Items
No. |
Item |
102. |
Minutes
To sign
the minutes of the meetings held on 30 November and 4 December
2017.
Minutes:
The minutes of the meetings
held on 30 October and 4 December 2017 were taken as read and
signed by the Chair as correct.
|
103. |
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.
|
104. |
Application No. 17/1871/FUL - Land at Tesco Stores, Russell Way, Exeter PDF 304 KB
To
consider the report of the City Development Manager.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
RESOLVED
that consideration of the planning application
for the construction of part 2, part 3
and part 4 storey building comprising an extra care (Class C2)
development with associated communal lounges, restaurant, kitchen,
wellness room, guest suite, laundries, care providers accommodation
and office, vehicular access from Russell Way, sub-station, car
parking and landscaped grounds be DEFERRED
for further information.
|
105. |
Application No. 17/1148/FUL - Land at Clyst Road, Topsham, Exeter PDF 311 KB
To consider the report of the City Development
Manager.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Principal Project Manager
(Development) (MH) presented the application for up to 155 residential units and a 64-bedroom
residential care home with means of access to be determined with
scale, layout, appearance and landscaping reserved for future
consideration.
He referred to the nature of
the highway improvements proposed as part of the access
arrangements and explained that the detail and internal layout were
indicative only. The key issues included the lack of a five year
housing supply for the City, transport and sustainability for the
wider area including the town of Topsham, green infrastructure and
affordable housing provision.
Members were circulated with an
update sheet - attached to minutes.
Councillor Baldwin, having
given notice under Standing Order No.44, spoke on the item. She
raised the following points:-
- a feeling of déjà vu
is apparent as Waddington Homes also applied for housing and a care
home in the Topsham Gap at the land off Exeter Road and adjacent to
Topsham Rugby Ground which was rejected by this Committee, but the
developer went to appeal and won their case after a public enquiry.
The land was then sold with outline planning permission to another
builder to be developed. As a result Waddington Homes are now
confident of this new application and have not bothered with a
pre-application assessment;
- the issue of Exeter’s housing
shortage is being used to override all other considerations and
although understanding of Exeter’s housing problem this
Committee, in the past, has accepted the importance of the open
space between the city of Exeter and the town of Topsham. It has
rejected other applications in the past which have only been
allowed to progress following appeals to the Planning Inspectorate
where the housing shortage was cited as the overriding
factor;
- however, the Heritage Homes
development and the Waddington, now Burrington Homes, development next to the Rugby
Ground are both on the main Topsham to Exeter Road with relatively
easy access to facilities. This new application is separated from
the rest of Exeter by the Exmouth to Exeter railway line with the
only possible road access to this green field site via Clyst Road. There is no other way in or out of the
area and no way across the railway line;
- Clyst Road joins the edge of
Topsham where Denver Road meets Elm Grove Road with Junction 30 of
the M5 near Sandygate. For most of its
length it is a narrow country road and within the East Devon
District Council area. The edge of the proposed development is the
boundary between Exeter and East Devon local authorities. From this
boundary northward Clyst Road is
exceptionally narrow for about half a mile with steep banks on
either side and no pavements. Two cars can pass with care, two 4 x
4s struggle and any commercial vehicles cause a problem. Recently a
car transporter got stuck and caused gridlock. Any pedestrians or cyclists using this section are
at grave risk to their safety;
- traffic queues along Topsham Road
...
view the full minutes text for item 105.
|
106. |
Application No. 17/0916/FUL - Land at Old Vicarage Road, Exeter PDF 161 KB
To consider the report of the City Development
Manager.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The City Development
Manager presented the application for the use of land for
car wash and valeting service.
He outlined the history of the application,
the applicant having previously operated a car wash on that part of
the site fronting Cowick Street and
which had closed following an application for a housing
development. He referred to use of the proposed site by the St.
Thomas Social Club and a Funeral Parlour for car parking and to the
proposed operating hours of the car wash over the entire week.
