Agenda and minutes

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 18 March 2019.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 March 2019 were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as correct.

No declarations of interest were made by Members.

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

The Chair made the following statement in respect of the application for the construction of a 54 bed independent hospital (Use Class C2) with access, car parking, landscaping/open space and associated works:-

“Planning Committee has previously considered this application at its meeting on the 3 December 2018. The Committee resolved to grant planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation set out in the report. Before the Planning Permission was issued, the Hill Barton Residents Association applied to Judicially Review the Council’s decision. The grounds for Judicial Review were in brief:-

1.    Failure of the Council to discharge its duty under Section 11(2) of the Children’s Act 2004 by failing to consult properly;

2.    Failure of Devon County Council to declare a financial interest in the application (as owner of the land) and having undue influence upon the decision as a statutory consultee (highways and flooding);

3.    Failure to impose a condition excluding the use of the development within Class C2a of the Use Classes Order 1987/764;

4.    Failure to secure a planning contribution for the benefit of the school.

On reflection, the Council agreed that it should re-consider its decision in the light of the matters referred to in ground 1. As a result, the Judicial Review was discontinued by the Hill Barton Residents Association. Today, the report has been prepared in substitution of the original report to allow the Committee to consider the application afresh, taking into account all the information and responses we now have.” 

The Chair reminded Members that, as decision makers, they may be predisposed to particular views. However, if any Member had closed their mind to any possibility beyond that predisposition, with the effect that they would be unable to apply their judgment fully and properly to the matter in hand and to take into account new information as set out in the report and not minded to listen to what is being said both for and against the application, then they must absent themselves from determining the matter on the basis that they have predetermined the application.

A Member suggested that three Members of the Committee, from comments made at 3 December meeting of this Committee, had shown themselves to have been predisposed to certain views. The City Solicitor and Head of Human Resources quoted the provisions of Section 25 of the Localism Act 2011 and, following a number of questions to the Members concerned, was of the view that on the face of it, the Members concerned appeared to be still open minded and none appeared to have already made up their mind as to which way to vote.

The Service Lead City Development introduced the report stating that it was an amalgam of the previous report with additional information added following further consultations. It specifically covered safeguarding matters following further information from the public and third parties and also covered the Council’s obligations under the Equalities Act 2010.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MH) presented the details of the application which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

The Project Manager (Planning) (ZN) presented the application for the change of use of former care home to provide 19 residential units, partial demolition and redevelopment of a two storey side extension, associated car and cycle parking, private amenity space and public footpath. The presentation was a joint one covering application 18/1275/FUL (Min. No. 25 below).

Councillor Warwick, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on both applications. He raised the following points:-

• change from 55 plus residence is regrettable;
• an independent report would have been preferable given the County Council’s ownership of the site;
• Mill Lane is the old country lane from Alphington Village starting as a footway/cycleway only from Ide Lane to Mill House and then shared with vehicles to the junction with Mandrake Road. The footpath is used not only by children of the primary school and West Exe School but the residents of the housing estates in Alphington to get to Marsh Barton and St Thomas;
• the travel plan is not necessarily a solution to road safety and traffic issues as encouraging further cycle and walking use will also increase conflict with vehicles. The footpath starting at Ide Lane funnels pedestrians into Mill Lane and vehicular traffic and pedestrians cannot pass at the same time on the bridge over Alphinbrook near the junction with Mandrake Road. There is a vital need for a safe footway if planning permission is granted, for example, establish one through the local playing fields;
• additional traffic will be generated by the development which, allied to parents parking along Mill Lane to drop off and pick up children from the primary school as well as children walking to this school and West Exe, refutes the County Council claim that the situation is not dissimilar to that of other schools in the city;
• a road management scheme is required to restrict access to residents and visitors only at certain times of the day, that is, when pupils are entering and leaving the primary school; and
• the main issue is the safety of school children and because of the problem of speeding traffic a speed limit should be enforced which will also help

ensure safe access and egress to the development site.

