The appellant intended to use three upper floors for accommodation and lower floors for community space, possibly including shops and offices.
The inspector, noting that these uses fall outside the definition of community development, ruled that in the absence of a clear definition it was impossible to reach a proper decision.
While concluding that this uncertainty was sufficient to justify rejecting the appeal on its own, he also noted that the emerging unitary development plan included the appeal site within an area of student housing restraint.
He held that the introduction of three floors of additional student accommodation would swamp the local community and undermine the area's character and amenity.
DCS No: 100039172; Inspector: Brian Rogers; Hearing.