Agenda and minutes

No declarations of interest were made by Members.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Principal Project Manager Development (HS) presented the application for the construction of flood defence improvements, comprising raising of existing defences and new flood defence walls, embankments and demountable defences.

A total of 47 representations had been received and he explained the details of the scheme broken down into the following zones:-

Zone 1: Cowley Bridge to St. David’s Station.

Zone 2: Station Road to Exwick Playing Fields.

Zone 3: Central Exeter.

Zone 4: The Quay.

Zone 5:Exeter Canal between Trews Weir and Bridge Road.

Zone 6:St. James Mill Leat and Countess Wear.

Because of the large area covered by the application and as requests to speak had come from members of the public living in the different zones, the Chair agreed on this occasion to accept more than one member of the public to speak. This was done on the basis of one speaker only from each of the identified zones.

Mr Runciman (Zone 3) spoke on the application. He raised the following points:-

·      lived in area for 55 years and not opposed to the principle of development;

·      opposed to the destruction of the natural habitat through the covering of a large area with concrete;

·      there will be an adverse impact on the area with environmental damage to the leat area including the island in the middle, loss of trees and impact on wildlife;

·      suggest the introduction of similar features proposed for the Quay area; and

·      urge Members to visit the site, an unique area of Exeter, before reaching a decision.

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

• representing the majority of residents in the area; and
• house insurance covers flooding.

Mr Coffin (Zone 6) spoke on the application. He raised the following points:-

·      lived in area for 43 years and speaking on behalf of 30 households;

·      oppose sluice bridge which is 46 metres long and 11 feet wide and is for heavy lorries for maintenance only and will divide and destroy a beauty spot in the centre of the community. It is felt that a light foot bridge/sluice would suffice;

·      proposal to replace marshland by a “lunar landscape”, which is claimed is environmentally unimportant, is wrong. Mammals, fish and insects abound and 60 bird varieties have been observed in the past two years;

·      under “no net loss” wetlands will be catered elsewhere but these, desirable as they are, are on private land and out of sight and out of mind;

·      an alternative proposal would enable the saving of most of the marshes and could be further improved by the inclusion of a lagoon/wetlands similar to Matford – there would be far less loss of flood plain over that proposed by the Environment Agency. A restrictive viewing platform could be included for residents, cyclists, pedestrians and school children enjoying the Exe trail;

·      a temporary Bailey Bridge has been offered by 24 Commando Regiment to transport soil across the Exe and save £200,000; and

·      request deferral of the issues of the sluice and landscaping until a better  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Assistant Director City Development presented the application for the erection of Class A1 foodstore (1,635 sq m gross) with associated access, car parking and landscaping, and other associated works.

He reported six additional letters of support and a petition of 323 signatures in support. An on line petition objecting to the proposal had also been received with 67 signatories raising no new issues.

Mr Dart spoke against the application. He raised the following points:-

• the longstanding Local Plan Strategy is to establish a new residential community with a community hub in the form of a local centre at Seabrook Orchards, comprising a local store, community hall, primary school, doctor’s surgery/pharmacy, cafe, crèche and other facilities;
• the hub will deliver facilities which are not being provided elsewhere in the Newcourt development area. The local centre is required as a key part of the development, binding its delivery into the Section 106 agreement;
• the first phase of 200 houses as Seabrook Orchards, including significant areas of open space, pitches, community allotments, open space and other essential infrastructure, is currently under consideration;
• Bloor Homes are contracted to deliver “Phase 1” including its infrastructure.  The new Church of England primary school has detailed approval and construction is about to commence in July;
• the planned local centre is a fundamental part of the sustainability of the Seabrook Orchards community and the Newcourt Urban Extension and will not be viable if the proposed Aldi proposal is granted planning permission;
• the retail element of the local centre is essential to its success and, without it, the doctor’s surgery/health centre, community hall, crèche and cafe will not proceed; 
• the Council’s retail consultant, GVA have advised that Seabrook Orchards Local Centre is a sequentially preferable alternative site for the Aldi proposal.  This is a fundamental reason for refusal of the Aldi application;

• in terms of impact, GVA have advised that there is a significant adverse impact on planned investment in the Seabrook Orchards Local Centre in planning policy terms. GVA have also confirmed that there will be a significant adverse impact on Topsham if the Aldi proposal and the Seabrook Orchards Local Centre both proceed; and  
• providing the Aldi does not proceed, there are viable plans for a foodstore to be delivered at Seabrook Orchards.

