Agenda and minutes

No declarations of interest were made by Members.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Assistant Director City Development reported that, as formal comments from the Highways Authority were still awaited, this application should be deferred until such time as the comments were received. This, it was hoped, would be in time for presentation to the next meeting of this Committee.

RESOLVED that, this application be deferred.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The City Development Manager presented the application for the demolition of the existing garage buildings on site to construct a 68 bedroom student accommodation development, split into one three storey block with under storey to rear and one two storey block separated by an open courtyard. Associated facilities including common areas, waste and cycle storage, offices and plant were included.

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

Councillor Owen attended the meeting and spoke on this item under Standing Order No. 44. He made the following points:-

§ support for the officer’s recommendation for refusal;

§ contrary to Policy C2(a) of the Exeter St James Neighbourhood Plan;

§ imbalance between student accommodation and non-student accommodation within the Duryard and St James ward and how this application, if approved, would further add to this imbalance;

§ contrary to Policy H5 of the Local Plan;

§ paragraph 5.1 of the Student Accommodation Developments in Residential Areas Supplementary Planning Guidance; and

§ the exacerbation of already difficult parking within the area and the effect this may have on adjoining areas.

Councillor Mitchell attended the meeting and spoke on this item under Standing Order No. 44. He made the following points:-

§ support for the officer’s recommendation for refusal;

§ the application being contrary to the Exeter St James Neighbourhood Plan;

§ the current imbalance between student and non student accommodation within the Duryard and St James ward and how approval of this application would further add to this;

§ the character of Well Street and the effect approval of this application would have on it; and

§ the need for a more mixed type of housing within the area;

He responded to a Member’s query that he would have been happy to accept this application if it had been for social housing.

Annette Plaut spoke against the application. She raised the following points:-

§  support for the officer’s recommendation for refusal;

§  application is contrary to the Exeter St James Neighbourhood Plan;

§  the imbalance currently experienced between student and non-student accommodation within the area and how this application will increase this imbalance; and

§  the change in character of Well Street due to the amount of student accommodation within it and how this application would increase this further.

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

§  the scheme, as submitted, was as a result of discussions with the Council’s Planning Officers, although he stated that he had found an inconsistent and unclear view amongst officers with whom he had worked; and

§  a rigorous design process had been followed to ensure that the scheme was, in his opinion, of a sustainable design, met the Council’s criteria for purpose built student accommodation and was appropriate for the location within Well Street.

Responding to Members’ queries he advised that the scheme in front of the Committee was for student accommodation and not social housing.

The recommendation was for refusal for the reason as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The City Development Manager presented the application for the demolition of the existing double garage and erection of a two bedroom dwelling.

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

The City Development Manager advised that there had been some confusion as to the ownership of some of the land contained within the application. Whilst this was not a material planning matter (as applications could be submitted on land not owned by the applicant), this would have an impact on the private amenity space for both the proposed and existing dwellings. A decision on the application needed to be deferred until notice had been properly served on Western Power Distribution (WPD) and a period for comment had elapsed. If the land known as the Western Power Distribution land was not in the ownership of the applicant at the time of development (if the application were approved), the private amenity space for both properties would fall short of the Council’s requirements. He therefore suggested that the application be delegated to the Assistant Director, City Development, subject to prior consultation with the Chair of this Committee, with an additional condition as follows – “that planning consent would only be implemented if the land known as the Western Power Distribution land was included in the private amenity space for both the proposed and existing dwellings”.

Responding to Members’ queries’ he advised that the requirement for private amenity land was a minimum of 45 metres square per property, this was only achieved if WPD land was available.

Councillor D Henson attended the meeting and spoke on this item under Standing Order No. 44. He made the following points:-

§  the overbearing nature of this development on the surrounding area, particularly with regards to overlooking, lack of parking and the development of a corner plot; and

§  requested that a site inspection be undertaken.

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

§  the application site was too small for the development as proposed;

§  car parking was an issue within the area, particularly as some of the properties had drives which, in her opinion, were impossible to use for the parking of vehicles; and

§  there was a concern regarding a mains sewer which it was believed ran through the application site.

