Avenue Campus Development

Please see our Uni Development info hub for everything you need to know about what's happening, and how to make the most effective objection

Other Important links:
Object to tree felling on Avenue campus Forum discussion re: the development University proposal

Avenue Campus Development Info Hub

This page is intended as an information hub for all Highfield residents not just OTRA.

It’s not too late – the deadline is now Jan 10!

UoS Proposal How to make your comment count Tree Fellings

Montage

Proposal

You may have received a leaflet outlining the development proposals, but you can also see it on the University website here  (although it seems to be different to the leaflet and constantly changing). Further to consultation with an architect our suspicions were confirmed that (a) the proposal presentations are very misleading and (b) the entire scheme is overdeveloped and unnecessarily obtrusive.

We won’t duplicate all the images here, but this example shows trees two or three times their actual height. The diagram makes it look as if the trees will actually provide adequate screening

Height of trees in proposal

However the tallest tree on the site is only 23m  (which the University have recently applied to fell along with at least 24 others). Four of these were refused permission as they had been incorrectly diagnosed with ash dieback disease.

In 1993 as a precursor the development of Tauntons school by the university, a  document was drawn up outlining various requirements for the development. You can see the 1994 planning application here or just download the report in regard to the document here. The current architects/planning consultants will have researched this and so know what is deemed to protect character of neighbouring residential areas and Southampton Common; they were appropriate then so why are they not appropriate today?

Extract from the 1994 application delegated report:

Delegated report from SCC

OTRA and Highfield Residents’ objections

Your comments are crucial. It will not work to rely on OTRA/HRA comments. Both University and SCC are likely to mainly take note of sheer numbers of objections.

There is a working group consisting of:

  • OTRA rep (Pete Thomas)
  • SCAPPS (Southampton Commons & Parks Preservation Society) rep (Graham Linecar)
  • Khartoum residents rep (Ed Hill)

You can contact OTRA via telephone or email form here. OTRA members may discuss on the community forum here.

After scrutinising the proposals, researching historical documentation around the development of this site and attending the University presentation we are confident we can  advise residents on the best way to ensure the best outcome from any comments/objections you may have.

We believe this is not a “done deal”, your voice matters! You cannot leave it to the residents’ associations alone  – residents’ comments are crucial at this stage.

We have a model which can be a framework for the effective comments. We advise first and foremost to object in principle against:

  • The height compared to surroundings
  • Density  & inappropriate design
  • Situation so close to neighbouring residences and general impact on a residential area with inadequate screening.

Model for objections:

1 Overdevelopment based on 1996 Development Requirements for Tauntons:

vi. limitations on the height of new development to 2 and 3 storeys. vii… should complement the main building.

The proposed 5-storey box-shaped building is totally out of character with the neighbourhood residences mostly two-storey with pitched roofs. It is way too high and demonstrates no sensitivity when compared to the existing buildings.which are of a high architectural quality.

2 Inappropriate overall design based on 1996 Development Requirements for Tauntons:

iii preservation of overall parkland setting of the site; 

The design creates a dense urbanisation of a verdant suburban setting. A resident said, “it looks like a chunk of city centre dropped down next to the Common.” The architects ignored the SCC Development Guideline requirements, which were mandated in 1994 so what’s changed in respect to the area’s residential and community priorities? Views from the common and residential surroundings will be irretrievably damaged due to:

3 Insufficient screening from the surroundings in the proposal

There are no realistic assurances that the visual aspect and resulting privacy concerns will be addressed by tree planting in any gaps in the current “buffer zone”

Given its proximity to residences it will be impossible to provide the screening as shown in the proposal illustrations in which trees are 45 – 50m tall. Twice as high as the existing tallest tree on the site, a 23m ash which is on death row.

Last month (12/11/24) the University applied to SCC to fell at least 14 mature ash trees on the development site due to Ash die back. This approach flies in the face of  the Woodland Trust advice to allow affected trees to decline naturally. Many more trees will be felled to make way for the development and can only be replaced with saplings.


The above reasons are the ones that can stop this. There are many other reasons to object, including those below, but they will not stop the development or even get addressed adequately.

More specific objectionsWe do very much understand the frustrations around the current parking situation and the perceived worsening of the issue given the very likely impact of this development on our local streets. We are very sure, based on past experience and indeed from the presentation on Tuesday night (Dec 10 2024), that any such objections will just be dismissed with:

“We are bound by the Travel Plan to discourage staff and student driving so campus parking spaces are limited. We suggest and will support an application for a resident parking zone.”

