Agenda and minutes

Members declared the following interests and left the meeting:-

The Assistant Director City Development presented the application for outline consent for up to 123 houses and associated infrastructure, with all matters reserved except for access. He set out the planning history to the site, the implications on the natural habitat, the implications of the inability of the Devon County Council Development Management Committee to provide guidance relating to highways and how this should affect the decision process.

He reported in detail on the implications of planning law, the absence of a five year housing supply and the need to consider the presumption in favour of sustainable development which for decision making meant approving development proposals that were in accord with the development plan without delay. Further, where the development plan was out of date granting permission unless any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in this National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole or unless specific policies in the Framework indicated development would be restricted.

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

·         the development will lead to an increase in traffic on Topsham Road which is already busy and therefore to an associated increase in pollution which will be exacerbated by additional cars idling at the traffic lights. Many of the proposed new properties are likely to have at least two cars per household;

·         the pollution problem will be further exacerbated when other developments along the Topsham Road are brought forward;

·         the Special School and the West of England School for Children with Little or No Sight will be affected by construction traffic and also passing cars if the development is completed.

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

·         the views regarding the Cirl Bunting requires clarification by means of a formal survey by the RSPB not just a consultant engaged by the applicant using RSPB guidelines;

·         need to protect the sky line to retain views of green fields; and

·         failure to protect this area will set a precedent and lead to encroachment into other Valley Parks.

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

·         this area is one of the most extensively developed parts of the City with new developments in the Newcourt area and with the imminent arrival of IKEA and the loss of the Topsham Gap and will not be able to accommodate this further development;

·         the proposal will impinge on the Ludwell Valley Park, adversely impacting on an important resource of the City;

·         the adjoining estate is unique in the City with only one access in and one out and served by one set of traffic lights;

·         the two special schools will be affected, many of the pupils of both being delivered to and from the schools by taxis;

·         also made presentation to the County Council’s Development Management Committee and disagreed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) presented the application for outline consent for up to 101 homes, a new sports pitch and changing facility, public open space including children's play areas and associated highways and drainage infrastructure with all matters reserved except for means of access.

He referred to legal advice set out in the update sheet clarifying how the application should be determined following confirmation that the Council’s policies for the delivery of housing were deemed out of date as a result of the Council not having a five year housing supply as concluded by the Exeter Road Inspector. The legal view was that the application should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise and this would depend on assessing whether the proposal was in accordance with the Development Plan as a whole and, if it was not, on the weight afforded to the relevant Development Plan policies under consideration both in themselves and relative to the other material considerations.

He also advised of minor amendments to the reason for refusal. He explained that, as the applicant had appealed against non-determination because the application had not been determined within 13 weeks, the decision on the application would be made by the Inspector at a Public Inquiry to be held on 6 December 2016. The Council is required to indicate what its decision would have been if it had determined the application.

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

·         150 letters of objection had been received setting out 31 reasons;

·         this development would add to existing pressures following other developments in the Newcourt area and the Topsham Gap and the imminent arrival of IKEA;

·         pressure on public open space and need to retain playing field for both young people and adults, a number of football teams struggle to find suitable playing fields as others in the City are fully booked;

·         will be an adverse impact on the Countess Wear 100 Club, the only remaining youth centre in the City; and

·         need to resist pressure on green spaces.

The recommendation was that the application would have been refused for the reason set out in the update sheet.

RESOLVED that the application for outline planning permission for up to 101 homes, a new sports pitch and changing facility, public open space including children's play areas and associated highways and drainage infrastructure with all matters reserved except for means of access would have been REFUSED as the proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (paragraph 74), Exeter City Council Core Strategy 2012 CP10, Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011 Policy L3 and L5 and Sport England’s Playing Field Policy because the development would result:-

(a)        in the loss of the openness of the site detrimental to the amenity value of the area; and

(b)        in the loss of a playing pitch site identified for retention and provides the opportunity for future recreational need  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

Councillor Spackman declared a disclosable pecuniary interest as a Trustee of the Feoffees of St Sidwell, the applicant, and left the meeting during consideration of this item.

