Agenda and minutes

Councillor Jay Hayes - unwell

Councillor Corall Jenkins – work commitments

Councillor Angela Kandola - unwell

Councillor Sally Longford – personal reasons

Councillor Toby Neal - unwell

None.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2023

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2023 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.

Martin Poole, Area Planning Manager, presented planning application 22/01525/PFUL3 by Hockley Developments Ltd, for the approval of a new two-and-a-half storey building to provide 11 one-bed Class C3 supported living dwellings with staff and communal areas. He delivered a presentation which included site photographs and floor plans.

The following points were highlighted:

(a)  the site contains a single-storey, flat-roofed building which used to be a beauty salon. It is located on the corner of Hucknall Road and Teesdale Road;

(b)  the plans featured two parking spaces fronting onto Hucknall Road as well as bin stores for servicing around the back of the site;

(c)  the application was referred to Planning Committee due to 65 letters of objections being submitted by members of the public. Within these letters, concerns were raised about parking arrangements, who would occupy this dwelling, concerns around anti-social behaviour, and the scale and siting of the dwelling;

(d)  as the dwelling is classed as supported living scheme accommodation, it is unlikely that the occupants will have access to cars. The parking provided will be for the staff on-site;

(e)  the occupants of this dwelling will have been assessed as being able to live within the community with assisted support and therefore there were no concerns around increased anti-social behaviour;

(f)  there were no objections from the statutory consultees.

Members’ comments and questions were addressed as follows:

(g)  the principle of development on this site had been established as planning permission was granted in February 2022 for the construction of three houses following demolition of existing building (21/02090/PFUL3);

(h)  there will be staff on-site 24 hours. Office space for staff will be provided on the ground floor and communal spaces will be provided for residents;

(i)  the tree adjacent to the site will be retained;

(j)  the Council’s Commissioning and Procurement Team and the Adult Social Care Team support the application;

(k)  full S106 contributions were requested and there was no challenge to the S106 agreement proposed by the Council from the Developer;

(l)  Ward Councillors raised no objections to the application; 

(m) the Committee requested railings to be included on the raised landscaped area at the front of Hucknall Road;

(n)  the Committee wished to ensure appropriate building materials to absorb flood water within the car park;

(o)  proposed Condition 2 of the permission will require details of materials to be submitted and approved by the Planning Team and this would include the railings and car park surfacing;

(p)  the design of the roof could not incorporate solar panels;

(q)  a viability report was not required because full s106 policy requirements would be met.

Resolved to:

1)  Grant planning permission subject to:

a.  Prior completion of a Section 106 planning obligation to secure:

  i.  A financial contribution of £48,235.25 towards off-site affordable housing;

  ii.  A financial contribution of £16,841.11 towards the provision or improvement of off-site open space;

  iii.  A financial contribution of £4,611 towards employment and training.

b.  The indicative conditions substantially in the form of those listed in the draft decision notice at the end of this report;

2)  Delegate the power to determine the final details of the planning obligation and conditions of planning permission to the Director of Planning and Transport;

3)  Confirm that Committee are satisfied that Regulation 122(2) Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 is complied with, in that the planning obligations sought are (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, (b) directly related to the development and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Paul Seddon, Director of Planning and Transport, and Matthew Grant, Local Plans Manager, delivered a verbal update to the Committee regarding the current context of purpose-built student accommodation in Nottingham, which highlighted the following points:

(a)  over a 10-year period, some university cities have had difficulties housing their students due to a lack of student accommodation within their cities. A lack of sufficient student accommodation drives up competition within the whole city housing market, driving up rents and living costs for everyone looking for a home within the city;

(b)  61,700 students study in Nottingham with 50,900 of those students requiring accommodation; 

(c)  it is recognised that students add vitality, support retail and leisure businesses, and enhance the cultural picture of the city;

(d)  the University of Nottingham and Nottingham Trent University contribute £13 billion to the economy and provide 25,000 jobs in the area;

(e)  visiting families of students also contribute to the economy of Nottingham;

(f)  the large presence of students in residential areas can create an imbalanced and unsustainable neighbourhoods; 

(g)  the 3 types of accommodation used by students are Halls of Residence, Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA);

(h)  the construction of PBSA is encouraged as this helps prevent the loss of family homes being used as HMOs and can help reduce anti-social behaviour. They are more environmentally friendly and can accommodate a greater number of students per building and can act as a catalyst for local regeneration, for example, The Island Quarter in Nottingham;

(i)  an increased supply of PBSAs will help with competition between student housing options and could help reduce rents and helps the Council meet its statutory housing obligations;

(j)  an Article 4(1) Direction has been in place since 2012 across the city to allow the Planning Authority to control the spread of HMOs in areas where they are prevalent;

(k)  since the Local Plan was adopted in January 2020, developers need to justify the need for new PBSA and show flexibility in the areas where they can be constructed;

(l)  the Council monitor the levels of student accommodation by using the PBSA vacancy survey and examining the levels of student council tax exemptions;

(m) there has been a growth in student council tax exemptions but this growth has largely been in PBSA exemptions since 2015 rather than HMOs, however the encouragement of PBSA has prevented the issues of a lack of student accommodation that many other university cities have experienced;

(n)  the majority of residents in PBSAs are first year students, but we are finding increasing numbers of returners (second and third years);

(o)  the Council is projecting an increase in the student population of Nottingham of 2.8% per year which is in line with demographic changes;

(p)  there has been a small dip for the latest year in the number of students living in HMOs which correlates with an increase of students living in PBSA;

(q)  the Draft Nottingham Student Living Strategy outlines three priorities:

o  Priority 1 – Quality, safe accommodation for appropriate locations in Nottingham;

o  Priority 2 – Encouraging neighbourliness;

o  Priority 3 – Encouraging graduates to settle in Nottingham.

Members’ comments and questions were addressed as follows:

(r)  the demand from young people who were not just students was for affordable accommodation;

(s)  the demand for student accommodation could not be stopped by the Council or Planning Committee. The approval by Planning Committee of PBSA applications has meant that Nottingham has not reported the cases of insufficient student accommodation being available as seen in some other university cities;

(t)  whilst students do not pay council tax, their presence does revitalise and regenerate areas such as Hockley; 

(u)  Members’ concerns that the cost of living in PBSAs is expensive and is driving students into cheaper rented accommodation, such as HMOs, were noted.