We (OTRA) believe residents should not pay for the University’s failed Travel Plan, however we there is a good chance that the above inconsiderate response from the University will be echoed by the planning department.

We aren’t saying do not object about perceived parking issues, what we advise to is primarily make an objection to the scheme in principle based on planning issues that can’t be ignored and also include your other more specific points. 

The University’s poor record regarding residents’ compaints

Other issues: we have received many complaints from residents saying that as well as parking, whenever they have contacted the university with any other problems such as light or noise pollution these complaints go unheeded. This is in spite of the fact that in 2020 the University “confirmed its commitment to help and support communities in Southampton and the surrounding region by signing a national agreement – pledging to form closer links with local people and organisations” in its Civic University Agreement. 

What about conservation areas?

Both the Oakmount Triangle and Uplands Estate conservation areas border directly on the development and various street views will be dominated by the buildings. According to the presentation given by the University at the HRA meeting on Dec 10, they are already in pre-planning consultations and that they have considered the conservation aspect and do not see any issues. However although there is no conservation protection as the development itself is not within a conservation area, we believe there are huge issues based on the setting and impact on these  conservation areas given that there will be no viable screening.

There are three locally listed buildings that will also be affected: Old Taunton’s School itself, Woodside Cottage in Highfield Road and the Lodge in Oakmount Avenue. Not to mention the historic wall, at least part of which will be demolished and the rest will no longer be visible behind a 5-storey block.

Do please make all your conservation area concerns known.

I’ve already made an objection about one of the “other reasons”

You can always send a second comment.

How to object to the development

(Please do read the above as we believe including the main principles we have outlined are the most effective. The developers will have ready made answers to some of the more specific objections around noise, light and parking)

Email your comment to UoS

Comment template

We object to this development due to the sheer scale and urban look compared to the surrounding leafy neighbourhood and common.

The buildings are too high, dense and boxlike in the context of the surroundings which are mostly two storey family houses with pitched roofs. They do not even fit well with the existing campus buildings which are of a high architectural quality.

They are too close to residential properties. There are not enough trees around it to screen effectively. They are not tall enough to screen (less than half the size of those shown in your plans), and you plan to fell many of them. The deciduous trees you show will only screen during the summer months.

No account was taken of the earlier development guidelines which require 2-3 storey buildings and retain the park-like setting. This is especially important in the context not just of the neighbourhood but the view from the common.

The sheer extra numbers of students will cause enormous problems for local roads. Highfield Road is especially dangerous now due to very narrow pavements that cannot cope with huge numbers travelling between campuses by foot, bicycle, scooter. This is especially bad for wheelchair users, parents with buggies and school children.

[collapse]
View OTRA objection

19 December 2024

This letter represents the views of the Oakmount Triangle Residents’ Association (OTRA) executive committee. The Oakmount Triangle is a community composed of around 200 residences located immediately to the southwest of the Avenue Campus.

We object to this proposal on two main grounds; (i) it will overdevelop the Avenue Campus space far beyond the original development guideline requirements, and (ii) it will have a serious detrimental impact on the local community.

1 Overdevelopment

The proposed five-storey box-shaped buildings are totally out of character with the neighbourhood residences, which are mostly two-storey with pitched roofs. They are far too high and demonstrate no sensitivity in comparison to the existing campus buildings, which are of a high architectural quality. The design creates a dense urbanisation of a verdant suburban setting. A resident said, “it looks like a chunk of city centre dropped down next to the Common.” 

The architects ignored the SCC Development Guideline requirements for the original development of Taunton’s. There has been no change in respect to the area’s residential and community situation, so the constraints that led to the original requirements still exist. Views from the Common and the residential surroundings will be irretrievably damaged. The parkland setting of the front lawn and the historic wall that runs across it will be replaced by a large characterless building.

Furthermore, the development immediately borders and dominates the skyline of two highly important conservation areas: Oakmount Triangle and Uplands Estate. At the presentation, the University representative said that any consideration of the conservation status of these areas would not apply. On the contrary, the University will need to show that irreparable harm will not be inflicted on the setting of these two historically and architecturally valuable areas, along with three locally listed buildings including Taunton’s itself.

