Agenda and minutes

To sign the minutes of the meeting held on 9 January and 13 February 2017.

The minutes of the meetings held on 9 January and 13 February 2017 were taken as read and signed by the Chair as correct.

No declarations of interest were made by Members.

The Assistant Director City Development presented the outline application for up to 123 houses and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except for access.

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

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

• circulated photos of the applications site showing its beauty;
• additional car journeys generated by the development will increase pollution – a recent House of Commons Committee inquiry being informed that some 40,000 deaths a year result from pollution and a recent air quality survey near Poppies on Topsham Road show pollution levels to be at a dangerous level in this area;
• two special needs schools are located in this area including the West of England School and pollution problems will add to the difficulties experienced by the children; and
• evidence provided by a consultant professor at the RD&E Hospital confirms that high pollution levels impact adversely on the health of children.

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

• the statement from thethe applicants in the visual and landscape assessment supporting the scheme which concludes that “development on this site will not have any substantial effects upon landscape resources and visual amenity within the local or wider area, including the strategically important Ludwell Valley Park is not correct”;
• the Valley Park is greatly valued by residents for physical/mental wellbeing, with volunteers having planted over 250 trees for the benefit of future generations;
• the development will prevent the desire of residents to nurture a semi wild area which enhances the value of the Valley Park;
• the RSPB state that the application site is an integral party of the Valley Park and recommend that all Valley Parks should be enhanced and maintained for green infrastructure purposes;
• the proposed mitigation measures of additional hedgerows and trees will not compensate the destruction of this area;
• will do unacceptable harm to visual amenity;
• local residents were not consulted;
• the Council acknowledges the importance of the Park as whole and has refused repeated applications.

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

• endorse the above comments;
• the Government in recent years seems to have provided a developers’ charter to encourage unacceptable developments such as this;
• accept that recent appeal decisions must be taken into account with regard to the housing supply situation. Equally, there is a need to take into account the impact of all developments along Topsham Road which are impacting adversely on traffic and resulting in increased pollution. The cumulative impact is not sustainable and will adversely affect the future of this area for the next 20 years; and
• will lead to the loss of an important landscape area, visible from many parts of the City, and it is important to protect what little remains in the City of green field areas.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Assistant Director City Development presented the outline application for the phased development of up to 120 dwellings (C3) with associated infrastructure and open space (all matters reserved for future consideration apart from access)

He detailed the planning background including the decision of the Inspector allowing an appeal in respect of an earlier application, legal agreements relating to affordable housing, open space and highway matters including the agreement of the applicant to offer a 35% provision in respect of the former and the legal position relating to a Section 73 application.

Dr Garnett spoke against the application. He raised the following points:-

• am a professional ecological consultant with 10 years consultancy experience with serious reservations about the development due to completely inadequate dormouse and bat surveys;

Bats

• the bat report provided by Acorn Ecology in late 2012 had a number of shortcomings according to best practice guidelines;
• only three surveys were conducted in respect of the lesser horseshoe and barbastelle bats when there should have been six, one a month from April to September, for this medium sized development. All three surveys were less than two hours when they should have been three hours and should have included the night time and dawn rather than just evenings. All three surveys were in Autumn when they must be spaced between Spring, Summer and Autumn;
• only three static detectors were deployed when there should have been six, one a month from April to September;
• all static work was done in Autumn which is bad for barbastelle which can move around seasonally according to radio-tracking evidence;
• no assessment of tree roost potential as the survey only looked at farm buildings;
• the survey did not follow appropriate guidance;
• the Inspector appears to have taken these reports at face value; and
• planners have a legal duty to properly consider biodiversity.

The Dormouse

• no proper dormouse survey has ever been done, despite excellent potential for this species in an extensive network of species-rich hedgerows in the area. A report mentioned some hand-searching for nests but this is inadequate and unlawful;
• there had been three recent records of dormouse within the 1 to 1.5km to the southeast, and two others in connected habitat to the north of Exeter which is almost certainly an underestimate of their distribution as dormice are nocturnal, arboreal and reclusive and are under-recorded;
• disagree that there would be no impacts - any dormouse on site would be affected by construction works affecting hedgerows and future residents altering/breaking up hedges;
• distribution and numbers needs to be established, and then, if present an appropriate mitigation plan put in place; and
• both species have not been properly considered as demanded by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

Responding to Members, he confirmed a breach of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the identification of dormouse in close vicinity.

Responding to Members, the Assistant Director City Development stated that the total area was 7.7 hectares with 4.7 allocated for open space, including the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Project Manager (Planning) (KW) presented the application for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment with student residential accommodation and associated landscape works (Revised Plans reducing from 3 storeys to 2 storeys).

