A developer says it anticipates it will be appealing a decision to reject plans for two student tower blocks in Nottingham – one of which would have become the city’s tallest building.
CODE Students (Nottingham) Limited submitted plans to develop a vacant site next to the Victoria Centre, between Glasshouse Street and Cairns Street.
Under the new plans, CODE wanted to build one 19-storey and one 27-storey tower that would sit above a plinth.
The southern tower would be 22 storeys when including the plinth, while the northern tower would be up to 30 storeys, including the plinth, making it the tallest building in Nottingham.
Both towers would have featured a total of 1,252 studio flats. Development of the site has long been in the pipeline.
In 2014, Nottingham City Council approved plans to expand the shopping centre onto the site, but this never materialised. The site was most recently used by children’s charity Base 51, but has been vacant since 2021.
But a council planning committee blocked the plans at a meeting on Wednesday (September 17).
Planning officer Rob Percival outlined the reasons for the recommended rejection of the scheme.
He said both the University of Nottingham and Nottingham Trent University – and their student unions – had objected based on the type of apartment.
The design of the building had also been through a number of design review panels, separate from the council, and all but one determined it was inappropriate, he said.
There were further concerns over the impact on heritage assets and public realm, as well as highways, with potential problems arising from the collection of 103 large bins, the pick-up and drop-off of students, and deliveries, all off a main arterial route through the city.
A viability assessment had also found the developer would not have to provide any money to improve the local area and opportunities within it – known as a Section 106 contribution.
Cllr Sam Harris (Lab) said the costs of studio flats are typically “astronomical” and said he was concerned about the “chaos” during the pick-up and drop-off of students.
“I really want that area site to be used for housing, student accommodation, I really like the idea of commercial units there as well to tie into the Vic Centre. But I think there are some real concerns around logistical elements.”
Cllr Graham Chapman (Lab) and Cllr Kevin Clarke (Ind) both said they had issue with the way the developer had criticised the council through media reports.
“The way this has been handled, the reports in the media, [there have been] some very unsavoury comments from the developers towards city council,” Cllr Clarke said.
He added: “My main concern is congestion on the street. It is already at a standstill. It would cause absolute chaos.
“Vacancy rates are reducing for purpose-built student accommodation. We’ve already got 2,500 units being built at the moment.”
Cllr Kirsty L Jones (Lab) raised safeguarding concerns for students, adding: “Especially with the scale of this building, that is going to be 25 floors where students have no communal space whatsoever.
“Students might not be able to check in on each other. It’s a real safeguarding issue so I can understand why the universities are objecting to it. Amenity and public realm is not sufficient for the vast volume of students using this space.”
Speaking after the meeting, Chris May, of law firm Freeths, which has been assisting CODE, criticised the city council for not allowing developers and the public to speak during planning committee meetings, unlike some other councils in the county.
He said: “A councillor criticising people for presenting views to them when there is no other way to do it? Don’t be a councillor, then.
“It is entirely one-sided, particularly when you cannot speak in the room.
“We would have had a student management plan put in place. People would have been redirected to public car parks nearby at specific times.
“These were fundamental errors that were not corrected during the meeting.”
CODE managing director Jamie Lewis added: “Appeal costs will be several hundreds of thousands of pounds.
“It is clearly suitable for appeal. We were hoping we wouldn’t need to be in this position, but we were faced with a planning team entrenched in their decision.”
• Residents on ‘unique’ Nottingham private estate oppose student block plans
• Cross-party agreement on support for fairer flood funding in Nottinghamshire
