Agenda item

 

Application Number:			14/01928/FUL
Location:	Pittville Campus, Albert Road, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Erection of a student village incorporating 577 new-build student bedrooms, the refurbishment of the existing media centre (which will include a reception/security desk, a gym, retail facilities, multi-faith area, refectory and bar, quiet study area, laundrette, ancillary office space), and the provision of a mixed use games area.  In addition, the proposal involves the demolition of existing teaching facilities and the retention and refurbishment of 214 existing student rooms.
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:					Permit, subject to S106 agreements
Committee Decision:				Permit, subject to S106 agreements
Letters of Rep:		178		Update Report:		None

 

Officer introduction:

LW introduced the application for a new student village, as above.  It was deferred in January to allow the University an opportunity to address the suggested refusal reasons, relating to architectural design and amenity, in particular off-site noise and disturbance during the evening and night-time, as well as the size of the development, number of students, and ability to manage the site effectively.  In addition, the legal agreement regarding highway works and travel plan was not complete. 

 

Since January, the University and everyone else has worked hard to address these concerns :  new architects were appointed and the University has engaged more directly with local residents through a Residents Liaison Group which has met six times. The meetings have been constructive and focused on detail of the Operational Management Plan, which is now more consolidated and detailed regarding off-site strategies than previously, and no longer based on assumptions and ideas, with no guarantee of delivery.  Fundamental to the officer recommendation to permit is the new S106 agreement which would ensure long-term provision of a late-night shuttle bus, volunteer patrol scheme and continuation of a community liaison group.  This and the highways legal agreement are signed and ready for issue.

 

It is disappointing that the University didn’t consider reduction in the student numbers proposed for this site, continuing to put forward the economic argument to meet current and increasing shortfall in student accommodation.  This is a material consideration, but the appropriate management of the students is critical, whatever the number proposed.  There are now defined and clear strategies to manage off-site student behaviour and reduce potential harm to neighbours’ amenity, secured long-term via the S106 agreement.

 

There is still some criticism regarding design and appearance, but the revised scheme is an improvement, more refined and consistent in approach to materials and elevation treatment.  There are no objections from consultees.

 

The application is now sufficiently advanced for officers to understand and assess the merits of the proposal which, on balance, is considered acceptable.  With the presumption in favour of development unless the adverse impacts would significantly outweigh the benefits, the recommendation is to permit subject to the two legal agreements relating to amenity and highway works. 

 

Finally, would add that the new drawings on Council’s website replace some of the original drawings which were shown at the wrong scale in relation to paper size. These drawings have been submitted for clarification and reference and there is no change to the proposed design or layout to consider.  In addition, the annotation was missing from the Media centre, but there is no change in the design of the building.

 

GB:  there is a model for Members to look at as a visual representation of the site, but this too is not completely to scale, believes it to be out be a couple of millimetres.

 

Mrs Susan Walker, neighbour, in objection

For local residents, the issue remains the number of students to be accommodated.  In January, Planning Committee members exhorted the University to listen to local residents, but they have been ignored regarding the proposed numbers; in an article in the Echo, the University suggested the site had previously accommodated 1000 students, but this is misleading, and refers to the maximum number of work stations.  A maximum 660 students have previously been accommodated on the site, for residential and teaching purposes, but this doesn’t compare with 800 students living there 24/7.  To have any confidence that the student management plan will work, the contractor would need to have a proven track record of managing this number of students, but U-Living does not have any such experience - this is of high concern and should be a show-stopper.  The plan will only be as good as the people managing it, and this could well prove an impossible task.  The set-up has been compared with UWE’s campus at Stoke Bishop, but that site accommodates up to 2000 students on 65 acres and is not situated within walking distance of the town centre, so control of student behaviour is limited to the site.  There is no comparable site with the same potential issues as Pittville Campus.

 

Residents remain concerned about anti-social student behaviour – the University has a poor track record in dealing with this, and the proposed management plan is not sustainable in the long term; about student parking – despite a ban on first-year students having cars, it will cause parking chaos in the surrounding roads; about the design – like a horrible cliff-face, out of keeping with Albert Road; and the adverse impact on the conservation area.  All these concerns could be mitigated by reducing the numbers to what the site can reasonably accommodate, and spreading the students across Oxstalls and Park Campus to give a fairer balance. 

 

Urges Members not to accept; the result will be a vast social experiment which will fail, to the detriment of the whole town.

