The appellants explained that a clause in tenancy agreements for the 165 units would prevent students from parking a vehicle within a defined area around the appeal site and that 176 on-site cycle spaces would be provided. The council asserted that the proposal would cause parking pressures on nearby streets, adversely affecting neighbours’ amenity and the road network.
The reporter found that the site was well located to take advantage of a range of walking, cycling and public transport modes. Although it was easily accessible by car, he observed that it lay outside a controlled parking zone and that on-street parking was freely available on a number of streets in the wider area.
He also noted the appellants’ evidence that only two per cent of students sought parking spaces on the 29 sites they operated elsewhere. Site management arrangements and tenancy agreements would allow them to exercise control over car ownership, he reasoned. Consequently, he concluded that the council’s request for 37 on-site parking spaces was unnecessary. The scale and design of the building was also judged acceptable.
Reporter: Andrew Sikes; Written representations