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

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

• understand the need to accommodate an ever-growing student population in the city with the preferred method being purpose-built accommodation to alleviate the dominance of HMOs in the residential housing market, but this is the wrong proposal in the wrong place;
• there are 75 objections, followed by another 16 to revised plans. Already subject to an imbalance in the community make up due to the high number of HMOs in Portland Street as well as the surrounding areas. Residents are subjected to a number of anti-social behavior issues, from littering to loud music, student parties and general late night noise. Adding a further 15 students to the area will tip the balance over the edge;
• imbalance in relation to Policy H5 can only be considered in relation to the wider ward rather than an individual street. The relation of HMOs may not be imbalanced when considering the whole area, but the sheer number of large, dominant purpose-built accommodation either built or approved for development combined with the high level of HMOs in Portland Street, leave the local residents feeling hemmed in and overwhelmed;
• other student developments include The Kingfisher, Printworks and the Picturehouse with approval for the Bus Station site, Honiton Inn and Heavitree Road with an expectation in respect of Heavitree Police Station and the Pyramids sites;
• properties on Portland Street are not currently permitted to be turned into HMOs on the basic of creating an imbalance so it should not be possible to change a commercial property set within the same residential area and likely to create the same issues;
• despite the reduction in height, this development is too tall for a two storey building, too large for the space and too close to neighbouring properties andthe residents of neighbouring properties still feel that there are irreconcilable issues to do with massing and scale compared to surrounding properties;
• the scale of the development and the effect on neighbouring dwellings is unacceptable. The development does not form a natural extension to the flats in Newton Close;
• overlooking was considered enough of a problem to reject a similar application in 1990 for residential purposes but the current proposal also reverts to overlooking the rear gardens/windows of the properties in Portland Street;
• with the distance between properties limited to just over 9 meters (rather than the recommended 22 metres required in planning law) there is a real concern that the new development would overlook the rear gardens and bedroom windows. The minor amendment to feature slanting windows does not solve the issue of overlooking;
• with no contextual images it is very difficult to fully appreciate the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (HS) presented the application for the demolition of existing building and construction of a seven-storey building, with a basement, to provide student accommodation (Sui Generis) and associated works and improvements and the provision of a new coach passenger waiting room (Sui Generis).

He reported that a day to day operational management plan for the coach passenger waiting room would be required and that the Police would continue to be consulted in the details of the management arrangements but it was not the intention for the allocated office for this purpose to be glazed with views into the passenger waiting room as it was not expected that the management responsibility would cover the waiting area as had been requested by the Police. In response to Members’ questions, he advised that a disabled wheelchair accessible sized studio flat was provided on each floor of the building and that as part of the fire strategy refuge areas would be provided on each of the seven floors which could be used for those with disabilities in event of fire and that this had been reviewed by building control. The scheme had been amended and the cycle facilities would be provided to cater for residents and visitors to adopted Supplementary Planning Document standards.

A Member referred to previous undertakings that comprehensive consultations would take place with interested parties on the provision of the new coach passenger facilities as well as the new bus station itself and sought reassurances that this had occurred. As Chair of the Leisure Complex and Bus Station Steering Group he was concerned that the Group had not been kept adequately appraised on the consultation undertaken to date. The Principal Project Manager explained that the application had been advertised and that responses had been received from transport groups. The Member asked that the Steering Group be appraised of the feedback to date from interested parties.

The Principal Project Manager detailed the locations of the informal pedestrian crossings existing in the areas as well as those sought by the Highway Authority which were considered appropriate for the bus flow through this area. He also advised that toilet facilities and a fully enclosed concourse would be available in the new Bus Station and that these would be open longer and be more easily accessible than those in the current bus station.

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

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

• speaking as a member of the Exeter and District Bus Users Group;

·         in light of the open ended delay in the proposed re-development of the current Bus Station and the subsequent unknown delay in the move of coach passenger drop off and pick up to Bampfylde Street, I trust Councillors will make every effort to ensure that the coach passenger waiting room is included in this proposed development; and

·         the lack of toilet provision is noted.

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

• it had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Project Officer (LC) presented the application for the change of use to Sui Generis (seven bed HMO) and replacement of rear conservatory and store.

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

Members noted the objections of the Exeter St James Forum but felt that, with only an increase from six to seven bedrooms and the significant number of additional students that could result from permitted development in the area, approval would be appropriate.

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

RESOLVED that planning permission for the change of use to Sui Generis (seven bed HMO) and replacement of rear conservatory and store be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:-

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Assistant Director City Development presented the application for the erection of part three, part four storey building comprising 39 retirement living apartments with associated communal facilities, car parking access and landscaped grounds.

He detailed the history of the site and referred to the outcome of a number of negotiations with the applicant in respect of a contribution in lieu of affordable housing. This had now been agreed at £900,000.

Members welcomed the provision of retirement homes for which there was a high demand in Pinhoe. The improvements to the cycleway as part of the wider cycle network was also welcomed.

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

RESOLVED that, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to secure:-

·         a contribution of £900,000 in lieu of affordable housing;

·         connection to District Heating; and

·         the land to be part of the public highway.

planning permission for the erection of part three, part four storey building comprising 39 retirement living apartments with associated communal facilities, car parking access and landscaped grounds 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 11 April at

9.30 a.m.  The Councillors attending will be Harvey, Mrs Henson and Edwards.

RESOLVED that the next Site Inspection Party will be held on Tuesday 11 April 2017 at 9.30 a.m. The Councillors attending will be Councillors Harvey, Mrs Henson and Edwards.

The Chair reported that this would be the last Planning Committee meeting of Richard Short, Assistant Director City Development, and thanked him for his hard work and contribution to the work of the Council and this Committee over many years. Members thanks him and wished him happiness in his retirement.