The Project Manager (Planning) (GM) presented the application for the demolition of 11 garages to be replaced by a two storey development of six apartments.

He clarified that the level of the green space should be approximately 1,5 to 2,5 meter higher than the road, correcting what was described in the Committee Report.

He updated Members on revised plans submitted by the applicant on 22 July, three days before the meeting, the applicant stating that the changes would address one of the reasons of refusal, that is, nationally described space standards not being met. The changes had not led to the required improvements in space standards.

The new drawings had decreased the space for the area for entrance and stairwell together making apartment 1. smaller to be able to make the other apartments larger within the same foot print for the development. As described in the Committee Report the plans did not show the outer wall thick enough to contain both the existing retaining wall as well as the proposed structural wall, shown on the submitted section. This had not been amended on the new drawings.

Before the submission of the new drawings the apartments had been below nationally describe space standards even without the necessary changes needed to include the structural wall shown in the section. Now the apartments on the ground floor with the layout in the new drawings would be approximately 2-3 m² below nationally described space standards if the plans show the full width of the outer walls.

As described in the Committee Report considerations of not building in the root zone of the protected Lime tree or incorporate highway land as private footpath, to enable the development to sit closer to the street, would have further impact on apartment sizes. His conclusion was therefore that the applicant was not showing that they could comply to the nationally described space standards even with the new drawings.

He clarified that the communal open space, as described in the Residential Design SPD, was approximately 130 m²,not including areas for private sitting out space, correcting what was described in the report. The communal open space wasnot 150 m²  as shown in the new drawings. If including the private sitting out space, three metres out from the apartments facing and levelled with the green space, only approximately 58 m² remains of the communal open space. Approximately 18 m² of these 58 m² was directly under the protected Lime tree, as shown on the drawings.

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

• the lateness of the submission puts the residents at a distinct disadvantage, as they have had no time to properly assess the plans;
• applicant has known about the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Project Manager (Planning) (KW) presented the application for the demolition of 23-27 Mary Arches Street and Quintana Gate, Bartholomew Street West, and the construction of 127 student flats and studios (sui generis use), communal facilities and associated infrastructure.

She clarified that the 127 units would consist of six cluster flats (two bedrooms each), 115 studio bedrooms, not 114 as set out in the report and that the 127 units could house between 127 and 134 students. She also advised that an extra condition would be added regarding compliance with BREEAM.

Responding to a Member, she advised of the position of three fire escapes.

Members noted that a Management Plan for the day to day operation of the Student Accommodation was required to be implemented by way of a legal agreement. 

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

RESOLVED that, subject to a CIL Contribution amounting to £133,694.96 and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to secure a management plan for the day to day operation of the student accommodation, planning permission for the demolition of 23-27 Mary Arches Street and Quintana Gate, Bartholomew Street West, and the construction of 127 student flats and studios (sui generis use), communal facilities and associated infrastructure be APPROVED, subject also to the following conditions:-.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Assistant Director City Development presented a Section 73 application to remove condition 14 (limitation on delivery hours) of planning permission ref 14/2083/03 granted on 30th June 2015. A condition of the planning permission granted for the Aldi store had been delivery hours of 7:00am to 11:00pm Mondays to Saturdays and 9:00am to 6:00pm Sundays and Bank Holidays, the applicant having submitted this application to permit 24 hour delivery. A compromise had been proposed by the applicant for delivery to be between 6:00am to 12 midnight Mondays to Saturdays and 8:00am to 8:00pm Sundays.

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

• original planning application granted in 2016 in respect of a new neighbourhood district food store, with construction having commenced and with an opening planned for Autumn 2016;
• requesting change to delivery hours to provide greater flexibility in the replenishment of the store to minimise disruption to the operation of the store and help the customer experience. It will also reduce vehicles on the road during peak times and therefore reduce congestion. There will be no change in the number of lorries delivering;
• the lorries will reverse directly into the store dock which will be sealed acoustically to provide a sound barrier and engines and refrigerator units will be switched off wherever possible;
• pallets rather than cages will be used to further reduce noise during unloading;
• an acoustic screen of 2.4 metres will prevent disturbance to residents and a noise assessment confirms that there will be no significant harm;
• have listened to concerns of neighbours and have agreed to reduce the original request for 24 hour delivery to 6:00am to 12 midnight Mondays to Fridays and 8:00am to 8:00pm Sundays and Bank Holidays;
• will agree to provision of a delivery noise management plan and to one year trial period and can operate efficiently within these amended hours.

