Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for redevelopment to provide purpose-built student accommodation including 360 bedspaces, support ancillary student services (such as study spaces, gymnasium, games room, lounge areas, student hub) car and cycle parking, access and landscaping arrangements.

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the site was allocated as a strategic employment site.  It was located next to the railway line and was part of Guildford Business Park.  The site was used as a surface car park and had extant planning permission for an office building.  The proposal was for a purpose-built student accommodation scheme over 6-storeys.  It would have 360 bed spaces and self-contained studios with gardens and some shared facilities.  There would be no net loss of onsite car parking for the business park.  The adjoining multi-storey car park would also be enlarged by having an additional storey. 

The proposed building would appear as a stand-alone development with a distinctive character of its own and would not be incongruous in relation to the buildings on Guildford Business Park.  Only 8 car parking spaces would be provided, 4 of which would be accessible.  Two internal terraces were proposed for additional outdoor amenity space.  There was an approved footbridge over the railway line for improved pedestrian accessibility to the University Campus.  However, the bridge would only be built if the student accommodation was approved. 

The Committee noted that an appeal decision for a very similar scheme on this site was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate in October 2020 owing to the loss of employment space which was contrary to policy E3 of the Local Plan.  The applicant was therefore invited to submit additional information to address these concerns.  The applicant submitted a test of marketing and details of results from marketing for alternative employment uses which the Council independently assessed and was found that the site had in fact received a high number of queries and interest in the site for employment uses. Whilst the marketing for offices uses was active and comprehensive, the marketing strategy for non-office uses was not to the same level and was not active and comprehensive with little new information submitted since the determination of the appeal in October 2020. 

The primary issue that had to be addressed was the loss of an employment site.  The UK had a plan led system and evidence was required before land was designated to meet the objectives of the Local Plan. There was a need to manage the risk to economic health and limit further land take to compensate such losses.  The site was a strategic employment site and protection had to be afforded to that.  The test of marketing failed to satisfy the policy requirement that the land could not be used for other employment generating uses. 

In addition, the applicant had failed to satisfy policy D2 in relation to energy hierarchy and ensuring sustainability amidst the backdrop of climate change.  The applicant had stated that they would aspire towards a BREEAM ‘excellent standard’ but in their application was seeking to achieve BREEAM ‘very good’.  The BREEAM ‘very good’ accorded with the 2011 SPD and the requirement was now for an ‘excellent’ standard to be achieved as per Policy D2. 

The Chairman permitted Councillor John Rigg to speak in favour of the development for three minutes regarding the application. He was of the view that the concept of a business park was outdated and too binary.  Students would fill the space and the University represented fifty per cent of the economy in Guildford. There would be construction jobs which would provide employment. The 2009 position was not appropriate post Covid and the future should be for mixed development. This application should be the exception to the rule.

Mr Charles Streeten, a barrister from Francis Taylor Building had been invited to provide legal advice to the Committee. He advised that what was being suggested was that the local plan policies were not up to date and that members needed to be cognisant of taking this judgment. The planning system was a plan-led one under s38(6) and para 15 of the NPPF and if the policy for Strategic Employment Sites E3 was out of date, members would need to be consistent with this approach on future applications which could have significant legal consequences.

The Committee discussed the application and concerns raised that whilst the Local Plan had only recently been adopted, the requirement for employment land had potentially decreased, following the recent covid-19 pandemic, with the growing trend for companies to relinquish office space in favour of permitting their employees to work from home in the long term.  The Committee noted that some of the existing tenants on the Business Park were leaving their premises owing to such reasons and that the proposal for university accommodation would create additional employment through the provision of construction jobs.  It was also preferable to have student housing located close to the university campus as opposed to riverside locations which would be better suited for family homes. However, it was also noted that there was demand for light industrial uses and this site was the other side of the University campus.

The Committee also considered whether a departure from policy should be applied in this case given the rental costs were not high for offices on this site whilst the interest in office space was not forthcoming.  The Committee considered whether the benefits afforded by the provision of a bridge that interconnected the town with the university should outweigh the policy reasons put forward to justify a refusal of this application.

The Committee also discussed their concerns regarding a potential departure in policy.  It was acknowledged that the pandemic was an unusual circumstance, and policies should not be changed so quickly in response.  Employment land would continue to be important.  It was also noted that a lot of student accommodation had already been approved in Guildford, the demand for which had decreased owing to less foreign students coming to the UK.  Brownfield sites were also needed particularly for light industrial businesses.

Mr Streeten advised that if there was a departure from the Local Plan, reasons would need to be given to explain the departure and that Policy E3 was out of date especially  in the light of the recently refused appeal of 6^th October 2020.There would be a precedent effect and under the duty to act consistently the Council would have difficulty arguing this in future. There would need to be some other material considerations which would need to be robust and justifiable. Student accommodation was not an employment use - these were B class uses such as light industrial. There was a separate local plan policy H1 for Student accommodation which guided such accommodation to on campus locations.  Student accommodation on a Strategic Employment Site would not accord with policy.

The Planning Development Manager confirmed that if the application was approved, the departure from planning policy and the development plan would therefore necessitate that the application was referred to the Secretary of State.   

A motion was moved and seconded to refuse the application which was carried.

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to this application, the Committee

RESOLVED to refuse application 20/P/00481 for the reasons as detailed in the report.