Given the proposed development’s proximity to residences it will be impossible to provide the screening – as shown in the misleading proposal illustrations, in which trees appear twice as high as they really are. Drone images have shown that the windows facing Oakmount Avenue will have an unobstructed view into around 100 of the local residents’ windows in the Triangle.                                                                                                                                                                                               

Last month (12/11/24) the University applied to SCC to fell at least 14 ash trees on the development site, supposedly due to ash dieback. This approach ignores the Woodland Trust’s advice to allow affected trees to decline naturally. We have since heard that four of the trees had been mistakenly diagnosed and that the application for felling those healthy trees has been refused. More trees will be felled to make way for the development and can only be replaced with saplings.

The 15m wide landscaped buffer zone, also included in the Development Guideline requirements, has not been properly maintained and is in poor condition. The normal life cycle of trees seems to have been ignored since it was created, so although this area has been thinned out due to trees dying naturally (as well as regular felling) there has been no routine replanting to ensure suitable screening. 

Parts of the cleared areas have even been used for estates maintenance purposes, for example where pioneer sycamore saplings were removed to provide an area for the storage of mulch. As a consequence, there are large patches where there is no screening at all. Where it does exist, it is not tall enough to adequately screen the height of the proposed four- or five-storey development.

Additional planting at this stage will do nothing to provide better screening, particularly to the level required by the proposal. New saplings will take decades to grow to height, and the only trees suggested are deciduous, and so will be bare of leaves from late autumn through to spring.

Since the buffer zone has not been adequately managed since 1996, we cannot expect it to be adequately managed now.

2 Impact on the Community

We have heard the University’s claim that staff and students are discouraged from driving by the Travel Plan policy, under which only staff living more than 3 miles from campus and students with special dispensation can get an on-site parking permit. While this policy is rooted in good intentions, it causes all other students and staff who need or wish to drive to the University to use the local streets as a car park instead. The suggestion by the University that we get a residents’ parking zone shows no attempt to engage with the problem created by the University’s policy. The majority of OTRA residents are not in favour of Residents’ Parking Scheme because of cost and disruption. The University’s approach is to impose a change on us, without recognising the impact or offering to explore mitigation via its own infrastructure or policies.

Many local roads and paths (especially Highfield Rd and Lovers Walk) already have dangerously high numbers travelling to or between the campuses. There are far too many pedestrians, cycles, e-scooters, e-bikes etc. making it hazardous for everyone – but especially wheelchair users, the elderly, and parents with small children. This was highlighted clearly, with thorough evidence-gathering, by the work of the Southampton Common Forum, around five years ago, working in partnership with the University. When questioned at the presentation what the University might do to mitigate the inevitable increased danger due to an extra 480 students using the roads, your representative deflected our concerns, by saying that the roads are the council’s responsibility. It was clear that the University has given no thought at all to the increased pedestrian and wheeled traffic that would result from the proposed development.

Although we appreciate that the majority of students are well behaved, some are not. The local roads are the route back to the proposed development from the pubs in Highfield Lane and Portswood. We understand that people sometimes celebrate and have parties, and that the occasional bit of rowdiness is all part of life, but the sheer volume of extra numbers is likely to make this issue unbearable. In addition, the 480-room accommodation block will be a source of significant noise and light pollution that will affect both the Oakmount Triangle and the amenity of the Little Common.

The proximity of the Avenue Campus to our homes has led to complaints to the University about light and noise in the past. In 2020 the University “confirmed its commitment to help and support communities in Southampton and the surrounding region by signing a national agreement – pledging to form closer links with local people and organisations” in its Civic University Agreement. This should have provided a mechanism through which our concerns could be addressed.  

The sheer size and location of this proposed development completely flies in the face of good community relations. The massive building, 480 extra students, problems of light, privacy and noise for the local residents are all very major concerns to us. But the University still repeatedly fails to respond to residents’ complaints about various issues, and we now have no faith that the situation will improve.

In closing, we summarise as follows:

• The current University proposal is for a very high city centre-type standard student residence, yet the Avenue site has special status being parkland next to the Common with high amenity and biodiversity value, low noise and light pollution, and low-rise buildings. The University was given custodianship of this site under Development Guideline requirements that are breached by the new proposals.

• We therefore recommend that the University return to the drawing board and withdraw the current inappropriate scheme. We recognise that the University seeks to better utilise its Estate, but any future plans for development on the Avenue Campus should reflect that this is a special site, and be supported by public evidence of the expected impact on nature, noise, light/visual screening and transport (traffic and parking), prior to a planning application.

Pete Thomas

Chair of OTRA

[collapse]

Some local residents have copied us into their comments, with permission to publish:

Resident comments

Dear UoS Estate Development Team,

As the owners of xx Orchards Way we would like to submit an objection to the proposed residential development at Avenue Campus, citing concerns regarding the impact on the surrounding area and local residents.