He responded as follows to a Members’ queries:-

• banksmen will be utilised to assist in unloading and vehicles will have bleepers;
• delivery hours for other Aldi stores in Exeter vary;
• change in hours necessary to increase flexibility and help increase efficiency of distribution centre in Swindon;
• in respect of overall deliveries to other Aldi stores, the Operations Team are responsible for timetabling deliveries to all stores
• the delivery noise management plan can include a requirement relating to banksmen.

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

RESOLVED that, subject to the Assistant Director City Development being authorised, following prior consultation with the Chair of this Committee, a delivery noise management plan to include measures to negate potential nuisance from vehicle reversing alarms, such as the use of a banksman, a Section 73 application to remove condition 14 (limitation on delivery hours) of planning permission ref 14/2083/03 granted on 30th June 2015 beAPPROVED, subject also to the following conditions:-

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

Councillor Morse declared an interest as she lived in the neighbourhood and left the meeting during consideration of this item.

The Project Manager (Planning) (KW) presented the application for the erection of conservatory to front elevation.

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

·         measurements on the submitted sketch drawings are incorrect - the distance between my un-fenced boundary and the proposed extension would be less than 1m;

·         would cast a shadow over my main window reducing light in my living room;

·         the proposed extension, because of its size and character is out of keeping with the character of a pair of semi-detached houses and would have a detrimental effect on the character of the building;

·         all other extensions and conservatories attached to properties in the immediate area are located at the rear of the buildings;

·         the proposed extension is out of keeping with other porches on houses of a similar style within the immediate area;

·         all porches in the immediate area project less than 1.5 m This proposal extends for almost 3 m;

·         the extension cannot be described as a porch;

·         extension does not cover the front door - the proposed extension has a door on the side thus creating a separate entrance into the house;

·         Beacon Heath is not a street in the conventional sense of the word but a road with a continuous number of houses on one side facing the sports facilities at Arena Park .Saracens rugby pitches and Eastern Fields;

·         Beacon Heath comprises of approximately 50 houses - numbers 1--25 were built in the 1930s with French Windows at the front. Some have erected porches across the front of the house. Some still have the orginal windows and patio doors in place;

·         houses from no 25 onwards were built in the 1940s and 50s;

·         some have small porches and others have canopies over their front doors;

·         none have porches which extend across the front or are in close proximity to neighbouring windows;

·         that from 25 to the end of the road should be treated separately from the first 25 built in the 1930s; and

·         to allow such a large extension would have a detrimental visual effect on houses which are of a totally different style from those numbered 1-25

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

• speaking on behalf of property owner;
• have spoken to five neighbours who advised of the dimensions of their extensions;
• proposal is smaller than a conservatory;
• Beacon Heath is classed as a street;
• other extensions in the street are polycarbonate lean-to’s with dwarf walls;
• the objection of the neighbour are not supported by the site inspection party;
• two metre, four panel high fence to be provided so the extension will be screened;

·         there will be insufficient harm on the street scene to justify refusal;

·         a number of alterations to the front of properties had occurred along this road either porches or conservatories; and

• application submitted on basis of advice from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Assistant Director City Development presented the application for the removal of the conservatory and replacement with a two storey rear extension.

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

RESOLVED that planning permission for the removal of a conservatory and the replacement of a two storey rear elevation 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 23 August 2016 at

9.30 a.m.  The Councillors attending will be Foale, Newby and Spackman.

RESOLVED that the next Site Inspection Party will be held on Tuesday 23 August 2016 at 9.30 a.m. The Councillors attending will be Foale, Lyons and Newby.