 

 

Mr Stephen Marston, Vice-Chancellor University of Gloucestershire, in support

Thanked everyone who has worked with the University over the past six months to develop and improve the revised proposals. Is happy with the officer recommendation and that the S106 agreements on traffic, transport and amenity have now been signed.  Objectors’  reservations about the earlier proposal have now been addressed as follows: firstly, new architects were appointed after the January meeting, who have developed a new approach to layout, design and materials, with a consensus that the new design is better than the previous and a huge improvement on the old campus buildings; secondly, concern about the numbers – the site is clearly capable of accommodating 791 students, having accommodated 1,300 students and 250 staff as a teaching campus.  The University has a large shortfall in accommodation; 15% more students have accepted places this year compared with last year, including 20% more in business and 15% more in computing.  There will be a shortfall of 633 beds this autumn, which will rise to over 1,100 beds in two years’ time. The NPPF puts responsibility on local planning authorities to plan for sufficient student accommodation. 

 

The third concern is the perceived risk of poor student behaviour.  The residents group has agreed a detailed Operational Management Plan for the site, the core elements of which will be made legally binding under the S106 agreement.  The University has a good record for managing student behaviour, and police and environmental health officers do not perceive any problems.  The decision shouldn’t be based on hypothetical fears about what might happen but should rely on clear evidence that the University knows how to manage the site well.  In addition, the vast majority of students make a great contribution to the community and the economy. 

 

The proposals will be good for the students and good for Cheltenham, receiving strong support for the Local Enterprise Partnership because it will be key to creating a thriving future for the town.  The plans were developed through a rigorous procurement exercise, revised to address previous concerns, and provide well-designed, well-managed accommodation on the right scale.

 

 

Councillor Payne, in objection

There have been in excess of 285 letters of representation from local residents who are concerned about this application, but who also support the University, appreciate its economic worth, and want to see the campus developed.  These residents are experts, with experience of living close to Pittville Campus; their opinions should carry weight.  Noise and anti-social behaviour from the 250 students living at Pittville Campus is already a fact of life for them, and complaining to the University has proved ineffective.  The database is inaccurate, and all but the most persistent residents have given up.  The police recommended a system to manage it, but the University declined.  It is vital that residents should have confidence in the management of students. 

 

The residents group met six times, but the University didn’t move on a single issue of concern to residents. Section 3 of the Operational Management Plan states that U-Living has no experience of managing students, and Appendix 7 shows no management structure in place to cover the day-to-day management of the campus – seven part-time cleaners and three security guards, but no 24/7 cover.  The proposal also includes ten resident student wardens, performing a de facto management role in return for a 30% reduction in their rent.  If he was a Pittville resident, would feel very uncomfortable with this arrangement, which sounds unsafe, inconsiderate, and unacceptable.

 

Student numbers are at the heart of residents’ concerns, yet the University refuses to discuss this issue.  790 resident students on this site is excessive.  The austere and bland buildings will be replaced by refined and boring ones of underwhelming architectural design, which sets the proposal in conflict with Section 7 of the NPPF Para 56 and with Section 8.  The impact on neighbouring amenity will be significant, with an increase in population around the campus of 300%, distorting the demographic profile of the area.  Weak car-parking regulations will make the local roads inaccessible.  The retail provision in site will threaten the viability of the local shop.  Noise, anti-social behaviour and litter will all increase. 

 

The application remains unfit for purpose, omitting sufficient management information.  Urges Members to defer their decision again to address these critical issues and concerns of local residents.

 

 

Member Debate

JW:  before any discussion of the building and design, would call into question some of the numbers just mentioned, which were astonishing.  To say there will be 791 students on site 24/7 is a gross exaggeration; they are at university to learn, and will attend college during the day.  As ward councillor for St Paul’s, has experience of this, with 3,000 students living in ¾ of a square mile.  It’s true that University rules for first-year students can be difficult to monitor and there are periodic complaints, but over the last two or three years, the University has been first class in monitoring new student car ownership.  Pittville is adjacent to St Paul’s, and is likely to be dealing with the same type of student with the same temptation to bend the rules, but residents shouldn’t think that the area will be inundated with cars all at once.

 

It’s been suggested that student numbers could double at weekends, but experience in St Paul’s shows the opposite is true, with more students going away to visit family and friends.  The University has got the balance right; 791 sounds like an awful lot, especially as only 200 or so have lived on the campus until now, but the University has worked hard with residents and the S106 agreement enhances the opportunity for students to be well managed.

