Appeal a ‘waste of money’
Campaigners are urging residents to make their voices heard once again ahead of an appeal on controversial plans to build 186 student bedrooms and 104 flats in Bath.
Alan Champneys from the No to Hartwells Student Build group branded the Oakhill Group’s appeal “cynical” when Bath and North East Somerset Council gave clear reasons for refusal.
But the developer said there was “nothing unusual” in exercising its right to appeal.
Some 274 people opposed its proposals for Hartwell Garage, saying they were “unwanted and fundamentally flawed”.
But Professor Champneys said the planning inspector may not assume those objections still stand, so asked residents to reiterate their concerns.
The University of Bristol lecturer said: “This is a cynical attempt by an extremely rich developer. They don’t care about wasting council taxpayers’ money post-pandemic.
“They don’t care about what the local community want. It’s uncertain whether there will ever be the same demand for student accommodation.
“They’re proposing an eight-day public inquiry. They’ll probably bring a very expensive barrister.
“It’s a catastrophic waste of money, given there were clear reasons for this to be rejected.”
Rejecting the proposals in March, planning committee members said the site was only allocated for 100 homes, and the scheme failed to provide an appropriate mix of housing. The council expected 40 per cent of the homes to be affordable but the developer said only 12.5 per cent would be viable.
Newbridge ward member Michelle O’doherty said: “I want to encourage people to comment. It seems the developer is going to use as much muscle as it can. This development was universally unwanted. Residents would be happy to see the site redeveloped but not to see 400 people shoehorned in with little space.”
A spokesperson for the Oakhill Group said the application followed 11 months of detailed scrutiny by council officers, who had recommended it for approval. Councillors went against that recommendation.
“After careful consideration Oakhill have exercised their legal right to appeal the decision of the council, and the appeal will be heard by an independent inspector appointed by the secretary of state,” the spokesperson said.
“Third parties have a right to participate in the appeal process and there is nothing unusual or cynical in what is taking place. The council gave six reasons for refusing the Oakhill proposals, but those reasons were not supported by council officers. A public inquiry which is scheduled to take place in February 2021 will test the arguments from both sides in a fair and transparent way.”