Key Concerns:

  1. Disregard for Established Guidelines

    • Ignored principles from the “Tauntons College Development Guidelines” including requirements for substantial landscape buffers, parkland preservation, height limitations (2-3 storeys), and complementary designs.

  2. Out of Character Development

    • Proposed 4-5 storey buildings are disproportionate to the surrounding area, which consists of lower structures.

    • The hilltop location amplifies the visual impact, disrupting the character of conservation areas like Uplands Estate.

  3. Objection to Residential Use

    • The plan to house nearly 500 students shifts the site from its intended educational purpose.

    • Cited as a cost-saving measure, this development prioritizes university expansion over community interests.

  4. Other Concerns

  • Privacy concerns: Insufficient tree cover, especially in winter.

  • Community disruption: Increased noise, anti-social behaviour, light pollution, and environmental damage.

  • Community amenities: Doubt over accessibility and benefit of retained tennis courts amid the large student population.

  1. Community and Process Frustration

    • The proposal was introduced without adequate consultation time for the local community to organize a response.

Conclusion

We fully oppose the development, deem it unsuitable for the site, and urge UoS to reconsider their approach, prioritizing collaboration with local communities over expedited plans. We request a deadline extension for feedback to February 20, 2025, and a postponement of any planning applications until Q3 2025.


Dear Mr Walsh,

As the owner of xx Oakmount Avenue I strongly object to the proposals for student halls of residence at Avenue Campus.

Building five-storey halls for 480 students is a crass overdevelopment and completely unsuitable for a low-density residential area. The development will have a negative impact on local residents, including from the increase in traffic, noise, light pollution, parking, and lack of privacy for residents adjoining the property boundary.

I am extremely disappointed that the University is engaging so late with local residents when it is already in pre-application talks with the Council. Furthermore, it is also disappointing to receive a highly misleading leaflet which misrepresents the height of the existing trees and also the density of the existing planting buffer.

In particular, I object for the following reasons:

Change of use

The proposed student halls present a major and fundamental change of use, from teaching facilities to student residences. This will create a completely different pattern of activities at the site and at different hours of the day and night. It is not just an extension of the existing use, which is largely limited to weekdays and office hours. Student residences will create additional noise and light and will require further infrastructure to support them, e.g. additional bus services, extra security, deliveries, a gym, laundry, and an unspecified ‘social space’. If the social space, gym and laundry are open all hours and to students from other halls, this could create significant issues.

Overdevelopment and density

The scale and density of this proposed development are completely inappropriate for the site. In October 1993 Southampton City Council adopted the Taunton’s College Development Guidelines. These stipulated that any new development at the site should not exceed two or three storeys, and that the overall parkland setting of the site should be preserved. The current proposals entirely ignore both of these requirements. The proposed five-storey blocks will tower over the adjacent residential buildings to the south and east and will be a tall, impermeable, cliff-like insertion between them and the existing teaching buildings. The scale of the proposed halls with 480 units would be more appropriate to the other proposed sites at Glen Eyre and Wessex Lane, where other large halls are already located and which have suitable infrastructure in place.

Inadequate planting and tree screen

The leaflet distributed to residents makes much of the existing trees on the boundary and how this will be enhanced by new planting. It claims that ‘the existing mature trees provide effective screening’. This is incorrect. The existing trees are largely deciduous and in winter I can see from our first-floor windows all the way to the tennis courts. On that basis, there would be no privacy screen between the proposed halls and existing houses along the perimeter. Also, the cross-sections illustrated in your leaflet exaggerate the height of the existing trees which would not be sufficient to screen five-storey buildings. Any new trees would take years and decades to achieve the sufficient height. The University needs to be more realistic about this tree buffer and needs to be honest with local residents.

Parking

There are long-standing problems with University staff and students parking in Oakmount Avenue during term time, which has knock-on effects for all residents. The statistics about the current Avenue Campus car park use are utterly meaningless, as many students and members of staff chose to park in nearby residential streets and therefore do not appear in the statistics. In addition, the Portswood Broadway traffic scheme which comes into effect in 2025 will further reduce parking provision in the Highfield/Portswood area. Despite free bus travel, many University students do have a car and use it to attend their relevant campus. Also, having students from beyond the Humanities live in the proposed Avenue Campus Halls means that many of the 480 students will have to travel to another campus, which will mean additional car travel.

