Agenda and minutes

No declarations of interest were made by Members.

In view of the significance of the planning application below and the multitude of issues which need to be taken into account, the application is to be considered at an Extraordinary Meeting of the Council in the Guildhall on 14 December 2015 starting at 6.00pm.

APPLICATION NO: 15/0791/01

LOCATION: Exeter Bus & Coach Station Redevelopment Area, Paris Street, Exeter, EX1

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing buildings at Exeter Bus & Coach Station, no. 188 Sidwell Street & nos 1-29 (odds) Paris Street for a comprehensive retail-leisure led mixed use development comprising Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 [retail including food & drink uses], D1 & D2 [assembly & leisure] & including a new Leisure Centre & new Bus Station, with associated access landscaping and public realm works.

In view of the significance of the planning application below and the multitude of issues which need to be taken into account, the application would be considered at an Extraordinary Meeting of the Council in the Guildhall on 14 December 2015 starting at 6.00pm.

APPLICATION NO: 15/0791/01

LOCATION: Exeter Bus & Coach Station Redevelopment Area, Paris Street, Exeter, EX1

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing buildings at Exeter Bus & Coach Station, no. 188 Sidwell Street & nos 1-29 (odds) Paris Street for a comprehensive retail-leisure led mixed use development comprising Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 [retail including food & drink uses], D1 & D2 [assembly & leisure] & including a new Leisure Centre & new Bus Station, with associated access landscaping and public realm works.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) presented the application for construction of a six storey building comprising ground floor retail use and student accommodation for 25 studio units.

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.

Mrs Caroline Fox spoke against the application. She raised the following points:-

·         live in Longbrook Street and viewed original plans, elements of which have been changed during the planning process, including removal of timber cladding;

·         only four bicycle parking spaces have been provided which will be insufficient for the 25 student flats proposed;

·         some flats are to be for use by the disabled but, as all have fold down beds, there would appear to be insufficient room for this cohort;

·         the retail space on the ground floor is unnecessary especially as space reserved for retail in Portland House opposite, also a student block, is yet to be occupied;

·         the height remains a concern as the building will be twice as high as the adjacent property and it is considered that it will be out of character with the area. Although Portland House opposite possesses six storeys, the building is set back further from the pavement edge and the top floor is also set back on the building itself. The Portland House has a larger footprint and the height is therefore proportionate. This proposal will be closer to the pavement edge than Portland House; and

·         this development will not improve the gateway to Longbrook Street.

Members, referring to the small size of the rooms suggested that the development would benefit from a community or amenity room and that a launderette would also be beneficial. It was noted that the proposal was not at the high end of student accommodation, as was the case with some other student provision in the City, and that some students would opt for cheaper accommodation. They might also be attracted to a city centre location. It was reported that there was no provision for disabled students and that such provision was not a requirement but that 25 cycle parking spaces were to be provided. There would not be 24/7 warden coverage but a student management plan would ensure suitable arrangements in respect of student welfare, security and with appropriate communication channels for local residents.

It was also noted that the University Guild was not a statutory consultee but that it did receive the weekly list. Members felt that the issue of consultation, as well as accommodation for disabled students and Guild views on student accommodation in general, could be beneficially raised at the University Task and Finish Group.

RESOLVED that subject, to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country planning Act 1990 securing a Student Management Plan, planning permission for construction of a six storey building comprising ground floor retail use and student accommodation for 25 studio units be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:-  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

The City Development Manager presented the application for six residential flats, car parking and associated facilities 15/0907/03); and Reserved Matters Application (Pursuant to Outline Planning Permission granted on 27 July 2015, ref 14/1605/01) for the approval of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of 22 dwellings on part of outline site (15/0909/02).

The Section 106 Agreement was proposed to be revised to take account of the variation to the open space requirement and to the affordable housing. It was proposed to deliver the latter on land to the rear of this site which the applicant was to acquire also for housing. The open space, which would exceed the minimum requirement of 10%, would then serve both developments. In addition, a commuted sum of £42,000 would be provided for improvements to the Recreation Ground playing area. This money could also be used to facilitate access from these developments to the park.