Responding to Members, he advised that only part of the former car
wash site fronting Cowick Street had
been within the St. Thomas Conservation Area and also stated that a
drainage strategy would need to be agreed for the
proposal.
Councillor Hannaford, having
given notice under Standing Order No.44, spoke on the item. He
raised the following points:-
- the proposal will
adversely affect Cowick Street, Old
Vicarage Road, Old Vicarage Gardens and Powderham Road;
- the proposal has been
considered at Delegation Briefing and referred to the Committee
because of concerns of local residents regarding noise and
pollution – it is a fast, noisy and frenetic business with
teams involved in cleaning and valeting with a quick completion of
jobs;
- residents are also concerned about
traffic and parking. The traffic dynamic along Cowick Street in respect of the previous car wash
was different in that the traffic was slow moving whereas, on the
proposed new site, traffic from the residential area can be quicker
and customers of the car wash may be unfamiliar with the road
layout. The car parking spaces used by the Social Club and the
Funeral Parlour will also be compromised;
- the siting of a
portacabin next to residential
properties is a concern because of noise of the operation from the
portacabin, people smoking
etc.;
- with a seven day
operation proposed, neighbours with low garden walls will have
their quiet weekends disturbed by the work and inhibit the
enjoyment of their gardens;
- not only will
existing residents be affected but also those moving into the new
residences to be provided on the old car wash site;
- surprised at the
recommendation for a two year trial period and opposed to residents
being used as guinea pigs;
- the space on this
site is already cramped with the Social Club and Funeral Parlour in
situ;
- mindful that there will be an
economic effect if the business does not proceed with associated
lack of employment opportunities. Ask therefore for the
Council’s economic team to assist in searching for an
alternative site for the car wash; and
- if permission is to be granted
request no working on Sundays.
Mr Smith spoke against the application. He
raised the following points:-
- the proposal will
cause disturbance as it is five
metres from doors and windows to residential properties in a
densely populated area and will be detrimental to the people living
in this area;
- it will impact
on air quality and pollution control. Human health is
...
view the full minutes text for item 106.
|
107. |
Application No. 17/0308/FUL - Exeter Golf and Country Club, Topsham Road, Exeter PDF 281 KB
To consider the report of the City Development
Manager.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The City Development
Manager presented the application for two
Bays of fine mesh protective golf netting 20 metres high, lattice
supports (x3) over a total length of 60 metres to provide
protection from stray golf balls for nearby dwellings.
Responding to Members, he
confirmed that the netting would be screened by new, semi mature
trees of approximately seven metres in height which were likely to
grow further. Although the Club intended initially to provide a 10
metre high netting it may, in the future, increase to 20 metres
should the problem with stray balls persist. Three pillars were
required for the proposed length and were of the necessary design
to support the proposed height. The normal colour of the netting
was black. It was noted that the idea of residents entering into an
agreement with the Golf Club to accept that, if netting was not
provided, the Club could not be considered responsible in the event
of damage to property and/or personal injury had not been
raised.
Members were circulated with an
update sheet - attached to minutes.
Councillor Leadbetter, having
given notice under Standing Order No.44, spoke on the item. He
raised the following points, referring to a number of photos
provide by the objector:-
- the application
mirrors that of an earlier request for netting when a compromise
had been reached between the Club and the house builder resulting
in a reduction in netting height;
- one photo showed
properties within 14 metres of the fence and the access road
adjacent to the 9th hole, another showed the line of
good and stray shots and another showed the visual impact with the
inclusion of existing trees although there had not been any
reference to their replacement;
- a partial solution has been
provided through the realignment of the 9th hole which
has all but stopped stray balls so it would be sensible for the
club to pursue further options such as only permitting the
exclusive use of the tee by experienced golfers which could negate
the need for netting. Moving the hole closer to the tee would be
the ideal solution and this option should be pursued and monitored.