Noise

The residential streets around Avenue Campus are generally quiet. Noise, particularly at night and in the early morning, travels far. In recent years, there has been significant noise pollution from the former Covid Test Centre at the Campus car park. While this was outside of the University’s control, it nevertheless illustrated the impact of noise so close to our property boundary. I am concerned that potentially all-hours noise from the social space, gym and laundry will affect local residents. These should be sited as far away from the property boundary as possible and their opening hours tightly controlled.

Impact on the Common (SSSI site)

The proposed halls development will be in close proximity to Southampton Common, a Site of Special Scientific Interest. I am concerned about the impact this large development will have on the Common, its flora and fauna, from additional light pollution to increased litter and additional traffic on Highfield Road.

Impact on Highfield Road

The 1993 Development Guidelines stipulated that that vehicle access to the new Avenue Campus should be from Highfield Road only. While this generally seems to work well under the current relatively low usage of the Campus car park, the road and its pavements are insufficient for an additional 480 users, even if on foot, bike or scooter. There is also the current Unilink bus service which presumably would be increased to serve the Halls and to connect them to Highfield Campus. North of Avenue Campus, Highfield Road is narrow, largely one-way and has narrow pavements. It is a much-valued route for pedestrians accessing the Common and for quiet travel by bicycle. Adding additional cars and busses would cause significant problems for local residents and users of the Common. This needs to be considered by the University and the Council.

Poor standard of architectural design

I understand that the drawings in your leaflet and on your website are indicative only. However, box-like ranges of five storeys, clad in red brick and of poor architectural design, are not suitable for the area, the vicinity of two conservation areas, the neighbourhood of Southampton Common, and the setting of the locally-listed former Taunton’s School building. The proposed buildings certainly do not ‘complement the main building’ as the 1993 Development Guidelines require.

Embodied carbon and net zero

Construction and particularly cement manufacture are major contributors to the UK’s carbon footprint. The University has been very busy constructing new buildings in the last decade but there has been no obvious evidence that it is retrofitting its existing building stock or offsetting the carbon cost of erecting new buildings.

Overprovision of student halls in Southampton

There are currently at least two proposals for private student halls in the Highfield/Portswood area, which would provide units for an additional 561 students (61 in St Denys Road, 500 at Portswood Broadway). Together with these proposals, the proposed halls at Avenue Campus appear to be part of a serious overprovision of student accommodation in the city, at a time when universities across the country are, according to the Office for Students and Universities UK, struggling financially. While the two universities are major employers in the city, I am sure the Council will not countenance such an overprovision of student halls at the cost of, for example, affordable housing.

Kind regards,


Dear UoS Estate Development Team,

We, the owners of 52 Orchards Way, are writing to express our full objection to the proposed residential development at Avenue Campus and will oppose a planning application for this scheme. Our house and garden are located on the NE boundary of the site and we are part of the Uplands Estate Conservation Area and UEHA community that exists to protect the significant importance of our estate.

With this proposal, the UoS has shown considerable insensitivity regarding the surrounding area and local residents and complete ignorance of the “Tauntons College Development Guidelines” which were set out after public consultation of the site and which guided the last development when Tauntons College was converted and extended for the UoS academic and research use.

Below I have set out our specific objections. At this stage, our opinion is that the site is not developable for residences or to the extent proposed which is out of character with the parkland setting of the local areas. We are aware there is considerable objection in the local area, particularly with homeowners near the site like ourselves and local community groups.

Existing Guidance Ignored

With reference to the attached document “Aplication_941460”, four principles stand out:

ii. substantial landscaping including landscape buffers (15m wide) along the southern and eastern boundaries;

iii. preservation of overall parkland setting of the site;

vi. limitations on the height of new development to 2. and 3 storeys;

vii. new development should complement the main building.

To us it is clear, that the site was thoughtfully protected through these guidelines to prevent any expansive developments and to maintain the character which is so important to the conservation areas surrounding the site (Uplands, Oakmount and The Common).

Out of Character

At four and five storeys, the proposed building dwarfs everything around it. Not only this, the site is at the top of a hill which would exaggerate its huge presence to the nearby housing. This is far from complementary to the existing building or parkland settings that surround it. In the local area, there are no buildings of more than three storeys (Highfield House and Avenue Campus). At five storeys, it is clear that the development will be seen from the Uplands Estate Conservation Area which is an area of special architectural interest and protected. Anything affecting the visual aspects of the estate is a red line, I invite your development team to visit our estate to understand why this building would negatively impact the estate. I have attached the Uplands Estate Leaflet 1998 for your attention. The proposed development would be a permanent stain upon Highfield, a beautiful area that has benefitted from considerable effort to maintain its character over many years through guidance and enforcement.

