Agenda and minutes

Venue: Rennes Room, Civic Centre, Paris Street, Exeter

Contact: Howard Bassett, Democratic Services Officer (Committees)  01392 265107 or email  howard.bassett@exeter.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

75.

Chair

Minutes:

In the absence of Councillor Gottschalk, the meeting was chaired by Councillor Lyons.

 

 

76.

Declarations of Interest

Councillors are reminded of the need to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests that relate to business on the agenda and which have not already been included in the register of interests, before any discussion takes place on the item. Unless the interest is sensitive, you must also disclose the nature of the interest. In accordance with the Council's Code of Conduct, you must then leave the room and must not participate in any further discussion of the item. Councillors requiring clarification should seek the advice of the Monitoring Officer prior to the day of the meeting.

 

Minutes:

No declarations of interest were made by Members.

 

77.

Planning Application No. 17/1091/RES - Land North of Exeter Road and adjacent to Topsham Rugby Club, Exeter Road pdf icon PDF 123 KB

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MH) presented the application for the approval of details for 54 dwellings, public open space, landscaping and associated highways and drainage infrastructure, i.e. for reserved matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping (Pursuant to outline planning permission granted on 27th April 2016, reference 14/2066/01).

 

The Principal Project Manager reported that details of the surface water drainage scheme would need to be submitted for approval in line with a condition of the outline consent and that cycle storage would be provided for either within garden sheds or garages of those units which had them.

 

The City Development Manager set out the background to the Inspector’s decision upholding the appeal over the original committee refusal at outline stage and the implications for the City’s overall housing supply and on the assessment of the impact on the “Topsham Gap”.

 

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

 

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

 

  • objectors are concerned with what precisely Topsham will end up with in the field next to the Rugby Club.Please reject and back up with rock-solid reasons why it is not an appropriate development for this site; 
  • the original outline application was approved on the basis of the housing element being age-restricted with small, one or two bedroomed houses suitable for single elderly people or elderly couples. Even if all 55 houses had subsequently been occupied by couples, the total number of new Topsham residents would have been only 110;
  • the total number of bedrooms proposed for all the housing on this site is now 171, and many of these will be double bedrooms. This represents an increase in the head count of future residents of at least 50% than that originally outlined;
  • if luxury family homes are provided the number of cars per household will also go up;
  • the Planning Inspector noted in his report that the “mix of Care Home and Assisted Living and age-restricted dwellings, together with 19 affordable housing units” carried significant weight with him when he decided to uphold the appeal. If the applicant does propose such a fundamental change in basis, should this matter be processed under the Reserved Matters procedure? The original basis of the approval should be robustly implemented;
  • the amount of affordable housing included in this proposal appears to be insufficient.Of the 54 dwellings applied for, only 11 dwellings are now designated as “affordable units” (although the Design and Access Statement mentions 13). Exeter City Council normally recommends that 35% of a development be devoted to affordable housing and therefore the figure should be 18 or 19 dwellings;
  • Topsham has a particularly acute housing affordability issue. Any developments undertaken in the town should concentrate on affordability for the benefit of local people; and
  • the developers should not be permitted to minimise their responsibility to provide policy-compliant levels of Affordable Housing.

 

She responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 

78.

Planning Application No. 17/1106/RES - Land North of Exeter Road and adjacent to Topsham Rugby Club, Exeter Road pdf icon PDF 104 KB

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MH) presented the application for the reserved matters application (pursuant to outline permission granted on 27th April 2016, ref 14/2066/01) for approval of the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of the Care Home and Assisted Living Apartments.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) stated that the height of the Care Home facing Exeter Road from ground to roof ridge was approximately 11 metres and that it was nine metres from the road side. He confirmed that the drainage would feed into the system provided within the adjoining residential scheme. He also advised that the standard condition to minimise disruption during the construction phase was included in the outline consent and would be in conjunction with that of the residential development.

 

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

 

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

 

  • urge refusal with reasons given; 
  • the Planning Inspector’s report after the Public Inquiry focused principally on strategic issues, and as the proposal under consideration was an outline application, little attention was given to the form, massing or scale of the development; 
  • the Topsham Society has urged this committee not to be steamrollered into “rubber stamping” this application, simply because the original outline application appeal was lost, and to give it full and proper scrutiny;
  • the frontage of the Care Home onto Exeter Road, which is the back of the building, is large and continuous with only uncharacteristic broad gables to break up the monolithic form. It is wholly out of character with the scale and grain of the surrounding small individual houses and terraces. The architects have provided an “off-the-peg” Care Home designed in London by people who have never been to Topsham - or possibly even Exeter;
  • the Assisted Living block behind is simply colossal, up to four storeys high, of proportions, scale and architectural detailing fundamentally at odds with that of the town, especially at its fringe.  If approved it will blight the entrance to the town, not form a "gateway" as claimed by the applicant;
  • the proposals should be significantly reduced in scale, but also any larger floorplate monolithic blocks moved to the core of the site so the site fringes may be mitigated by smaller scale general housing; and
  • also under question is the fact that the Care Home frontage is now significantly closer to Exeter Road than shown in the outline application and the destruction of the Devon Bank which I believe has already been implemented.

