As the Coventry Local Plan Update moves to the public examination stage, Coventry Society needs to decide whether to appear at the enquiry to defend its objection to the plans for Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA).
Coventry Society previously objected to the Council’s policies on PBSA. This was primarily because of oversupply. The Housing Education Policy Institute back in August 2023 estimated that there was an oversupply of 6,000 units with more than an extra 1,100 units coming on stream in 2023/24. Since then, more schemes have been approved and developed even though both of our universities have struggled to recruit students especially from overseas.
What are the practical implications? The Axo Student Living Scheme in Paradise Place of over 1,000 units close to the city centre has had a vacancy rate of 37%. The owner of this scheme and other operators have been seeking planning permission to change the use of all or a proportion of the vacant units on a temporary basis to flexible short-term residential use and serviced short-term accommodation. Where planning permission has been granted , it is unclear how successful this has been.
We, therefore, feel justified about maintaining our primary objections on the grounds that the council’s policies:
- To monitor and manage PBSA requirements does not reflect the scale of oversupply
- To determine applications for change of use on the merits of individual cases is vague and needs tightening.
We are now at a crucial stage in the local plan update process. A public inquiry chaired by independent inspectors will take place over three separate weeks in March and April. The issue of PBSA will be considered in the week beginning 13 April. It is likely to be discussed over a single half-day. Coventry Society, as an objector (which is formally referred to as a regulation 19 objector), is considering whether it wishes to appear at the Inquiry. If so, we have until 5 March to submit further evidence.
There are five major issues that we are discussing:
- No identified need and the location of future PBSA schemes: The Council has clarified its policy. “If a need is not identified, a proposal would be refused unless built on campus” and maps of the two campuses are provided as part of the supporting documentation.
We welcome this clarification
- Identified need and the location of future PBSA schemes: If there is a need, the Council states that it would support schemes immediately adjacent to the campuses. This is now more tightly defined as “those sites that physically share a common border with / adjoin the campuses”. Without this clarity, some developers would no doubt argue that Westwood Business Park is immediately adjacent to the University of Warwick campus.
We wholeheartedly support this new definition.
- Monitor and manage: This is still the Council’s approach to determining whether a scheme is needed. However, the inspectors in their formal comments have posed the question as to whether this is understandable.
We believe this is an extremely perceptive observation and the Council must respond at the Inquiry on what the phrase means and how it will operate.
- Vacant PBSA: The Council have rejected our proposal that evidence must be provided by the applicant that there is a need for an alternative use such as short-term serviced accommodation. Instead, the Council will continue with its existing approach of considering each proposal on its merits.
We are disappointed by this response to our objection.
- In addition to us, there are six other Regulation 19 objectors: The majority of these are consultants appointed by both universities and by developers. These are calling for a more flexible approach and / or arguing that the Council’s policy is too restrictive.
There is, thus, a sound case for us to appear at the Inquiry to challenge these views.