Agenda item

Mr David Redgewell has registered to make a statement to the Panel regarding the devolution of planning.

Mr Robin Kerr has registered to make a statement to the Panel regarding the Placemaking Plan.

Robin Kerr, Chairman of the Federation of Bath Residents’ Associations (FoBRA) made a statement to the Panel on the subject of the Placemaking Plan. A copy of the statement can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below.

FoBRA has been tracking the Placemaking Plan for some years, as we did the Core Strategy. We have contributed to its long development assiduously, meeting with officers and probably making more comments than any other body. Its importance to Bath residents is obvious, but it is lengthy and complicated.

From the beginning we have wanted a Student Housing Policy, my colleague Chris Beezley is going to speak about this further later, but that duty cannot be shirked. The seemingly unstoppable expansion of our two universities, however desirable, is a ticking time-bomb threatening our citizens’ ability to find homes or jobs here and placing further pressure on the Green Belt.

We also want to see space standards for market housing. About half of English Authorities impose minimum space standards on new commercial housing, but not B&NES, with the result that many of our new-build houses are cramped, often with less space than social housing.

Lastly, flooding risk, there is much in the Plan about mitigation of this risk in the Enterprise Areas, which is understandable, as otherwise no development would take place in them. However, there is a considerable likelihood some 2000 existing homes upstream, many of them Listed, and of great importance to World Heritage, yet this is hardly mentioned and no practical measures are proposed to deal with it.

Moreover, in the sections on development sites in Central Riverside and Manvers Street mitigation is planned for the development parts, but, scandalously, nothing for the existing properties close by, thereby condemning them to damage. In all fairness this has to be rectified and money found to carry out the necessary work.

Councillor Barry Macrae commented that in a previous representation to the Panel the Environment Agency had clearly stated that upstream flooding would not be a problem.

Ian Herve, Abbey Ward Flood Group made a statement to the Panel on the subject of the Placemaking Plan. A copy of the statement can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below.

Throughout this Draft Placemaking Plan there are many contradictory statements and much wishful thinking where flood risk in Bath is concerned. In the Bath subsection of this Plan, paragraph 122 states that the Recreation Ground “Functions as an important storage area during flood events”.

All well and good you might say except for one missing piece of information.  The flood risk maps for that area.  These can be viewed on the B&NES website in the 2013 Black and Veatch Technical Note for the Bath Quays Project.

This shows the actual flooded areas for various Annual Probability return risk events.  The Rec does indeed flood at a low risk event of a 1:25 year flow but so do the neighbouring properties. As the water rises the neat line drawn on the B&NES map does not define the flooded area.

This effectively means that it is now council policy to designate the basement flats of Johnstone Street, Great Pulteney Street, the houses in Pulteney Mews, those along Pulteney Road to the south of the railway bridge, Broadway and the Dolemeads and of course, Widcombe School as “important flood storage”.

The Environment Agency predicts that this risk will increase by 10% by 2040.

This Placemaking Plan predicts that by 2020 “winter precipitation could increase by up 18% and be more intense”.

Paragraph 21 states that the “Council will encourage and support residents throughout Bath”. We would argue that a key element of that support has to be a more thorough recognition of the flooding risks and concrete and funded proposals for protecting the whole city, not merely sites planned for development.

Councillor Fiona Darey said that she was aware of the concerns of Walcot residents and that a further meeting would be of benefit so that they could ask questions to the Environment Agency.

The Chairman said that he felt it was a matter that the Panel could review at a future meeting.

Chris Beezley made a statement to the Panel on the subject of Student Accommodation in Bath. A copy of the statement can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below.

For over 10 years FoBRA has been pressing B&NES to adopt a Student Housing Strategy. With the Placemaking Plan (PMP) reporting 24,000 students now, forecast to rise to 32,000 within 5 years, B&NES has acknowledged FoBRA’s concerns:

·  that there will be considerable and ever-increasing pressure for private sector student accommodation for the foreseeable future;

·  that Bath ‘over performs as a host to Higher Education’ (para.252);

·  that student accommodation ‘is one of the most high profile issues affecting Bath’(para.221);

·  that student accommodation is ‘clearly a matter that requires policy direction at a strategic and site specific level.’ (para.233); and

·  that, as early as 2020, even with 1,000 further campus beds, there could be a shortfall of 5,000 private sector beds (para.229)

and yet it refuses to advocate a Student Housing Strategy (para.234).

The Plan proposes little scope for further accommodation blocks, and there is no indication that the universities will scale back their growth aspirations or risk building more campus bedrooms than the usual demand from new students justifies.  This means that more students could find themselves homeless (a trend that has already started at the University of Bath this year) as demand for additional HMOs approaches 1,250, that is 250 per year over the next 5 years. 

To put this into context, the Government’s net additional housing allocation to Bath of 7,020 equates to 390 per year.  FoBRA suggests that homeless students and/or a build rate of 640 new dwellings per year to achieve the target figure of 390 would be unsustainable, and is likely to render the PMP ‘unsound’.

Where in the PMP does it state how the universities intend to house their future students or what increase in HMO numbers would be sustainable?  Nowhere.  That is why FoBRA believes that a Student Housing Strategy is so desperately needed. 

FoBRA therefore seeks this Scrutiny Panel’s assurance that the long-overdue Student Housing Strategy is now developed as a matter of urgency, is regularly reviewed, engaging openly with the universities and residents, and that the Placemaking Plan and its reviews are guided by it.

Neil Latham, Bath Spa University made a statement to the Panel on the subject of Student Accommodation in Bath. A copy of the statement can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below.

I would like to start by confirming the University’s desire to work with the Council and the community in developing our plans for student housing in the city and wider region. In 2012, the University did not object to the Article 4 proposals about restrictions on the development of houses of multiple occupation (HMOs), recognising the impact in wards such as Oldfield Park and Westmoreland. In 2016, we hope to see our continued contribution to the dialogue around student housing.

The data presented in sections 5.10 to 5.15 of the paper does not align with our own projections, which indicate much more modest growth. We will be preparing a full response to the Placemaking Plan consultation and would welcome a meeting with the Council to jointly update the student number projections and housing estimates. In summary, by 2020/21 our estimated number of additional bedspaces is approximately 1,100 (equivalent to around two Green Park House sized developments or three Twerton Mill developments) rather than the 3,895 quoted.

Conscious of the impact HMOs have on the city, we are in the early stages of planning a pilot scheme to house some continuing students (i.e. 2^nd and 3^rd year undergraduates).

We recognise that all new accommodation does not need to be in the city.  We have excellent transport links into Bath, particularly on the routes from Bristol. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss possible sites with the Council that fall along those key transport routes into the city.

We therefore believe that Bath does not ‘over perform’ as a host to higher education as some people have suggested, and has the capacity to benefit from some further carefully managed expansion. 

I would like to close by saying that our students are an extremely important part of this community. They don’t just contribute economically, but bring a wealth of creativity and innovation, and also contribute to the cultural life of Bath.

Councillor Paul Crossley asked what % of students still live at home while studying at the university.

Neil Latham replied that 7% of students are from Bath and live at home, whilst 27% of students live outside of the city but remain in family accommodation.

Councillor Paul Crossley asked if he had a timescale for the proposals relating to 2^nd and 3^rd year students.

Neil Latham replied that ideas were at the early planning stages.

Councillor Barry Macrae commented that he was concerned over possible new sites being developed along the A4 as this would add to traffic congestion.

Neil Latham replied that any development in Corsham would be in relation to the 50 post graduate places for that site and enable students to live and study there. He added that in terms of Keynsham sites there would be no car parking at any halls and use of public transport would be highly encouraged.