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

• became aware of the change from a 55 plus residence when the second application was submitted; and
• traffic and parking enforcement had been suggested by the residents although recognise limited enforcement resources.

The Highways Development Management Officer advised that shared space helped minimise traffic speed in accordance with the Manual for Streets. Although school children did come to school close to the peak am traffic flow, they left outside the peak pm flow and therefore the two would not meet. The applicant had agreed to provide a pedestrian footpath adjacent to Mill Lane, on land within the applicant’s control. With regard to restricting access to residents and visitors only, this would be difficult to enforce unless cameras were installed and which, in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

The Project Manager (Planning) (ZN) presented the application for the change of use of former care home to provide 19 residential units, partial demolition and redevelopment of a two storey side extension, construction of three terraced houses, associated car and cycle parking, private amenity space and public footpath. The presentation was a joint one covering application 18/1053/FUL (Min. No. 24 above).

Councillor Warwick, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on the item as did Juliet Meadowcroft as an objector and Philp Burgess as a supporter. Their views are set out in Min. No. 24 above.

Responding to the views expressed by the speakers, the Highways Development Management Officer advised that shared space helped minimise traffic speed in accordance with the Manual for Streets. Although school children did come to school close to the peak am traffic flow, they left outside the peak pm flow and therefore the two would not meet. The applicant had agreed to provide a pedestrian footpath adjacent to Mill Lane, on land within the applicant’s control. With regard to restricting access to residents and visitors only, this would be difficult to enforce unless cameras were installed and which, in any case, the County Council could not maintain. Mill Lane was the subject of a 20mph speed limit.

With regard to concerns relating to material planning considerations it was noted that these had been addressed through revisions to the scheme, conditions on the decision notice and a Section 106 Agreement. For all the reasons considered and weighing up the development plan policies and proposals, and other material considerations, it was considered that the proposal would be appropriate.

Members did not feel that the increase in traffic movement would be a severe enough impact on the highway network to warrant a refusal of the scheme.

The recommendation was for approval, subject to the conditions and signing of a Section 106 Agreement as set out in the report.

RESOLVED that, subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure pedestrian footpath, a Management Scheme, and Affordable Housing planning permission for the change of use of former care home to provide 19 residential units, partial demolition and redevelopment of a two storey side extension, construction of three terraced houses, associated car and cycle parking, private amenity space and public footpath be APPROVED, subject also to the following conditions:-

 1)        The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

Reason:  To ensure compliance with sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 2)        The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance with the submitted details received by the Local Planning Authority on  25^th February 2019 (including dwg. nos. 17447 SD, DTS18. 28.1.TPP, (0) 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 01 F, 02E,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

The Assistant City Development Manager presented the application for demolition of existing house and annex and construction of four new houses (semi-detached) with associated parking and infrastructure.

Peter Vance spoke against the application. He raised the following points:-

• 43 objections had been submitted from neighbours following two community meetings in respect of an inappropriate development;
• contrary to Objective 9, Policies DG1 and 4, CP4 and 17, H2 and the Residential Design Guide and is an overdevelopment, cramming four, four-bed houses where there is currently one house and annexe, adding a full storey and is monolithic and overbearing;
• the elevations rise vertically almost three metres higher than the existing dwelling, with flat roofs in a neighbourhood where pitch roofs are the norm. The design does not integrate or relate to other properties in height, shape, size or appearance;
• dominates views from all directions near and far and is detrimental to the area’s character. There is no reference to historical context or the medieval core of Countess Wear, Grade 2 listed cottages metres away, and lime kilns;
• the design, height, boundary treatment, and window configuration create significant issues of loss of privacy for neighbours on all sides;
• the ground floor frontage has four garages with seven parking spaces in front, and no habitable rooms. Cars will dominate the street scene;
• area popular with walkers, cyclists, dog walkers, and joggers;
• King George Playing Fields, Exe Valley cycle route, and Green Circle walking routes will be blighted; and
• support recommendation to refuse.