Residential Use Objection

A significant part of our objection is the proposed use as residential accommodation for nearly 500 students rather than for educational purposes. We understand that the UoS believes the site to be developable more quickly than other more suitable sites (such as Wessex Lane) or to prioritise the refurbishment of other existing outdated accommodations, such as Glen Eyre, because closure for works is too costly. The idea that this development has been proposed because it is “the easy option” is insulting to the residents of Highfield and those, like us, who would be directly affected by this and highlights the UoS’s complete contempt and ignorance for anything but its own expansion and commercial goals.  It is the Highfield residents who would be stuck with the largely negative impact that a development of this scale comes with.

Other Concerns

At this early stage, we are not willing to compromise our absolute objection to the proposal as we believe the proposal is beyond anything that may be acceptable to us, other homes on the boundary or the residents of Highfield. Other concerns include, overlooked homes and gardens, noise at night, anti-social behaviour, light pollution and environmental impact on existing trees and wildlife, all of which could easily be discussed in more detail and support our objection.

The, frankly, propaganda leaflet we received concedes that the tennis courts would be retained because of their significant value as a community amenity. We 100% agree they must be retained as they are well-used and valuable, but what use will they be to the local community if nearly 500 students are living on the site? This effectively removes the benefit of the tennis courts from the local residents or UoS staff.

Existing planting on the Southern and Eastern boundaries is not sufficiently tall or dense enough to maintain privacy for any of the gardens or houses on the perimeter, especially in winter. This is something that has been grossly misrepresented in your propaganda leaflet which shows trees being substantially taller than a five storey building, which they are not. Indeed, residents on Khartoum Road have no tree cover. Existing trees provide almost no cover in the winter and a suitably dense cover would take decades to establish.

Finally, we would like to express how unimpressed and angry we feel that this very significant proposal has been sprung upon us and the community with very little time provided to respond. We believe the UoS is attempting to move faster on this than the local communities can (for example, our estate association UEHA meets once a month) and therefore we demand an extension to the initial response deadline to February 20th 2025, and that no planning application is submitted until Q3 2025 at the earliest. We, the affected community, have to respond and organise ourselves in personal time, whereas the UoS has a department of paid staff to lobby the council and community. It is arrogant and unneighbourly for a respected university to operate in this manner and this should be highlighted.

Conclusion

Thank you for reading our response. I hope our position is clear. I have decided to focus our comments on the bigger picture issues rather than material factors such as design specifics, construction, planting, sustainability etc. because the proposal is far from acceptable for the site and we believe there is no precedent for anything to be built on this site at all.

Kind regards,


First of all, I would like to protest in the strongest possible terms over the late notice, absurdly early deadline and the paucity of actual information in the booklet you have distributed. To require a reply by the 20th December is quite unreasonable. Avoiding mentioning something as important as the number of blocks to be built and the number of storeys planned is in my view dishonest and devious.

In more general terms I wish to state my opposition to the whole project.

The building carried out when the site first became the Avenue campus was conditional upon agreement not to build on the current green area and not to impose anything taller than three storeys on the site. The project will have a damaging impact on the conservation areas around and on the daily life of the residents of Highfield who are already beset by students.

The green area around your current buildings is a much valued amenity for people and an important habitat for wild life. It would be very sad to lose it. Southampton University is known for the green open space it has managed to maintain on the main campus. The same should hold for the Avenue Campus.

You have tried to present the tree line as a buffer between the development and the homes around it. It is absurd to suggest that they are tall enough to be a buffer against a five storey building even when in full leaf. When the leaves are off the trees the impact of the buildings will be even greater.

As a resident of the Uplands Estate, I fear that our currently tranquil setting, which residents over many years have worked very hard to maintain, will be polluted by noise, late night activity, artificial lighting and, quite possibly unruly behaviour. I am sure that the residents of the other roads likely to be impacted by this will feel the same. I would suggest that the whole of Highfield has reached a peak-student position and that no more should be demanded of the residents or imposed upon them by an arrogant and unneighbourly university.

Please ensure that adequate notice is given of any further steps you intend to take regarding this matter.

