Agenda and minutes

To sign the minutes of the meeting held on 31 October and 5 December 2016.

The minutes of the meetings held on 31 October and 5 December 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) (PJ) presented the application for the demolition of the former Honiton Inn to build a mixed use development scheme comprising of a ground floor cafe bar for public use (Use Class A4) with 107 bed space student accommodation above including common room, gym, cinema, laundry, office and bike stores.

Members were circulated with an update sheet - attached to minutes and updated on the number of representations.

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

·         Will focus on some of the 25 objection issues received;

·         suggestions of alternative uses such as a gateway feature or tourist attraction into the City Centre, hotel, hostel for the homeless or affordable housing are not in accord with Government legislation and are not grounds for a refusal;

·         valid planning objections have been made in respect of the height of six/seven floors and the density of an overbearing featureless monolith, unflattering architecture and a soulless modern husk which is inappropriate and oppressive;

·         Historic England have stated that that the lack of space and limited articulation makes an uninspiring building and that the gateway to the City Centre should at least have some reference to better quality and do not feel that this design would make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area;

·         a similar application for the Radmore and Tucker site was refused on grounds of height and density;

·         the statement that the site is removed from residential areas is not correct as directly opposite on the corner of Western Way is Eaton House, Eaton Drive and Sir John Hannam House which provides accommodation for 104 elderly residents including 23 disabled residents;

·         application includes a gym, cinema and public cafe and bar which will be used by students located at the St Lukes Campus, Rowancroft and the new student accommodation next to Waitrose returning at night and will walk past the accommodation for the elderly at Eaton House etc.;

·         objections 16, 18 and 19 all contain objections from local residents on the impact on their quality of life;

·         anti-social behavior has occurred in Western Way near the Printworks and Kingfisher accommodation blocks, most recently on 3 December, but the University have stated that it is not the responsibility of the estate patrollers to deal with incidents outside the student blocks;

·         with a goal of securing 75% student accommodation in purpose built accommodation on or close to the City Centre, the University is not prepared to accept responsibility for off campus students and concerns are raised that the City Centre is becoming a university campus – the University should provide accommodation on its own campus;

·         this block could become a popular late night venue and impact adversely on the quality of life of elderly residents;

·         this gateway city centre site so close to residential accommodation is unsuitable for a student development;

·         the Honiton Inn is an iconic landmark building and its demolition would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Assistant Director City Development presented the application for the construction of seven residential units (flats), access and associated infrastructure works.

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

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

·         the objections are from 129 separate individuals regarding land where previous applications have been refused because of the adverse impact on the Topsham Gap;

·         the size and scale of this application differs little from the previous applications other than it is for housing;

·         this application is the final phase of a three phase history of this and two adjoining sites, all strategically important in terms of the Topsham Gap open space which should be considered as a whole and not as isolated applications. It is therefore “creep”;

·         Heritage Homes circulated an information leaflet as part of its public consultation, for the land fronting Exeter Road (Phase I) stating that it would provide affordable, eco-friendly homes, taking account of the character and local distinctiveness of the Gap and that the frontage would be screened by semi mature trees and would enhance the area;

·         following the granting of permission for Phase I, in which the number of homes increased from 23 to 28, Phase II, where the number of homes increased from nine to 22 was also granted permission – a play area was not included on the grounds that open space would be provided throughout the site to give the requisite 10%;

·         now have a further seven units bringing the total to 57 all without the play area needed;

·         this four storey block is next to the M5 motorway, the top floor being close to the height of the motorway. Although environmental health state that the quality of life will not be affected road traffic noise and pollution will affect the health of the residents;

·         an objector has stated that the noise assessment is inaccurate and the appropriate information has not been fed into the acoustic modelling – also stating that the development is too close to the motorway;

·         Retreat Road is used by commercial vehicles so parking of vehicles associated with this development will be hazardous;

·         The application should be refused as the density is greater than the initial proposals and the lack of open space provision;

·         the previous application for an office block was refused as it was contrary to policies LS1 and CP16 and this application should be refused on similar grounds; and

·         a four storey block is unsuitable and a far cry from the original concept and is in a sensitive environmental location.