Mr Teague spoke in support of the application. He clarified that he would not be looking to purchase the land known as the Western Power Distribution land as he believed that amenity land for each dwelling would be in excess of the Council’s requirements.

The recommendation was for delegation to the Assistant Director City Development, subject to prior consultation with the Chair of this Committee.

RESOLVED that the application be delegated to the Assistant Director City Development, subject to prior consultation with the Chair of this Committee.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Assistant Director City Development presented the application for the change of use from office to student accommodation of the eastern and western podiums and construction of extension and two additional floors of student accommodation comprising 247 units, cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping and associated facilities. (Amended Description)

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

The Assistant Director reported the following as additions to the circulated report:-

§  that following receipt and approval of an application for prior notification for the conversion of the existing tower block from office accommodation to student accommodation, the Highway Authority had requested that the redevelopment and the one which is the subject of this application, be tied together by an appropriate condition; and

§  an additional heritage statement had been submitted and Heritage England were now positive about this current application identifying less than substantial harm.

He responded as follows to Members’ queries’:-

§  that the two additional floors to the podium, together with the extensions thereto and their conversion would raise approximately £1.8 million in New Homes Bonus (over a 6 year period) as well as £600,000 in Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). With regards to the latter, the Committee was reminded of the Council’s procedures for consideration and allocation of CIL monies;

§  that there would be no residential accommodation within the ground floor of the buildings due to the potential risk of flooding;

§  that an archaeological assessment had been included with this application, which had addressed various issues including the leats which run through the site; and

§  that issues raised by Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service would be addressed as part of the Building Regulation requirements.

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

§  that the car park associated with the Fitness First building was not part of the application site;

§  the scheme before Members had been developed in consultation with officers;

§  that, in his opinion, the development satisfactorily met the Council’s policy on the development of student accommodation, particularly the spread of such accommodation more widely across the City;

§  that there was an over supply of office accommodation within the City, some of which was of a more modern design etc than the accommodation forming the application which had, in his opinion, seen its time, leading to under occupancy and difficulty in retaining tenants; and

§  that the development of this site would see an investment of between £12 - £13 million.

He responded as follows to Members’ queries’:-

§  that he would meet with the Leader of the Council to discuss improvements to amenities in the vicinity, but that any financial contributions attributable to this development would be bound by legal tests governing a Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

§  that he believed that this development would encourage other accommodation in the City currently being used for students to be released elsewhere in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The City Development Manager presented the application for the erection of a six storey building for hotel use comprising 102 bedrooms to replace the previously approved office accommodation (Phase II of the mixed use development planning ref:11/1816/03).

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

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

§  that, in his opinion, the development adversely affects the Quakers’ Meeting House;

§  that insufficient time had elapsed for attempts to find an office use for this site; and

§  that the proposal to extend the hotel could create a continual use of the site rather than one concentrated around normal office hours.

Responding to Members’ queries’ he was of the opinion that the availability of office accommodation within the City was constantly changing, particularly as a consequence of the prior notification requirements.

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

§  that the application before Members was as a consequence of discussions with officers;

§  that, in his opinion, demand for office accommodation in the City was low;

§  that any overlooking of the Quakers’ Meeting House had been restricted by angling of windows in that elevation, together with the use of obscure glazing; and

§  that in overall terms, a mixed use development of the wider site had been delivered but that there had been no interest in the use of the site for office accommodation.

Responding to Members’ queries he advised that he understood that, if approval was forthcoming for the application, the Court Service would not impede access to the site for its development.

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

RESOLVED that planning permission for the erection of a six storey building for hotel use comprising of 102 bedrooms to replace the previously approved office accommodation (Phase II of the mixed use development planning ref:11/1816/03) 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. The Assistant Director City Development referred to an appeal on non-determination at Countess Wear and judicial review of the decision at Exeter City Football Club.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To advise that the next Site Inspection Party will be held on Tuesday at 12 July 2016

9.30 a.m.  The Councillors attending will be Lyons, Denham and Edwards.

RESOLVED that the next Site Inspection Party will be held on Tuesday 12 July 2016 at 9.30 a.m. The Councillors attending will be Lyons, Denham and Edwards.

The Chair asked Members to consider the current arrangements for Member Planning Briefings with a view to there being a discussion on this in due course.