It will also mean less of a financial outlay for the
club;
- residents have questioned the
credibility of the analysis provided by the professional consultant
and whether the nets will be an adequate deterant;
- as the applicant is seeking
initially to provide only a 10 meter netting the residents are
questioning why permission is also sought for 20 metres; and
- application should be turned down and the
alternative solution of moving the tee put forward adopted.
Mr Forrow spoke against the application. He
raised the following points:-
- there
will be an adverse visual impact - for
one resident of Holland Park this fence would be 16 metres away
from their back garden and in plain view. The top would be much higher than 45 degrees up, and you would have to
crane your neck to see it. For several ...
view the full minutes text for item 107.
|
108. |
Application No. 17/1126/FUL - 16A Monmouth Street, Topsham, Exeter PDF 354 KB
To consider the report of the City Development
Manager.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Principal Project Manager (Development)
(MH) presented the application for a replacement ground floor
extensions on north east, north west and
south west elevations and glazed porch on south east elevation.
He referred to the two key issues of impact on
neighbouring properties and impact of design on the Topsham
Conservation Area and in response to a Member’s query he
confirmed that the total length of the extension proposed in
combination with a previous extension was seven metres. Members
were also advised that there was some divergence from household
guidance but that each application should be considered on its
merit.
Councillor Baldwin, having
given notice under Standing Order No.44, spoke on the item. She
raised the following points:-
- sympathetic to
applicant’s wish to enhance their home in part with view to
ensuring its suitability in later years in order to remain in the
area but feel that the proposal would be unsuitable for the Topsham
Conservation Area;
- the proposal will be
a large extension in a garden that is not very long or wide and
will impact adversely on the neighbouring properties;
- existing extension is
3.5 metres from the rear wall of the house and, with a further
three metres, will exceed seven metres which is not permissable under planning regulations;
- it will set an
unacceptable precedent for the infill of other gardens and make it
difficult to preserve existing open land left in the
area;
- accept it is a
semi-detached and not a terraced property but the Monmouth Street
area is one of historical and architectural importance and the
principle of resisting infill should be maintained;
- neighbours have a
right to privacy and walls and roofs with windows are of such a
size and proximity to cause overbearing, become oppressive and
impact adversely on neighbouring amenity;
- housing shortage is
not an issue but question of infill is; and
- cannot support the application as
the property will have a detrimental impact on the Conservation
Area and adversely affect the amenity of neighbours.
Mr Martin spoke against the application. He
raised the following points:-
- in 30 years of living
on Monmouth Street never has an application failed on so many
counts in terms of policy compliance, detrimental effect to
neighbours and impact on the historic
character of this conservation area. The neighbours’ amenity
will be harmed. To say that the there is no greater
threat to privacy than standing in the garden of the property is
absurd. As with other applications, the view from the garden is
irrelevant;
- there are many policy non-compliances of the Householder Guide to
Extensions adopted by Exeter City Council:
- natural light and outlook will be
significantly affected for neighbours.
Almost 50% of the garden of 16 will be subsumed by the structure,
towering over the garden wall on the only side that receives direct
sunlight, it’s black slate roof overshadowing the outlook.
From inside 16B, and from the garden, the side
extension will be overbearing and
overshadowing;
- privacy will be
affected by new direct ...
view the full minutes text for item 108.
|
109. |
List of Decisions Made and Withdrawn Applications PDF 11 KB
To
consider the report of the City Development Manager.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The report of the City Development
Manager submitted.
RESOLVED that
the report be noted.
|
110. |
Appeals Report PDF 161 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.
|
111. |
SITE INSPECTION PARTY
To advise
that the next Site Inspection Party will be held on Tuesday 6 March
2018 at
9.30
a.m. The Councillors attending will be
Denham, Gottschalk and Newby.
Minutes:
RESOLVED that the next
Site Inspection Party will be held on Tuesday 19 March 2018 at 9.30
a.m. The
Councillors attending will be Councillors Denham, Gottschalk and
Newby.
|
|
Additional Information Circulated after Agenda Dispatched - attached as an appendix PDF 106 KB
|