Responding to a Member’s question, she confirmed that, contrary to the original claim of the applicant, there had been no consultation with the local community, on the proposed use of a commuted sum for open space provision.

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

·         Members previously refused development of this land on the basis of the LS1  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The City Development Manager presented the application for the demolition and refurbishment of part of existing building to create 12 new residential apartments and construction of 28 new residential apartments and associated car parking, cycle parking, access road and landscaping.

He stated that negotiations were continuing in respect of affordable housing provision and proposed that it would be appropriate to delegate this aspect of the application to the Assistant Director City Development or City Development Manager in consultation with the Chair.

Responding to a Member on the issue of parking spaces for the disabled, the City Development Manager advised that parking spaces were to be allocated for each unit and that there would not be shared parking spaces and he undertook to clarify whether any designated disabled spaces were to be provided. He also reported that the County Highway Authority had proposed two additional conditions which were detailed on the late list. In addition, they had requested that provision for pedestrian/cycle access from the rear of the site to the car park for Wonford Sports Centre be made. He stated that he considered such provision unnecessary given the relatively short walking distance from the front of the site to the sports centre and felt that it would compromise the security of the site.

Members felt that there was insufficient detail regarding the provision of affordable housing and that the application could not be considered until it was clear what the affordable housing offer was. They therefore requested that the application be deferred.

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 the application for the demolition and refurbishment of part of existing building to create 12 new residential apartments and construction of 28 new residential apartments and associated car parking, cycle parking, access road and landscaping be DEFERRED, in order for more information to be obtained on the proposed provision of affordable housing.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The City Development Manager presented the application for the construction of a detached residential dwelling with associated access, landscaping and amenity space.

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

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

·         unsafe access - share the Members’ serious concerns regarding suitability and safety of using the alleyway for vehicular access. These concerns are well summarised in the Council’s refusal in 2003 when it was noted that “vehicular traffic from this alleyway would be to the detriment of highway safety”.  There is restricted visibility from both the approach to the alleyway and within. Further, due to the narrow width of the lane, vehicles may not turn into the lane in one movement, necessitating multi-point manoeuvres within Sylvan Road on a bend with limited visibility. The alleyway is currently used by cars on average four times a month and the Highways’ assessment of six plus movements per day means the development will create a 50 fold increase in usage, significantly increasing the hazards;

·         poor sewerage arrangements and drainage - the report cites only the opinion of the agent on the important matters of drainage. As a matter of law, such disposal is a material planning consideration due to the potential effect on public health, the local environment and public amenity.Both foul and surface issues arise in respect of this proposal. The Council cannot properly make its decision today when insufficient information has been provided or sought.  Full details should be ascertained as to the possibility of a mains sewer connection and as to the feasibility of use (and potential consequences) of a septic tank and soakaway at this urban location;

·         adverse effect on local neighbourhood - the proposed dwelling is within 20 metres of the rear gardens of 44 and 46 Lower Kings Avenue and the viewpoint from the second storey window into No. 44 is only 34 degrees (a slight turn of the head).  There is also direct inter-visibility into No. 92 Union Road due to the inadequate screening of the deciduous trees. There has been significant local upset and concern at the loss of privacy and likely negative impact on local residents, whose enjoyment of their properties will be affected significantly;

·         the proposed development is contrary to the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 53), to resist the inappropriate development of residential gardens.  Not only would there be a loss of wildlife (which the Exeter Civic Society agree is unacceptable), this development of a single unit would be to the detriment of many in the local community and would set a precedent of sub-dividing garden land in this locality;

·         the proposal should be rejected on the basis of relevant material planning considerations, if given the correct weight.If despite the material objections, you are not minded to reject the proposal, we submit that you cannot be in a position lawfully to make a decision today due to the insufficient information presented; and

·         if this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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 31 January 2017 at

9.30 a.m.  The Councillors attending will be Bialyk, Morse and Prowse.

RESOLVED that the next Site Inspection Party will be held on Tuesday 31 January at 9.30 a.m. The Councillors attending will be Bialyk, Morse and Prowse.