 

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

 

  • Octopus Healthcare (OH) believe this site provides the perfect location for a new care and assisted living development, OH being a long-term investor in all forms of healthcare related activities with three primary healthcare facilities in the wider south west area. Looking to invest approximately £25 million into the local economy with 100 jobs created during construction;
  • Aura Care Living will operate and manage the development, seeking to deliver a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

79.

Planning Application No. 17/0750/FUL - The King Billy, 26-28 Longbrook Street, Exeter pdf icon PDF 125 KB

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) presented the application for Demolition of the King Billy pub to build a mixed use development scheme comprising of ground floor commercial units (Use Classes A1, A3 and A4) with 108 bed space student accommodation above over six and seven storeys.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) advised that the applicant had provided an access statement covering existing and future use of the area to the rear of the flats yard for deliveries and dropping off and picking up of students and that this had been developed in consultation with the adjoining commercial operators. He stated that the location of these student flats was appropriate in that it was both within the city centre so that students would not be passing through residential areas after nights out and was also close to the campus. He also advised that travel plans for student accommodation blocks were addressed by the County Council travel team and were unique to each site.

 

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

 

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

 

  • the Inspector’s decision that student housing cannot be included in the assessment of the five year housing supply placed the Council in a difficult positioned when considering planning applications for housing developments. Believe that sites such as this would more appropriately suit housing or flats for the general market;
  • Policy H5 of the Local Plan states that there should not be an over concentration of use in one area such that the character of the neighbourhood is changed or an imbalance created - this development will change the balance of the community. The main thrust of the St. James Neighbourhood Plan is to maintain a community balance;
  • there is no evidence that the provision of purpose built student accommodation frees up houses for family occupation. The number of houses in multiple occupation in St. James is increasing inspite of additional purpose built accommodation;
  • the application should be considered with regard to policies within the St. James Neighbourhood Plan;
  • a decision should not be made until up to date information on current student numbers are available and the University plans for accommodating them in the future are clear; and 
  • request deferral of the application for a report on student housing in the City.

 

The City Development Manager stated that it was not appropriate to defer applications for policies to be reviewed but that they should be considered on their merits. Furthermore, the existing policy was that a minimum of 75% of the student population should be accommodated in Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA), with the inference that as much as possible should be accommodated in this way.

 

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

 

  • Exeter St. James Neighbourhood Forum urge the rejection or deferral of an application for yet more PBSA in the ward;
  • the plans are contrary to the overriding objective of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

80.

List of Decisions Made and Withdrawn Applications pdf icon PDF 11 KB

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The report of the City Development Manager was submitted.

           

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

 

 

81.

Appeals Report pdf icon PDF 10 KB

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

 

Minutes:

The schedule of appeal decisions and appeals lodged was submitted.

 

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

 

82.

SITE INSPECTION PARTY

To advise that the next Site Inspection Party will be held on Tuesday 17 October 2017 at

9.30 a.m. The Councillors attending will be Bialyk, Harvey and Sutton.

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the next Site Inspection Party be held on Tuesday 17 October at 9.30 a.m. The Councillors attending will be Harvey, Prowse and Spackman.

 

83.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 - Exclusion of Press and Public

Minutes:

 

RESOLVED that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1, Schedule 12A of the Act. 

 

 

84.

Article 4 Report

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The City Development Manager presented a report proposing an Article 4 Direction (under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, as amended), to remove the permitted development right for demolition of a property with immediate effect.

 

RESOLVED that as the demolition of the property set out in the report without the benefit of planning permission would be prejudicial to the proper planning of the Council’s area or constitute a threat to the amenities of the Council’s area and that it is expedient that such demolition should not be carried out unless permission is granted for it on an application to the Council, the City Development Manager, subject to prior consultation with the Portfolio Holder for City Development, be authorised to make an Article 4 Direction relating to this property in the form (or substantially in the form) of the draft Direction in Appendix 2 of the report, and to consider any representations as well as deciding whether to confirm the Direction with, or without, amendments.

 

 

Additional Information Attached after Agenda Dispatched - circulated as an appendix pdf icon PDF 177 KB