A CONTROVERSIAL plan for student flats that sparked fears of late night antisocial behaviour has been given the go-ahead.

Residents hit out at a proposal for student accommodation in Oxford amid fears the flats would lead to added noise and disturbance.

But city councillors have now approved the 45 flats in Cantay House, off Park End Street, Oxford.

Those living near the development are concerned at the impact on a street which has been described as already full of bars and clubs.

Linda East, who lives in The Stream Edge, wrote to the council to object to the development.

She said: “The noise and disturbance would be vastly increased.

“We already suffer from the noise created by the bars and clubs in the area and to add to this extra volume would cause great disturbance.”

In November, the latest month for which the figures are available, Thames Valley Police recorded three incidents of anti-social behaviour, nine of violent crime, five of public disorder and “weapons” and one of criminal damage and arson.

There was a total of 22 incidents described as “other theft”.

Tony Joyce told councillors Oxford Civic Society opposed the scheme. Speaking afterwards he said: “It is not clear who the operators are going to be and what type of students will be accommodated there. Postgraduate students, for example, are more sedate. It is first year students who may cause more disturbance to other residents, particularly late at night.”

The Victorian Cantay House is owned by Cantay Investments, which put in the application to Oxford City Council.

Last year the city council’s licensing authorities said the street was “full” when they kicked-out an application for bar Las Iguanas to extend its weekend licence by an hour-and-a-half.

Local city councillor Susanna Pressel agreed.

She said: “When it comes to bars the street is definitely full.

“But student accommodation is not relevant to that and I don’t think it will contribute to the bad aspects of Park End Street.”

City council officers gave their backing to the proposal on Wednesday, stating it would “contribute to the character and appearance of the area”.

They added that the concerns raised to the proposal did not “constitute sustainable reasons for refusing the application”.