Agenda item

At its July 2014 meeting the Panel requested a paper to outline the Council’s approach to planning for the growth of students, more specifically their housing needs. The Panel is aware of the Council Article 4 Direction in respect of controlling the growth HMOs in Bath but would like further information in relation to enabling dedicated accommodation.

The Planning Officer introduced this item to the Panel. He explained that planning policy framework has been established in the Core Strategy and is now being implemented. He stated that Planning policy is to provide new accommodation at the same rate as new needs are generated, and to hold student related HMOs at 2011 levels (but not to reduce those levels). He said there was a role for both on-campus and in-city student accommodation in achieving this and that the majority of needs should be met on campus.

He added that permitting too much in city accommodation would not encourage the University of Bath to build further phases of accommodation on-campus and that Planning policy seeks to stop a situation arising whereby on-campus is left undeveloped whilst valuable city centre and Enterprise Area sites are lost as potential housing and employment sites.

He informed the Panel that there are a number of planning applications (736 units) and pre-apps* (507) in the system at the moment.

·  James Street West, 190 bedspaces

·  1-3 James Street West, 115 bedspaces.

·  Hartwells, Upper Bristol Road, 431 bedspaces

·  *Transport Depot, Brougham Hayes, 103 bedspaces.

·  *Site of Old Gas Works, Upper Bristol Road, 404 bedspaces.

He stated that to permit more than about 250 additional in-city bedspaces would have consequences for the implementation of phase 2 on campus at Claverton Down and this would upset the delivery of the spatial strategy. He added that there there was already some prospect that the final phase of capacity at Claverton Down might not be built, based on current demand/ growth assumptions. He said that the figures list above should not be read as being acceptable in urban design terms and as applications are being assessed this may reveal the height scale and massing is not appropriate, therefore each site might have the potential to yield less than is stated above.

Councillor June Player asked why the purpose built accommodation was only used by students in Year 1.

The Planning Officer replied that most students find the accommodation convenient and safe for the first year and then seek to house share in Years 2 & 3.

Councillor June Player asked if they could stay on for further years.

The Planning Officer replied that a substantial increase in bed space would be required for that option to be pursued.

Councillor Steve Hedges said that he felt it was ridiculous to give so much brownfield land over to student accommodation. He asked when the limit would be reached.

The Planning Officer replied that he was not aware of any powers to stop the universities from growing. He added that projections show that we could see an increase of 3,200 over 15 years.

Councillor Gerry Curran said that there was a need to be realistic on this matter and that both universities were proving to be successful. He added that the University of Bath was situated within the Green Belt so it would not be easy to develop on their site. He said that he supported the current sites but had concern over the forthcoming developments.

He asked if the developers held the trump card or does the Council have any powers through the planning process.

The Planning Officer replied that the Council does have some power through Policy B5 of the Core Strategy as that presumes against student accommodation within Bath Western Riverside, the Enterprise Area and the former Ministry of Defence sites. He added that sites on the periphery of the Enterprise Area were vulnerable.

Councillor Tim Warren commented that he wanted officers to ensure that the universities do not rest on their laurels in terms of supplying accommodation as any hole that is left will be attempted to be filled by the private sector.

Councillor Gerry Curran commented that it was a complex issue and that conversations would be required with both universities following the local elections next year.

The Chair said that she thought it would be helpful to receive a similar report in 12 months’ time when the impact would be known of the government’s decision to allow universities to lift the current cap on their student numbers (the MASM number).

The Panel RESOLVED to note that the statutory planning policy approach to this issue is embedded within the Council’s Core Strategy (adopted July 10^th 2014) and that this will inform decision making on planning applications for new student accommodation.