. These would not be commercial, but would include visiting lecturers and students from other institutions. She emphasised that the university’s commitment to the protection of neighbouring amenity would continue, and they would work with local groups to identify problems. The university took complaints seriously and worked to address them when they occurred. The project was temporary and could be monitored throughout. The way we all lived, worked and studied had changed, and the university needed to be flexible to respond to these circumstances.

In response to Member questions, the following responses were given:

• Dual use referred to the filling of accommodation not taken up by students during the academic year, as well as during the summer breaks. Students would be offered the accommodation first and unused rooms would be let out. This also included things like conferences and summer schools during the summer break, and only involved accommodation and not things like lecture halls.
• All University of Gloucestershire students who lived in student halls of residence managed by the university were not allowed to bring cars to the town. Any parking issues raised at the Community Liaison Group meetings were largely caused by cars not owned by students. There was also restricted or no parking in nearby streets.
• The site would continue to be managed by the university, who were also responsible for marketing the dual use accommodation.
• There was no dedicated coach parking on site, but drop-offs would be possible. It was up to the university to explore dedicated coach parking, the highways authority did not consider this.
• 100% of the rooms would be offered to students first each academic year, and only those rooms that were not taken up would be let out.

The Chair moved to the debate and Members made the following comments:

• This was a sensible use of unused space. Some students did not want to live in university accommodation and this accounted for that choice.
• The application would attract more people to the town.
• The application raised the question of why so many rooms were not taken up by students. The accommodation was very expensive (a single bedroom was £130 a week and a studio was £203 a week) so students were turning to the private sector. The Planning Officer noted that this was not necessarily due to the price, and suggested that the pandemic was the primary factor. More students were choosing to stay at home or go to university in their local area.
• Parking had always been an issue for residents, with lots of students parking in the Pump Room car park for example. This was due to it being exceptionally difficult to park near the campus.
• The application was only for 18 months, so any issues could be monitored over that time.
• It would be better to keep the university in control rather than buy-to-let landlords.
• They must avoid the incentive to price students out of the rooms in order to attract racegoers. The Head of Planning reiterated that rental prices were not a matter for Planning Committee. Restricting occupancy on a seasonal basis would need a clear planning reason.

There being no further comments, the Chair moved to vote on the Officer’s recommendation to permit.

FOR : 7
AGAINST : 0
ABSTAIN : 1

GRANTED