 

JF:  first thought is ‘could do better’.  Realises that design will always please some and not others; in this case is worried about the design, which is too imposing.  Pittville is a residential area.  Was born here, has seen the University grow, and understands the need for progress but the numbers given are over the top for this site.  Policy CP4 requires safe and sustainable living, with new development not causing unacceptable harm to an area – this will cause harm, due to the huge increase in numbers.  Provision is to be made for security of the site, but by amateurs who aren’t really qualified – can they do the job?  The size, location and lay-out all give cause for concern.  The site is outside Cheltenham centre and there will be additional cars parked on residential roads.  Pittville Park area is already at saturation point – can it take any more?  Policy CP7 requires high architectural design, which this proposal is not.

 

Everyone wants the University to thrive, and to encourage young people to come here to learn, but it has to be right.  This isn’t; the locality and numbers are wrong.  There is also the question of noise and the impact this will have on the health and quality of life of people living near by – covered by paragraph 123 of the NPPF.   It is currently a leafy suburban area. 

 

CHay:  hopes to allay some of these fears.  Regarding the design, the Civic Society’s opinion of a proposal is often quoted, and in this case, it is happy with the revised design, considering it a major improvement.  Officers take a slightly different view but believe the revised plan is acceptable.

 

Regarding the numbers, the site housed the art college from the 1960s, with a residential block at Rosehill for 2-300 students, and 1100 using the campus – at peak, many more.  This proposal will be a 40% reduction on that, and won’t alter the character of the area; college buildings have occupied the site for half a century and are part of the character of the area.

 

Nearly 800 students are proposed, and the management plan and number of staff devised will work only with this number; any reduction in student numbers will mean a reduction in income and a reduction in the number of staff.  The number makes the place sustainable.  It allows the students to have a self-contained community which works because of the numbers proposed.  And the number is needed because the University is running out of beds.

 

The Vice-Chancellor spoke about a 15% increase in applications for computing courses and one  course is on cyber security.  GCHQ is trying to source work locally, which makes this type of course a brilliant idea, but it will be at risk if the University cannot find sufficient accommodation.  Diana Savory of Cheltenham LEP has stated that the University supports 2160 jobs in the county, its graduates add £200m to the value of UK economy each year, and its students spend £28.3m annually in Gloucestershire.  These are high numbers, and if Cheltenham gives the impression that it doesn’t want it, because these are the wrong kind of buildings and not Cheltenham-like, the University will go elsewhere.  Cheltenham needs to move its economy on, and the guidance is that we must plan for student accommodation.  There is also a letter from Inspector Tim Waterhouse, saying the police have no problem with this application.

 

Regarding behaviour management, regrets the dismissal of student managers, when it’s widely considered OK to take people on for work experience.  They will be chosen as the right people for the job, will be managed themselves, and it will be a good example of instilling a sense of community in students at an early stage. It’s disappointing that people still have such jaundiced views of students. There has been a lot of talk about the number of complaints about student behaviour - 40 since September 2014, but five the previous year, six the year before that  - and we can draw our own conclusions from this.  It’s also being said that the management plan is not safe, but this is ill-advised – the University wouldn’t put forward a scheme that is not safe.

 

Highways concerns have been covered by the S106 agreement.

 

AC:  asked on Planning View what will happen at the site during the holidays?  Will the beds be used for other purposes or left empty – if so, students on site cannot be described as a 24/7 problem.

 

BF:  this is a very difficult decision.  Regarding the design, officers say is complies with CP7; it is always subjective, but they are the experts.  The Conservation Officer is OK with the proposal, so Members should therefore accept that it complies with CP7. 

 

The site has been used for the art college for many years, though having lived in Cheltenham since he was a boy, can remember when it was a field for horses.  In the art college days, there was a high population of students and a student union bar which didn’t close until late, not 3.30pm.  We don’t want Cheltenham becoming a retirement town; the University brings many benefits.  18-year-olds can vote and fight for their country; they should have a say in how their campus is run.  They are the most intelligent 5% of the country, and if we show no faith in them, they will go somewhere else where they are acceptable.  Many students who come to Cheltenham settle here, and the majority are a credit to themselves and their families, recognising that the only way to employment is through hard work.  Some people have closed their minds to this, and their letters of objection are shameful, even though Cheltenham people are usually fair and honest.  Some neighbours would prefer housing on the site, but at 1.3ha and with the precedent for flats along Evesham Road, sometimes five storeys, the site would lend itself to this kind of development; it will happen one way or another.

 

The University has gone some way to conceding to neighbours’ concerns; it could have gone further, but another deferral won’t achieve anything.  The proposed student village will be an experiment to some extent, but a managed experiment. The students in St Paul’s contribute to the well-being of the area, but Members have to make an objective decision based on planning considerations.  Does not actually consider student behaviour to be a planning consideration.

