Planners have refused to rubber stamp a developer’s plans to let its student flats to professionals after it said it struggled to find tenants.
SE Properties said its Hollingdean Road development was “not currently viable” as purely student housing.
It applied to Brighton and Hove City Council for a certificate to say it was lawful to let part of it to non-students, on the basis this wouldn’t change the usage of the blocks significantly.
But the council has refused its application, saying letting to non-students would have a “significant planning impact” – and could be a way to build co-living blocks by the back door.
In her report, planning officer Sonia Gillam said: “The application states that the site is not currently viable as PBSA-only in the current market, although no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate why this is the case, or demonstrate the need for the co-living space.”
She outlined council policies which encourage purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA), particularly in the Lewes Road area, which make it easier for developers to get planning permission for student blocks.
For instance, the site on Hollingdean Road had been earmarked for student housing before the developer submitted its plans.
She also said the council’s most recent assessment of the student housing market indicated there should be significant current demand, as there are twice as many students as spaces in student blocks.
The council has no specific policies for co-living, which means developers have to clearly demonstrate how they meet an identified housing need in the city.
Ms Gillam added: “Furthermore, given that private co-living units are (generally and in this case) below minimum residential space standards, the shared communal spaces are important in ensuring that the quality of the overall residential amenity is acceptable.
“This is quite different to spaces required by PBSA which is primarily focused on offering individual study rooms and convenience to campus and university buildings where the occupants are likely to be in the accommodation for a fixed and much shorter period of time.
“With regard to the application site, the communal areas are to the ground floor only and relatively limited. Additionally, flexibility across the site could cause conflict between students and co-living residents living in close proximity with different lifestyles and daily routines.”
When the scheme was originally approved in 2020, council officers expressed concerns that no university or college was officially interested in sending students to the blocks.
They asked councillors on Brighton and Hove City Council’s planning committee to reject the scheme.
The committee – which only had three councillors as it was meeting during covid restrictions – voted to approve the scheme.
It’s a pity the council can’t put as much effort in encouraging the building of housing for local working people as they do for students…
Council doesn’t encourage building student flats.
It can only consider the applications put in front of it by developers.
It’s the developers that need to change tack.
As per the article:
“She [planning officer] outlined council policies which encourage purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA), particularly in the Lewes Road area, which make it easier for developers to get planning permission for student blocks”
The council absolutely encourage PBSA in the Lewes Road corridor and have been quite open about doing so. The reasoning is that more students in PBSA decreases demand for traditional student shared houses and thus increases available housing for locals.
The developer could fill the block with students if the rent was in any way affordable!
We have this crazy situation of purpose built student accommodation lying unused because students can’t afford the rooms. So pressure on turning family homes into shared student accommodation continues (as this is the only affordable option for students), so families are forced to leave Brighton due to stupidly high rents caused by lack of housing supply compared to demand, thus schools that have been full for decades shrink and close, meaning Brighton lose publicly owned assets as old school buildings will likely be sold off for (unaffordable) housing given time.
It seems developers continue to make money even when their product is unaffordable, while both local residents and students lose out.
No one seems to be able to stop the cycle, while ugly high rise student accommodation blocks continue to be built, families and students pay stupid money for poor quality housing, schools close, and developers winger that they aren’t making enough money.
Seems very solid grounds for refusing. The viability argument doesn’t make sense to me; as a competent developer, they would have given themselves a healthy margin for error in their calculations.
This should be let free to people who need council flats and also refugees
It’s so generous of you Gabby to let your home out for free to worthy tenants. Such selflessness in a world where mos5 people think it’s up to other people to make sacrifices. You are truely an altruistic example.
Ignoring Frazer’s unhelpful sarcasm, there are potential pathways where similar things could happen. Things like Guardianships, for example, could be used in conjunction with meanwhile leases.
Wouldn’t quite be social rents, these typically require LHA rates as a baseline, but it would make use of what is currently an empty building.
Isn’t this because Sussex and Brighton unis have slipped down the rankings, plus as someone said to me “Brightons becoming the Blackpool of the south”
Maybe put the bongo pipe down mate and think for yourself
Lol what do they expect, their prices are sky high.
Personally I don’t think this development should have happened in the first place. They should have built where the block is as well as above the Sainsbury’s carpark and got rid of those grotty houses at the bottom of the road. They could have really made the area a lot nicer and built denser in a transport corridor some actual flats for locals.
On the one hand it serves the greedy developers right for assuming that more than ten percent of students want or can afford their overpriced prison-style student accommodation when they can have the same on campus for their whole three years now.On the other hand, does the council have any right to discriminate against any tenant with the right to rent in this country?
Or will the council just fill it full of migrants and blow any right to rent checks?
Happy New Year, James. Answering your question in good faith – yes, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gives councils the right to specify use groups. That isn’t discrimination.
Who are you answering on behalf of? I would raise you the Equalities Act 2010 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to counter with, but let the greedy developers sink in the swamp like the many who have already gone bust up north for oversupplying the high end student market.
In this case, I suspect the educated. Both of your examples which have nothing to do with class use restrictions of PBSA housing, James. Best to avoid red herrings.
But perhaps there’s some truth to the greed in this case, or simply an overestimation of what they were aiming to get, or the downturn of international students.
Local planning has been complicit with the gerrymandering that has been going on in the Lewes Road area for decades. Create as many HMOs and Student blocks as possible and filled with gullible students voting green.
How do you propose to solve this imaginary problem?
“…could be a way to build co-living blocks by the back door.”
Could? It is!
Developers building properties that no one wants is a part of our history. Speculative development sometimes failed to find rich tenants and superficially grand houses from onset had rooms rented out to whole families, poverty behind grand facades. The answer is for developer to either become bankrupt, as was normal, or cut losses and sell at a loss to a landlord who can then rent at attractive rates. That’s the risk of developing, it’s the business they are in. The council is right to refuse an attempt to get round the financial ruin they say they face. They could ask the Miners and many other groups of workers who had to ‘accept economic reality’ from 1980’s for advice on managing challenging economic situations.
If the properties are not viable, why build them? I’ll start the bidding at £1.00
Situational changes over time, obviously.
Or trying to manipulate the planning system to get approval for a development that shouldn’t have occurred and then change it by the backdoor to suit your greed?
Agreed with the manipulation part. The original was approved, obviously, so we can’t say shouldn’t have happened, because that’s not accurate.
Change of uses can happen over time for a variety of reasons, but in this case, there appears to be a reasonable argument against it just on policy.
Development is there to make money after all, it’s a business. We shouldn’t be surprised at things like that.