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

Councillor Baldwin, having given notice under Standing Order No.44, spoke on the item. She raised the following points:-

·         at the outline stage it was understood that some of the homes would be for Topsham residents but this now appears to have been a “backdoor” approach to achieve approval for a development in an environmentally sensitive area and that this undertaking will not be kept;

·         there has been no change since the Committee meeting on 2 November in respect of the height of the buildings and the provision of the play area. The provision of the latter on either the land to the rear of the site which the applicant is looking to acquire or the land to the side of the development close to the motorway are only suggestions;

·         the Topsham Gap is an important landscape setting which will be further eroded with this development. The importance of the Gap is recognised through the opposition to the development adjacent to the rugby club by both the planning authority and the local community. The Motorway acts as a distinct boundary;

·         the outline application indicated a lower density and the site was screened by trees to reduce visual impact. Further, the flyer circulated in Topsham suggested that low price homes would be available for Topsham residents;

·         the buildings were also lower in height at the outline stage. Now two blocks of two stories and one three storey block are proposed. The latter, in particular, is similar in height to the motorway embankment and will be unacceptably dominant in the approach into Topsham beyond the motorway bridge;

·         the “21^st Century design for a 21^st Century urban area” is out of keeping with the character of Topsham;

·         the development will destroy the landscape setting; and

·         request the Committee to reject the application and preserve the Topsham Gap.

Mr Burley spoke against the application. He made the following points:-

·         nominated by local residents in Retreat Drive/Wessex Close to make further representations in respect of  the two applications;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Project Officer (Planning) (AL) presented the application for refurbishment and change of use of ground floor to provide 2 no. Class A3 restaurants, including erection of conservatories and laying out of external seating areas; remodelling of public realm including hard and soft landscaping and associated works (Departure from Local Development Plan)

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

It was noted that Historic England had responded to the second consultation on revised drawings and, following on from their initial comments, the revised proposals were deemed to be acceptable.

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

Mrs Forster spoke against the application. She made the following points:-

·         had moved to Trinity House after ill health to benefit from the close proximity of city centre shops in this quiet area overlooking the Roman Walk, the block also including disabled residents and veterans who also valued this quiet location;

·         the presence of restaurants would therefore disturb this quiet, especially during the evenings. Both would possess outside seating areas in the form of conservatories extending out of the restaurants and these would be overlooked by the balconies to the flats which were often used by residents;

·         opening hours for the restaurants of 08.00 hours to 12 midnight Friday and Saturday and 08.00 hours to 23.00 hours the rest of the week would disturb residents particularly at close of business with clearing up, removal of chairs and departure of diners; and

·         there are already a number of restaurants in the city centre with more to be provided at both the Guildhall and the proposed Bus and Coach station re-development.

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

• Senior Asset Manager at The Crown Estate with responsibility for Princesshay including Broadwalk House and previously employed by Land Securities and am familiar with Princesshay, Broadwalk House and the City Centre generally;
• the City Centre is the most appropriate location for restaurants and issues covered are perceived loss of offices, residential amenity and heritage;
• the application properties have not been in office use for some time the last uses being an Estate Agent and medical consulting room. The argument that the proposals will result in the loss of office floor space and in some way be contrary to policy is misleading. Nevertheless, the units comprise less than 5% of Broadwalk House as a whole and both units are vacant and providing no employment opportunities. Currently, and not including these units, about 40% of Broadwalk House is vacant. The proposals will secure the re-occupation of the space by two restaurants and deliver approximately 40 new jobs;
• the proposals do not physically affect the continued use of the upper floors for Class B1 offices and there will be no changes in their access arrangements or total floor space currently in Class B1 use;
• it is common in town centres in the UK for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

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 15 December 2015 at 9.30 a.m.  The Councillors attending will be Edwards, Lyons and Spackman.

RESOLVED that the next Site Inspection Party will be held on Tuesday 15 December 2015 at 9.30 a.m.The Councillors attending will be Bialyk, Edwards and Lyons.