Why I voted against Oxford Brookes' Windmill Road housing plan

7.07.41pm BST (GMT +0100) Wed 20th Jun 2007

90 Windmill Road - was to have been demolished to make way of 26 student rooms (picture courtesy: http://www.headington.org.uk/history/famous_people/mattock.htm)

Last night, the City Council's North East Area Committee agreed, by 3 votes to 2, to my proposal to reject a planning application that would have seen the demolition of houses at 88 and 90 Windmill Road and 1a Mattock Close and the erection in their place of two new halls of residence housing 49 students for Oxford Brookes University students. Here's why I decided to vote against the application.

Generally, I think it's a good thing for Brookes to provide more purpose-built student accommodation in Headington. Not only is this better for the students themselves, but it also helps to relieve (at least slightly) the acute pressure on family housing in the Headington area. In my seven years as a councillor, I have frequently voted in favour of such applications, even where they were strongly resisted by local residents. So why was this one different?

What swung me against this particular application was the scale of the project. Both houses have been used as student accommodation for a number of years. But, currently, there are only 20 rooms available for students. The application would increase this to 49 students rooms split over the two sites. That's a 150% increase on current numbers, even if the planning officer's report did, rather bizarrely, suggest this was only a "slight increase".

Now 49 student rooms within Brookes' campus would barely be noticed. But 49 student bedrooms sandwiched into an area of residential accommodation is a recipe for discontent. The lives of students and residents have a different tempo, and we should recognise that. Allowing a development which will inevitably result in some tensions - with needless grumpiness on both sides - seems to me to be bad planning.

My fears might have been partially assuaged had Brookes proposed a live-in warden for the site, a 'proper officer' in place to deal with problems immediately (or preferably before) they arose. The application contained no such proposal. Nor was I convinced by Brookes offer to provide just 32 cycle parking spaces - a figure which meets the Local Plan's minimum standards, but is plainly woefully inadequate for this development.

My view is that this development is out-of-keeping with the neighbourhood, and that Brookes should focus on building student accommodation on sites which are not slap-bang in the middle of a residential area.