Agenda item

Councillor Eleanor Jackson addressed the Panel, a summary is set out below. She stated that a key focus of the decision is that B&NES land is to be disposed at less than best consideration and that she would expect financial prudence and for the Council to achieve value for money as part of this process.

She questioned who would actually benefit from this decision and that it was most likely to be the developer of the student housing accommodation.

She stated that having heard the original application at the Development Management Committee she was surprised that the development did not have disabled access.

She said that the issue of land ownership should have been identified before planning consent was given and that the decision should therefore be delayed.

Bob Goodman addressed the Panel, a summary is set out below. He said that 5 years ago, he was fortunate to be asked by Cllr Liz Richardson, the then Cabinet Member for Planning, to look at the effect that the Universities were having on the City, particularly student accommodation.

I believe I had a good working relationship with both Universities which resulted in the reduction of the 25% rule on HMO’s down to the now 10%.

I made it clear to both Universities and, more importantly to Developers, that the “gravy train” of P.B.S.A. had to end within the City and both campuses had to “consume their own smoke”.

So, in 2016 when Bath Cricket Club came to me to talk about their Car Park, wanting to know if I would support a development, I said that I thought some sort of development was possible (maybe for the elderly), but that was a matter for the Planners, but I made it crystal clear I would not support student accommodation in any way.

Somehow the Committee approved the student development 18 months later.

I was not made aware, at any time, as the Cabinet Member for Planning, there was a Ransom Strip which was owned by the Council and indeed when you look at the Site Plan which was part of the Application, the red-line included the land owned by the Authority – that itself needs to be looked into.

Let’s have transparency with this valuation which has been carried out. I cannot see this strip is worth only £150k even if you want to sell it, which this Council should not. Just because there is Planning Permission, doesn’t mean the strip has to be sold.

Who is holding the Developers to account? Certainly not this Council.

There are now countless applications for P.B.S.A. in the City coming in; Scala, BMW, Hartwells, Bath City Football Club and, recently, Regency Cleaners – the Developers are rubbing their hands together with the support they are now getting from this Council.

Finally, I urge any of the Committee who love this City as I do, to reject the proposal of the Cabinet Member to approve this asset transfer.

Councillor Shaun Hughes asked if he had a view on what the land in question was worth.

Bob Goodman replied that he was not qualified to answer, but in his opinion each unit of student accommodation would be worth in the region of £70,000 – £80,000 and that he valued the land at £3m - £4m.

Patrick Anketell-Jones addressed the Panel, a summary is set out below. With reference to report item 3.3, I sat on the planning committee in 2018 when this application came forward and I do not understand why it has now become dependent on the acquisition of this strip of land. At the time of the committee, no Council service made mention of it and Highways said they had no particular objection to the application.

As the rationale for the asset transfer is the provision of community benefit I would like to focus on that aspect of the development and to request that enthusiasm for this call in does not jeopardise the project’s completion.

Bath is a city undergoing fundamental economic change. This development meets the challenges of that change. Universities are now the dominant sector in the local economy as BANES transforms itself to a wider knowledge based economy. Students and accommodation for students are the ubiquitous evidence of the change. For too long we have tolerated the use of family homes for housing students and PBSA such as this brings relief to that misconceived usage.

We need to find new uses for city centres. The most effective use is residency. By creating town centre populations, you create an in-situ customer base for small retailers as well as a pool of potential employees. To be socially successful, the centre of Bath will need higher levels of residential amenity and a strong community will benefit only where there is a vibrant local economy.

The Cricket School will strengthen the sport’s importance in Bath through the inclusion of young female players. This will be a facility encouraging young people to participate in a healthy activity at precisely the age when encouragement is required.

Finally, there is an aesthetic bonus in all this. The development covers over an ugly area of surface parking. Using city centre land for parking spaces is unacceptably extravagant and disfiguring. By building over the car park benefit is extracted from ugliness and value is added.

The benefits this development will bring to the people of Bath are not all necessarily site specific but distributed in and around its locality. Please do not allow this application to fail.

Councillor Vic Pritchard addressed the Panel, a summary is set out below. He said that the Council should aim to get the best value for the land in respect of its residents. He criticised the vagueness of the process in reaching the decision and said that it was not favourable for the majority of B&NES.