Agenda and minutes

To sign the minutes of the meetings held on 23 May and 27 June 2016.

The minutes of the meetings held on 23 May and 22 June 2016 were taken as read and signed by the Chair as correct.

No declarations of interest were made by Members.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) presented the application for demolition of existing buildings and re-development to provide student accommodation (Sui Generis), ancillary facilities, and ground floor uses in classes A1 (shops), A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (restaurants and cafes), A4 (drinking establishments), D1 (non-residential institutions) and D2 (assembly and leisure), with cycle parking provision and public realm improvements.

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

The Principal Project Manager (Development) advised that the Community Infrastructure Levy figure payable under the heading “Financial Considerations” should read £934,132.92 not £933,303.84 and set out suggested change to condition 9 in respect of the Construction and Environment Management Plan. He also reported that the reasons for conditions 7 and 8 should read “to protect controlled waters and human health.

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

·         represent the Deltic Group as General Manager of Unit 1;

·         Deltic Group has operated this very successful late-night leisure venue since June 2007 opening between 10.00pm and 2.30am Mondays to Thursday's and to 3.30am on Fridays and Saturdays. It has a capacity of 850 people and the site has operated as a licensed venue since before 2000; 

·         the immediate local area has always had a mix of commercial businesses which generally traded during the daytime and were closed at night. Local residential properties existed beyond the immediate area and so, historically, have not been affected by the club. This situation recently changed with the approval of a large student accommodation complex on the adjoining site at Townsend Printers in Western Way, Exeter. Noise surveys undertaken were totally inadequate for purpose and the noise attenuation measures within the new development have proved to be totally inadequate. This has generated noise complaints from the occupants of the new student accommodation;

·         the principal concerns with the current planning application relates to the potential for future noise and disturbance to new residents at the application site. Unit 1 lies immediately adjacent to the application site and complaints from future residential occupiers of the application site could lead to calls for possible restrictions on the business and opening hours. Proper consideration needs to be given to this critical issue, in order to avoid creating another land-use conflict comparable to the decision on the Townsend Printers site;

·         Paragraph 123 of NPPF requires planning decisions to recognise that existing businesses should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established;

·         further consideration needs to be given to the proposed development of 588 residential bedrooms, as there would be a clear conflict between the nightclub and the residential units.  The imposition of conditions has failed to address the noise issues raised at the Townsend Printers site and may similarly be insufficient in this case.  The issue of potential noise impact is fundamental to the principle of development in this case;

·         refer to the recent High Court decision on 8 September 2015 relating to proposed residential development adjoining KoKo  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Assistant Director City Development presented the application for a detached dwelling.

Mrs Perrin spoke in support of the application. She raised the following points:-

§  the proposed house is going to be our home. It has been designed to accommodate our growing children, who are going to be with us for sometime and will provide them both with a good sized bedroom;

§  in our opinion, the house sits well on the proposed plot. It has been planned that the materials and design will be in keeping with adjoining properties. The lower elevation of the dwelling should also help it blend in with the street gradient;

§  in putting in this application we have ticked all the planning requirements regarding property/room sizes, internal/external storage, private amenity space/garden and on-site parking; and

§  we understand parking has been a major objection. As we are going to live here, we did not want this matter to be an issue and have therefore made provision for two off road spaces per house which we understand Devon County Council are happy with.

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

RESOLVED that planning permission for a detached dwelling be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:-

1)         C05 - Time Limit – Commencement.

2)         The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance with the submitted details received by the Local Planning Authority on 28 June 2016 (dwg. no(s). 5 rev B, 6 rev C, 7 rev B and 8 rev C), as modified by other conditions of this consent.

Reason: In order to ensure compliance with the approved drawings.

3)         No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied until the two on-site car parking spaces, as indicated on Proposed Block Plan Drawing 5 rev B have been provided in accordance with the requirements of this permission and retained for those purposes at all times.

Reason: To ensure that adequate facilities are available for the traffic attracted to the site.

4)         Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town & Country Planning(General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development of the types described in Classes A, B, C, D, E and G of Part 1, Classes A and C of Part 2 of Schedule 2 (which includes enlargement, improvement or other alteration, porches, sheds, greenhouses, huts, oil storage tanks, fences and walls) shall be undertaken on the premises, other than hereby permitted, or unless the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained.

Reason: To ensure that the character and appearance of the locality are protected and to avoid overdevelopment in the interests of local amenity.

5)         C75 - Construction/demolition hours.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Project Manager (Planning) (KW) presented the application for the part demolition (rear wing only), alteration and extension of existing building for use as 81 bedroom student housing accommodation (sui generis) with associated external cycle store and landscaping works.

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

The Project Manager (Planning) reported that the County Council Highways Engineer sought the provision of cycle parking (56 cycles) by condition with a travel plan also secured either by condition or as a part of the student management agreement. Further, to protect the function of Heavitree Road and the safety of users of the public highway it was essential that the construction arrangements were carefully managed. A condition was therefore recommended to ensure the above with the applicant advised to meet to agree suitable working arrangements prior to commencement.

A Member referred to the difficulty in crossing Gladstone Road between the Police Station and Waitrose and it was confirmed that the County Council would be consulted to establish if they will provide a crossing. If appropriate, this could be pursued as part of a Section 106 Agreement.

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

§  speaking on behalf of father, Will Gannon, to voice his concerns about some of the proposed windows from the planned extension at the rear of 79 Heavitree Road which will overlook his private garden at the rear of 81 Heavitree Road;

§  he has submitted a number of alternative suggestions to overcome this problem but have not been taken up by the developer;

§  a drawing he has provided shows the existing windows at the rear of 79 Heavitree Road, superimposed on the east elevation of the proposed extension. Eight windows are being proposed at or above the level of the two windows in the existing extension; and

§  the developer should be asked to come up with some alternative suggestions to at least make the situation no worse than it is at present. Otherwise ask that a decision be deferred to allow for a site meeting to be convened.

Responding to a Member’s question, she confirmed that there was no garden at present, as the proposed garden area was a car park for the offices which were to be converted to residential.

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

§  the applicant specialised in the provision of high quality student development and this was the first scheme undertaken in Exeter;

§  although not a listed building, the site was quite prominent and it had been important to achieve critical mass to ensure that the development was visually attractive by adding to the rear of the building and ensuring circulation within the middle;

§  aware of concerns of objector wishing to change 81 Heavitree Road from offices to residential, but there is no garden in situ at present and the exact nature of the objections have not been viewed;

§  windows overlooking the proposed garden  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Assistant Director City Development presented the application for the erection of new palisade fence. He asked Members to disregard reference to a fall-back position and referred to the necessary heritage tests.

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

RESOLVED that planning permission for the erection of a new palisade fence be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:-

1)         C05 - Time Limit – Commencement

2)         The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance with the submitted details received by the Local Planning Authority on 04 July 2016 (dwg. no(s). Location Plan, Site Plan), and the sample fence panel received 24 August 2016, as modified by other conditions of this consent.

Reason: In order to ensure compliance with the approved drawings.

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 20 September 2016 at 9.30 a.m.  The Councillors attending will be Gottschalk, Morse and Prowse.

RESOLVED that the next Site Inspection Party be held on Tuesday 20September at 9.30 a.m. The Councillors attending will be Gottschalk, Morse and Prowse.