– Patricia Hollowell


Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to express my concerns at the proposed developments at the Avenue Campus Site.  Whilst I understand the University’s desire to increase its own student accommodation portfolio,  I am not convinced that the Avenue Campus proposals are a suitable way forward.  My concerns are as follows: –

1) The original development guidelines are being ignored.  Any changes should be a maximum of 2/3 storeys.

2) The proposed height of the buildings mean that they will be clearly visible from a range of locations.

3) Properties  in Orchards Way, Oakmount Avenue, Heathedene Road, The Oakmount Triangle  and Lovers Lane will be overshadowed by these buildings.  Many houses will be overlooked from student rooms.

4) The proposed tree screening suggestions are risible! Deciduous trees will take MANY years of growing to be of ANY use, and would only provide cover for approximately half of the year.  A significant period, when the trees are in leaf, students would be on vacation!   In addition such trees will never attain the heights required to effectively provide a screen for adjacent properties.

5) Are tennis courts really essential?

6) Has consideration been given to underground parking?  Student and University Parking already causes problems for local residents,  further reduction in spaces, and an increase in students will make this issue even more vexing.

7) There are no retail premises nearby.  The halls will not be catered, so students will need to obtain their own supplies.  Consequently,  there will be increased delivery traffic; use of taxis, cars, e bikes, scooters is also likely  to rise, as well as pedestrian footfall  in an area which already has limited infrastructure and road access.

8 ) Will there be two access points?  From Highfield Road, and also through Heatherdene Road? (the latter providing a shorter access to parts of the main campus). This will cause additional problems for residents in that road.

9) The proposals show buildings in an inordinately close proximity to existing houses, with the associated noise both during construction and when subsequently occupied.

10) The original buildings on the Avenue Campus reflect the consideration given when other nearby properties were built.   The drawings for these proposals show no similar architectural merit.  They appear just to be a high, block like construction, and not even remotely blending in with local properties of 2 possibly 3 storeys, with pitched roofs.

For these reasons I have to register my strong opposition to these proposals.

Yours faithfully,…


I object to the siting, amount and height of development proposed. Permission was granted in 1995 for University use for academic expansion — teaching and research — not student residential use. The site should be safeguarded for teaching and research.

The starting point should have been identification of site constraints, not achieving ‘target accommodation numbers’. Before the formal pre-app public consultation, considerably more analysis is needed to justify marking on a plan what the University considers developable land. Why does it not extend up to the present campus buildings? The leaflet misrepresents the 15m ‘buffer zones’ on east and south boundaries as all that needs leaving of the site without buildings. No, the planted buffer zones were included in the approved development as augmenting an intention to keep built-development close against the existing school, and to provide visual screening between neighbouring homes and the site. If any new build were to be permitted, it should be kept back from east and south boundaries by considerably more than 15m.

The University’s 1994 application complied with City Council design guidelines. The principles it set out remain equally valid today; they are the same conclusions which would be drawn from a proper appraisal of appearance and character of the surroundings — The Common, and low-density residential areas set in a treed, ‘green’ setting. Buildings should be kept close against present buildings. Thermal efficiency of buildings is a higher consideration now than in the 1990’s; thermal efficiency could be improved by attaching new build to the 1990’s buildings with an atrium between. As in the 1993 design guidance, and for the same reason of limiting visual impact on both the distinguished-looking original Taunton’s building, The Common and adjoining residential area, height should be kept to 2/3-storey (max 3 against the present building, 2-storey further out). The design shown in the leaflet represents a gross over-development of the site, out-of-character with surroundings and visually damaging to The Common. It shows a density of development more appropriate to a city centre site than this suburban setting. The illustrations show how built-up and urban the Campus would become with hardly any trees, landscaping or ‘green’, especially when viewed from Highfield Road and The Common. And yet the design seems at pains to protect the gardens at the rear at the expense of the landscaped ‘parkland setting’ (from tree and other planting in the car parks) secured by the 1995 permission.

My home is in the neighbouring Oakmount Triangle Conservation Area. The next-stage consultation will need to show the University’s proposals cause no harm to both this conservation area and to the Uplands Estate conservation area. On the southern boundary, with rear of homes in Oakmount Avenue, the leaflet misrepresents the extent and effectiveness of landscape buffer/screen planting. There is little or no low-level vegetation or screening at the west end of the boundary alongside the level mown grass fronting Highfield Road, and application was made (fortunately rejected) to fell the group of mature ash trees whose leaf-canopy gives the only, seasonal, screening. On this section, building as close to the boundary as shown in the leaflet would so damage residential amenity of homes as to make questionable viability and suitability for continued family residential use as gardens, ground-floor living rooms and bedrooms would be so over-looked.