The recommendation was for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

RESOLVED that planning permission for the demolition of existing house and annex and construction of four new houses (semi-detached) with associated parking and infrastructure be refused as the proposal would be contrary to Objective 9 and Policies CP4 and CP17 of the Exeter Core Strategy, Policies H2, DG1 (b), (d), (f), (g), (h and DG4 a, b, c of the Exeter Local Plan First Review and the Residential Design Guide SPD because:-

(a)   the proposed construction of four residential units would result in the overdevelopment of an inadequately proportioned site, presenting a cramped form of development unsympathetic with, and detrimental to, the character of this established residential area;

(b)        the siting scale and design of the development would have a poor relationship with, and overbearing impact on, No. 20A Countess Wear Road with adverse impacts on the residential amenities of existing and future occupiers of the property, particularly in terms of loss of outlook and overshadowing in the garden area  amenity; and

(c)        by reason of its scale, height and design the proposed development would be overbearing, dominant and visually intrusive within and relate poorly to the street scene, to the detriment of the character of the area.

Informatives

1.    In accordance with Paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive and pro-active way with the Applicant and has looked for solutions to enable the grant of planning permission.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

The Assistant City Development Manager presented the application for the construction of detached dwelling with associated parking and infrastructure on land to rear of 20 Countess Wear Road.

Vanessa Skelding spoke against the application. She raised the following points:-

• 47 objections had been received including immediate neighbours and from all over Exeter, including the Exeter Civic Society;
• proposal goes against Policy CP4, 7, HG1 and DG4. The development does not fit in with the variety of existing housing types and does not demonstrate a high standard of sustainable design and was out of character with the Old Countess Wear village; 
• the siting, scale and design of the development would have a poor relationship with, and overbearing impact on, Mill Road, with adverse impacts on the residential amenities particularly overlooking, loss of privacy and light from neighbours on all sides;
• volume and block-shape of this proposal is not in keeping with the adjoining buildings, with their pitched roofs; and the surrounding townscape. Use of materials would not relate to the palette in the locality;
• not in keeping with this historic area of Exeter distinctive with its lime kilns, listed thatched cottages, the paper mill and historic wharf; and
• ill-considered, oversized, disproportionate luxury home.

The recommendation was for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

RESOLVED that planning permission for construction of detached dwelling with associated parking and infrastructure on land to rear of 20 Countess Wear Road be refused as the proposal would be contrary to Objective 9 and Policies CP4 and CP17 of the Exeter Core Strategy, Policies H2, DG1 and DG4 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review and the Residential Design Guide SPD because the siting scale and design of the development would have a poor relationship with, and overbearing impact on, No. 28 Mill Road with adverse impacts on the residential amenities of existing and future occupiers of the property, particularly in terms of loss of outlook and overshadowing in the garden area

Informatives

1.    In accordance with Paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive and pro-active way with the Applicant and has looked for solutions to enable the grant of planning permission. However the proposal remains contrary to the planning policies set out in the reasons for refusal and was not therefore considered to be sustainable development.

2.    In accordance with Chapters 1 and 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, this development has been screened in respect of the need for an Appropriate Assessment (AA). Given the nature of the development, it has been concluded that an AA is required in relation to potential impact on the relevant Special Protection Areas (SPA), the Exe Estuary and East Devon Pebblebed Heaths, which are designated European sites. This AA has been carried out and concludes that the development is such that it could have an impact primarily associated with recreational activity of future occupants of the development. This impact will be mitigated in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

The report of the City Development Manager was 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 7 May 2019 at 9.30 a.m. Councillors attending to be advised.

RESOLVED that the next Site Inspection Party will be held on Tuesday 7 May at 9.30, Councillors to be advised of participants.

The Chair stated that this would be the last Planning Committee for Councillor Peter Edwards, who was to retire as a Councillor at the May Elections. She thanked him for his service to the Committee over many years. She and Members wished him well for the future.