Agenda item

The representative of the Head of Development Management made the following points by way of introduction:-

1. The Committee’s attention was brought to the further representations received since the report was published as set out in the Amendment Sheet and to an email sent to the Committee members last night regarding transport and mitigation;

2. The application sought outline planning permission for a new mixed use University Campus including 1500 students beds with all matters reserved except access;

3. The application was currently indicative and further detail would be brought back to Committee at a later stage in the form of Reserved Matters applications;

4. Officers were engaging with the applicants to establish how the application might emerge. It had been established that it would have an active frontage with the campus building being accessible to students and the public;

5. A key consideration was the view of Historic England regarding the development’s height and its impact on Temple Meads Station. Ongoing work was taking place in this regard and a height plan had now been received;

6. The indicative proposals were amended to reduce the height and bulk and these had satisfied officers;

7. Information on the routes through the site which was within the Enterprise Zone was currently fluid;

8. The development would be car free save for disabled users;

9. The Head of Development Management, in summary, stated that the development was a work in progress and lots of improvements had been made so it was considered appropriate to bring to Committee. Officers would use their delegated powers to finalise the transport mitigation package and members would be updated regularly at agenda meetings.

The following points arose from debate:-

1. Councillor Denyer observed that there were many outstanding objections and asked whether it was better to wait for greater detail and mitigations to objections before outline planning permission was granted. The Head of Development Management acknowledged that there were a number of outstanding objections but officers would be in continued dialogue with the applicant to work through the transport issues. The City Design team had enough confidence in the scheme to allow issues to be dealt with through Reserved Matters and those matters would also be reported back to members at agenda meetings;

2. The Council was obliged to provide the University with a clear site and this work was underway. A decision today was crucial to that timetable but as the Local Planning Authority the Committee had to be satisfied with what was presented to it;

3. Quantums of the development were set out. The floor space and 1500 student beds were committed to and officers were working with the University to agree parameters and place-making principles;

4. It was confirmed that Reserved Matters could be refused should the design be unsatisfactory;

5. Conditions could be imposed regarding archaeologists excavating the burial ground;

6. Councillor Bradshaw appreciated that the application was outline but felt that there was insufficient transport detail and was informed that these would be worked through with the applicants and proposed conditions and Heads of Terms would be reported to members;

7. Councillor Hickman understood a development might come forward nearby providing more student accommodation and this could result in low-skilled work being taken away from the area. The Head of Development Management replied that the Council had set out its response to emerging speculative housing schemes through the Local Plan Review. On-going dialogue was taking place with the University regarding mixed use housing but there would be no positive policy to rely upon until the completion of the Local Plan Review. The Committee could not, therefore, give any weight to the matter;

8. Councillor Hickman referred to the condition imposed on the arena consent regarding training opportunities for local people and asked if it could be imposed for this development. She was informed that local employment opportunities condition would be imposed and would bring in the involvement of economic development colleagues;

9. Councillor English asked whether any work had been done regarding the numbers of student accommodation proposed in the circular area of the campus and whether there were any controls the LPA could impose on mixed dwelling. She stated that students did not benefit from being with just their own kind but benefited from a mix of residents. Finally, she asked whether 1500 students beds was a set number and was informed that this number would form part of the agreement though the nature of the units would be part of the Reserved Matters;

10. It was noted that Transport Development Management made no substantial objection on the basis of no car trips and air quality officers were content on that basis. It was confirmed that should it become clear that the development was not car free air quality would be re-consulted;

11. It was confirmed that the Environment Agency’s objection was only partially alleviated, should it not be fully overcome outline permission would not be granted;

12. Councillor Denyer highlighted the subjects within the Masterplan but asked why other issues had not been addressed such as the impact on noisy venues on the development and vice versa. She was informed that the Masterplan could be refined.  A noise condition would be imposed;

13. In response to a concern regarding the under-provision of 2000 bed spaces (when compared to the University’s stated growth plan) with this development, The Head of Development Management stated the University would not be able to accommodate every student at this campus and there would be other providers. He referred to Article 4 Directives which exerted control over the uncontrolled change of use of small HMO’s. It was noted that Article 4 Directives would be brought to the Committee in the near future as it was one of this Committee’s Terms of Reference;

14. Councillor Bradley was in favour of the proposal as it was an important development for the City and would bring jobs at all levels to the city. She urged the University to consult stakeholders and engage the public;

15. Councillor Mead was content with the proposals and moved the officer recommendation to grant, with an additional condition regarding local employment opportunities and this was seconded by Councillor Eddy;

16. Councillor Bradshaw moved an amendment requiring the transport recommendation to be enhanced to include public transport, access and ease of movement. This was seconded by Councillor Eddy and on being put to the vote the amendment was unanimously carried. The substantive vote then took place and it was:-

Resolved (Unanimous) – That outline planning permission be granted subject to:

1. Resolution of the Environment Agency’s objection;

2. The completion of a Section 106 Agreement securing:

i) Appropriate transport mitigation, including a framework for public transport, ease of movement, and integration with the surrounding area;

ii) Details of Allowable Solutions.