The immediate surroundings of Avenue Campus are already a mixture of families and students. Increasing the proportion of students will upset that balance. There are concerns about impact on The Common of increased pressure of informal recreation use from 500 more active young persons living immediately next to it, on a site with little, and limited purpose, outdoor recreation space. The leaflet gives no consideration to impact of increased pedestrian traffic not just to Highfield Campus but also via Oakmount Avenue to get to shops, food outlets and bars in Portswood. Nothing is mentioned about disturbance during construction. Nothing is mentioned about servicing of student housing; concerns about disturbance from deliveries and movement, especially early-hours. What changes would result in the catering-offer at Avenue Campus and how would that impact on neighbours?


To whom it may concern,

I wish to object to the proposed development of accommodation on your “Taunton’s site” on Highfield Road.  From your plans the buildings will be too big and not in keeping with the surroundings.  I don’t believe the trees will have any chance of screening the boxy shape of the proposed buildings from local residents, screening both visually and from a noise perspective (the current trees look to be out of all proportion in your pictures and so misleading, hopefully not wilfully).
It is anticipated by the university that the propsed scheme will not bring extra parking pressures to the site.  This may be true as I don’t anticipate students will be allowed to park there, however, an additional 500 students will likely wish to park their cars on the already congested residential roads nearby.   
The university prides itself on its good links with the local community.  Now is the time to show that and stop the planning for building on the Avenue Campus.
Sincerely,

[collapse]

If you have already commented on a specific issue such as parking or noise, it is still worth making another comment based on the above strategy to make comment that may have a better chance of affecting a decision.

Following this pre-planning stage there is expected to be a formal planning application to SCC in early 2025 and residents will also be able to comment on that.

What are the staff saying?

Social media comments

They have made finding the info harder, presumably to reduce complaints. I pointed out having all info sessions on Wednesdays at 12noon to 1pm was unhelpful. Their response was that thought a lunchtime would be best!!! Lunchtime? There’s no lunchtime break in teaching. Even when there was it was 1pm

— Dr Sonia Zakrzewski (@soniaz.bsky.social) 15 December 2024 at 10:48

There has been horrified reaction from Archaeology. Actually also affects pedagogy as we use the grassed areas for teaching & training, eg survey, recording, gunpowder!

— Dr Sonia Zakrzewski (@soniaz.bsky.social) 15 December 2024 at 10:53

[collapse]

Tree felling

In November the University applied for permission to fell many tree on the campus, including four beautiful large ash trees near the front that would appear to be in the way of the proposed development. The  reason given was ash dieback disease. The Woodland Trust advice is to NOT fell trees with ash dieback but to let them decline naturally (see below)  With that in mind this application is bad enough, but thankfully the SCC arboriculturist decision was to refuse permission for these four trees on the grounds that there was no evidence of ash dieback.

So it seems the UoS tree surgeon misdiagnosed the disease… Even if the trees had ash dieback, we are really concerned there is such a dismissive attitude towards trees that are in their way when clearly felling is not necessary even with ash dieback without there being any clear danger to the public.

According to the SCC Arboriculturalist:

“Trees appear to have normal bud formation and there is no apparent indication of decline. Their loss will have a significant impact on the visual amenity, screening and habitat of the area. Species susceptibility to disease is not considered sufficient justification for their removal.”

View Tree application comments (now closed)

24/00308/TPO and 24/00309/TPO .

Maps of trees

(All trees relevant to this application are the ones with an orange rectangle)

We protect and maintain ecological diversity

As well as aiming to retain as many potentially tolerant ash trees as possible, letting nature take its course by allowing diseased ash trees to decline, we also improve the resilience of our woods to future diseases and climate change…Gardeners and managers of parks and other sites with ash trees can help stop the local spread of ash dieback by collecting the fallen ash leaves and burning, burying or deep composting them. This disrupts the fungus’s lifecycle.

What will it really look like?

Of course we cannot know exactly , but using the building depicted in the UoS brochure, we have shown it in context with a more realistic impression than the brochure shows (with trees twice their actual height!). Disclaimer: we cannot be 100% sure of the perspective so we have been conservative with the estimates. However we do think they are certainly more accurate than illustrations in the proposal brochure. We would welcome any input or critique from architects, surveyors, artists or perspective experts.

View from The Common

View of Avenue Campus from Common

Heatherdeane Rd view

Heatherdene Rd