 

MS:  economic benefit is not a planning issue either, and should not be used as such to approve an inappropriate development.  This proposal is an over-development of the site.  Accepts that design is subjective, but to him, this looks like an industrial complex, out of character with the local area.  With 600 additional students and minimal outdoor amenity area, this is an issue not just for Pittville but for the town as a whole.  It is a recipe for conflict with local residents to have this huge number of students living on the site so soon.  In paragraph 5.4 of the report, officers agree that local residents will suffer from the additional noise etc; there were already problems with the existing 214 resident students.  We shouldn’t allow something which will clearly have such an adverse affect on the local residents and completely change the dynamics of the conservation area.

 

The management plan would be an experiment, and needs to be proved before the development goes ahead.  Would support an additional 200 students, allowing the University to apply to increase the number in two years’ time, to give the management team the chance to bed in, and local resident and students a chance to bond.     600 extra students in one fell swoop is wrong, and should be refused. 

 

Regarding the building, it is over-development, with the scale, mass and bulk out of keeping with the local area, in conflict with CP4 and CP7.  Will move to refuse on these grounds if no-one else does.

 

PB:  congratulates officers on the enormous amount of work and detail, and engaging with the applicant and residents on this significant application.  Is not sure which way to go; the decision will be marginal, as officers could have argued for refusal on amenity and design issues, but it’s now up Members to make the final decision, which will be popular with some but not with others. 

 

If this were a new greenfield site, would view the proposal differently.  Students inhabited this site before most of the local residents moved to the area, so  some degree of noise could have anticipated from the outset.  There are different views on the numbers, but no doubt that the area has accommodated 800 students over the years, including the UCAS site across the road, and the site plan shows that the site is capable of supporting this number.  Having children of his own at university, recognises that this fantastic development will give new students a great first-year experience with their living accommodation.  Student accommodation is a massive problem in the town, with properties being snapped up the moment they become available.  There are worries that the students will take over the area, but they have to go somewhere, and it is clearly vital that the University provides more accommodation to ensure its competitiveness.  Congratulates the new architect on the improved design; deferment was clearly the right thing to do in January.

 

However, does have some concerns.  A condition allows for refuse and commercial vehicles on site up until 8.00pm – is this necessary?  Would have said 6.00pm is late enough.  Informative 4 refers to contractors’ parking in neighbouring streets during construction – this in unenforceable, as demonstrated at the Cirencester Road development.  Can this condition be tightened up, maybe by naming streets where no contractor parking will be permitted? 

 

We have to accept this proposal.  It has been described as ‘a recipe for conflict’ but we should be welcoming students to our town.  Two thousand students live in the confined streets of St Paul’s without conflict, and the same will apply here. If it can’t be accommodated in Cheltenham, the University will move more to Gloucester; would hate to see this happen as we need it to maintain our economy. Continues to have some concerns, but overall feels we should support the application. 

 

KS:  has a few points to make.  Firstly, re-read the comments made at January committee to remind herself of Members’ concerns.  Some of these have been resolved – the design and appearance, while not likely to win any architectural awards, is not as dismal as it was.  Remains concerned about the number of students, and feels Members who say students are not badly-behaved are missing the point.  We are all humans and all capable of being noisy at times, and this is a huge increase in the number of young people in this community, far removed from the entertainment of the town centre.  How will it be policed?  This isn’t only an issue for people in the immediate vicinity.  Is not saying all students are bad but doesn’t feel that this is the right development in this location.  If the University was collegiate, with a diverse mix of 300 or so students and fellows,  a common room and dedicated infrastructure on the site, it would sit more easily – but it isn’t. 

 

Still has a number of concerns with this application, some of which are not within our control.  Appreciates all the work since January, but having read the emails from concerned residents, feels these deserve respect – they have invested in their homes and want the best for the town.  Is not against the university, but would like to see less students accommodated on this site.  This is not unreasonable.  It is regrettable that she cannot fully support the application – wants to see something brilliant for Cheltenham but this is not it.

 

LW, in response:

-          to AC, over the summer months some international students are likely to remain on site and the buildings would be deep cleaned and maintenance work carried out.  A condition has been added which requires that the accommodation can only be used by the University of Gloucestershire for student accommodation and for no other purpose within Class C1.  The University could not therefore use the buildings for conferences or as single dwellings without requiring planning permission.  As far as I am aware, the University doesn’t intend to use the accommodation for summer schools but if the Council was approached with this suggestion in the future then it could potentially be that the university could use the site for this purpose but the no car policy would still apply alongside all other restrictions for the site. 