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

• a sustainable local community shop is proposed which can be accessed  by foot or cycle and it will be located in the centre of the development;
• more jobs will be created than by the Aldi scheme because of the mix of community shop, doctors surgery, cafe and school and the Centre is part of the Local Plan;
• although the Aldi store would fit they did not wish to locate on this site. The community shop will be a good size and provide basic foodstuffs; and
• although food-stores exist in a very competitive market believe that the nature of the store proposed will be a success.

Mr Templeton, spoke in support of the application. He raised the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

The Assistant Director City Development presented the application for the development of four dwellings (three terrace units and one detached).

Mr Cook spoke against the application. He raised the following points:-

·      speaking on behalf of local residents;

·      cars park both sides of Percy Road; which makes manoeuvring through the road and also in and out of the proposed development site very difficult. Either the development proceeds which will be of great inconvenience to all living in the road or the car parking along the street is reduced - both options are not acceptable;

·      an experienced lorry driver helping with delivering furniture remarked that construction and delivery vehicles will experience great difficulties in accessing the site; and

·      road condition is already poor and will result in further deterioration if the development proceeds.

Members referred to ownership of adjoining land by the City Council and the feasibility of an alternative scheme using additional land suggesting that construction could be achieved through Retail Park Close. It was noted that the County Council Highways Engineer had not objected to the scheme and had confirmed that a permanent access to serve the residential units from Percy Road was preferable and access for construction vehicles during the construction period from the same access was satisfactory.

Ms Boobier, spoke in support of the application. She raised the following points:-

• the development will contribute to the Council’s ability to meet its housing land supply requirements;
• the development meets the requirements of the residential design SPD, respects the urban grain of the immediate area, can accommodate all highway and emergency requirements and will not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring residential amenity;
• the application was deferred at a previous Planning Committee for consideration to be given to an alternative means of vehicular access off Retail Park Close due to concern with regard to loss of on-street parking on Percy Road. This has been discussed with highway consultants, the County Council and City Council. The applicant does not own the land required for a vehicular access off Retail Park Close and it would be unreasonable for the applicant to be put in a ransom position when a suitable and an appropriate access off Percy Road can be provided which is to a standard that satisfies the Highway Authority and is capable of being delivered. Percy Road is the appropriate access point for a residential access as it serves existing residential development and Retail Park Close is not a suitable residential access point to serve the development; and
• the proposed Percy Road access had been reworked in order to reduce the on-street parking spaces that would be lost by the provision of the access road from the equivalent of 3 spaces to the equivalent of 1 on-street parking space to seek to address the concerns raised.

Members were circulated with an update sheet - attached to minutes.

Members felt that it was unfortunate that further progress had not been made with utilising additional land adjacent to the site which was in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MH) presented the application for reserved matters for construction of 148 dwellings and associated works. (Phase 1 development area).

Mr Vanstone spoke on the application. He raised the following points:-

·      not objecting to the proposal, but requesting further consultation with the developer regarding the access to 129 Hill Barton Road;

·      a new drive with landscaping and boundary fencing for privacy was included in the outline planning details in 2012 but the developer had not been in contact for two and a half years and therefore request that the developer speak to me;

·      wish to relocate the access to 129 Hill Barton Road slightly to the east and away from the junction onto Hill Barton Road. This access will be safer than access on to two lanes; and

·      Devon County Council have indicated that there is no objection to the access subject to a satisfactory gradient.

