I can see how that would be true for building regs (though not sure why - in general the standards for commercial buildings are higher, not lower, than those for residential buildings if anything in my limited experience).
But isn't 'look' more a matter for planning permission/listing/conservation area rules? Why would those be any different? Speculating, perhaps this is more a case of large developers having the resources to get their schemes in front of higher level decision makers who are more able and willing to make exceptions?
Student housing doesn’t officially classify as housing. It falls into the murky category of “sui generis” (Latin for “of its own kind”). As it falls outside a specific use class, it doesn’t have to adhere to the usual standards associated with dwellings (class C3). Local authorities differ in the their approaches, but student accommodation is usually either treated as a hotel (C1) or residential institution (C2), the same category as care homes, hospitals and boarding schools. Due to their limited occupation, these building types are immune from many of the codes that govern residential dwellings – from space standards to daylight and acoustics.
Daylight is the relevant thing here. This building would be too dark inside to meet housing standards, but it's okay for student accommodation.
You got it. Plus the developers have access to more and more expensive lawyers than council planning departments so with enough pressure they can get it called in and do pretty much whatever they like. As in this case.
But isn't 'look' more a matter for planning permission/listing/conservation area rules? Why would those be any different? Speculating, perhaps this is more a case of large developers having the resources to get their schemes in front of higher level decision makers who are more able and willing to make exceptions?