-          to PB, regarding deliveries to 8.00pm, this was suggested by environmental health officers and is the standard time gap for deliveries to sites of this nature.  There is a bar, refectory and shop on site which will require deliveries, but there wouldn’t be a convoy of delivery vehiclesthroughout the day, and refuse collections would likely be carried out during normal office hours.  This is not a large scale retail or commercial development requiring large numbers of deliveries.  Could consider reducing the end time to 6.00pm should Members wish;

-          to PB, regarding contractors’ vehicles, Condition 3 includes a Construction Method Statement, requiring space to be allocated on site for operatives vehicles, deliveries, storage of materials and parking during the construction and demolition phases.  Some overspill is inevitable, particularly for a scheme of this size.  An informative has been added and the applicants are advised to avoid this as far as possible.  Any further restrictions, requiring vehicles to park in named streets for instance, would probably not comply with the NPPG tests for imposing planning conditions.

 

MB:  the officer report is very good; agrees with much of it.  The design is not brilliant, but is an improvement on the previous proposal and is OK, but the question over numbers remains, together with lack of absolute clarity as to how many people have used the site previously, what time of day the majority of movements are likely to take place, how many are anticipated, and management of this at night.  These are still concerns, and 800 students on this site is too many.

 

AL:  is surprised that despite the meetings with residents, there is still such a high level of objection – suggesting that not many concessions were made.  It is clear that we are making a business decision.  Feels that this is a missed opportunity architecturally – the density is too great and the geography poor.  It will result in too many movements in and out, and the management team will have no experience of managing a site of this kind.  With no agreement document, who would take responsibility for any failure of student management?  The operational management plan has insufficient teeth, putting the burden of responsibility on the students.  Responsibility for the number of students on site, and their transport to and from the site must not be deflected from the operators.  There have been meetings between U-Living, the University, local residents and planners, but can find no agreement anywhere as to how any problems with the management plan will be dealt with.  It is therefore not possible to make a decision tonight which is clearly a business decision.

 

FC:  was not sure which way to vote when she arrived this evening, planning to listen to the arguments and make her decision accordingly.  The report is good and sets out the case fairly, acknowledging residents’ concerns and highlighting everything Members need to take into account.  The NPPF focuses on the need for development, clearly put at paragraph 5.14 of the report.  There has been much play about the number of students and their behaviour - must take issue here.  Students will be the life blood of the town and its future, the difference between economic success or not.  The number of students proposed here is not huge; the site itself is big enough to accommodate them.  So what is the issue?  The problem is the perceived difficulties which may arise from people coming and going at night in term time.  A community liaison group has been suggested, so to reduce concerns about what will happen if the management plan breaks down, maybe an appeal group could be set up to settle any problems, but ultimately what happens then?

 

Having listened to the arguments and the debate and read many of the objections, takes the view that this development should go ahead, and will therefore support it.  Cheltenham needs students to enrich its future and help it to grow - that requirement won’t go away.  Members can make a decision to go forward with this application tonight, or allow it to go to appeal, where it will be granted. 

 

AM:  FC has stolen his thunder.  There has been a lot of talk about the merits of the university, the students and the impact this development will have.   The key question tonight is whether this application ticks enough boxes to be approved based on the assumption to approve.  It was deferred in January because there wasn’t enough information and Members wanted to see some improvements. The officer report sets out the improvements made since January, and members need to ask themselves whether their concerns have been addressed?  Maybe not perfectly, but yes, they have been; the applicant has done what we asked , and if the application goes to appeal, it will be lost.  So on pragmatic planning grounds, will support the officer recommendation.

 

CHay:  for clarity, a Member earlier said that economic impact is not a consideration in planning applications, but it is.  Concerns about student behaviour are all conjecture and not a consideration.  This scheme won’t work if the numbers are reduced – it would not be economically viable and the management plan won’t work.  Neither would it work to add more students each year – this would be very expensive and impractical, and is not worth considering. 

 

LW, in response:

-          confirmed that economic considerations are planning matters – the NPPF talks about economic and social aspects when considering sustainable development.

 

GB:  MS has said he will move to refuse on CP4 and CP7, but first the vote will be taken on the officer recommendation to permit (subject to s106 agreements) and if that falls will return to MS.

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit subject to s106 agreements

9 in support

6 in objection

PERMIT subject to S106 agreements