Mr Biddle, spoke in support of the application. He raised the following points:-

• outline consent for residential development had been granted on 29 November 2013 allowing for the construction of up to 750 dwellings, a mixed use centre, public open space, highway access and associated infrastructure works;
• the applications are for 148 dwellings against the outline and a small full application for 18 dwellings on land acquired by the applicant after outline consent was granted and collectively form its Phase I area of development within the Monkerton & Hill Barton Masterplan Study Area;
• since September 2014 Persimmon Homes has worked closely and constructively with officers to produce an acceptable scheme. A number of significant changes have been made to the proposal throughout the life of the application and the scheme accords with adopted policy and guidance;
• through extensive dialogue, improvements have been made to the layout; the design of the house types; the form and quantum of residential parking; and overall densities and the scheme is better suited to its context;
• a key consideration of all residential development is highway safety. The principle access point off Hill Barton Road was agreed at outline stage and the applicant has engaged positively with Highway Engineers with Technical Approval for off-site works being granted at the beginning of the month; 
• regarding on-site highway considerations the applicant has worked closely with Devon County Council Highways. The proposed visibility splays, carriageway widths, and the quantum and form of parking are considered acceptable by all parties;
• an agreement has been reached on affordable housing; and
• the design, use of quality materials together with a sympathetic layout and the retention of existing landscape features ensure an effective use of land that will be a positive addition to the city and an attractive proposition for future residents.

Members were circulated with an update sheet - attached to minutes.

The recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

RESOLVED that, subject to the completion of a deed of variation of the existing Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MH) presented the application for the development of 18 dwellings and associated works.

Members were circulated with an update sheet - attached to minutes.

The recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

RESOLVED that, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, relating to District Heating and affordable housing,  planning permission for the development of 18 dwellings and associated works be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:-

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Assistant Director City Development presented the application for the demolition of existing double garage and shed and the erection of new two storey dwelling

Ms Carr spoke against the application. She raised the following points:-

·      the proposal will greatly increase the likelihood of break-ins and burglaries with easy access over the boundary;

·      it would reduce the sense of light and space along Hoopern Lane and will lead to further anti social behaviour and could become a magnet for undesirable activity;

·      the proposal is against the Local Plan as there will be no space for family vehicles or vehicles for the disabled;

·      no provision for delivery or emergency vehicles, skips, construction and utility vehicles;

·      the area is an arts and crafts setting with brick render whereas the proposal; would see the use of corrugated sheet and is against the residential design guide;

·      the proposal will lead to the loss of open space and garden area and such “garden grabbing” will set an unacceptable precedent with a 12 metre wall out of place in this area of trees and low profile garages;

·      the late submission of revised plans showed a high mezzanine floor which will overlook the garden of neighbour; and

·      the property likely to be occupied by students.

Mr Thompson spoke in support of the application. He raised the following points:-

·      the two key planning issues are whether there will be a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties would harm to the streetscape and conservation area and if the proposal fails to meet the design guidance. Believe that the answer is no in both cases;

·      understand the concern that the proposal would not comply with planning policy and guidance but the amenity will be preserved with the dwellings being 30 metres apart and screened by additional planting. The ground floor will not be overlooked and security will be enhanced;

·      both Hoopern Lane and the Conservation area will be preserved and enhanced and there will not be a detrimental impact on the street scene and Conservation Area. The proposal adds security to this residential area;

·      the proposal will be of a high quality and will provide a high quality precedent to any future development that may occur;

·      the dwelling will comply with the neighbourhood plan and will be occupied by the applicant; and

·      the amenity area left for the flat will be 30 square metres and the plans for a mezzanine area were for illustration purposes only and is outside the application area and does not require consent.

Members felt that the proposal would result in over-development and possibly set a precedent for further “mews style” developments and would therefore be detrimental to the existing residential area. They were concerned about the lack of amenity space for the immediate neighbour and believed that the garden provided insufficient space. Hoopern Lane was narrow and not a highway and additional traffic could be generated by this proposal.

The recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions as set out in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Assistant Director City Development presented the application for the change of use from B1 to D1 – Non residential institutions.

The recommendation was for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

RESOLVED that planning permission for the change of use from B1 to D1- Non residential institutions be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:-

The report of the Assistant Director City Development was submitted.

            RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The schedule of appeal decisions and appeals lodged was submitted.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To advise that the next Site Inspection Party will be held on Tuesday 14 July 2015 at

9.30 a.m.  The Councillors attending will be Choules, Prowse and Edwards.

RESOLVED that the next Site Inspection Party be held on Tuesday 14 July 2015 at 9.30 a.m. The Councillors attending will be Lyons, Prowse and Edwards.