Agenda and minutes

To sign the minutes of the meetings held on 30 November and 4 December 2017.

The minutes of the meetings held on 30 October and 4 December 2017 were taken as read and signed by the Chair as correct.

No declarations of interest were made by Members.

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

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.

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

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.

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

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.

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

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 9^th 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 9^th 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.

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

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.

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

The report of the City Development Manager submitted.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

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 6 March 2018 at

9.30 a.m.  The Councillors attending will be Denham, Gottschalk and Newby.

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.