Agenda and draft minutes

Planning Committee
Monday 10th February 2020 5.30 pm

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

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

Note: The deadline speaking at Planning Committee is 10am on Thursday 6 February 2020 

Items
No. Item

15.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 270 KB

To approve and sign the minutes of the meetings held on 6 and 13 January 2020.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meetings held on 6 and 13 January 2020 were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as correct.

16.

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.

 

17.

Planning Application No. 19/0733/FUL - 7-9 and 10 Blackboy Road, Exeter pdf icon PDF 163 KB

To consider the report of the Service Lead City Development.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) presented the application for the retention of the Sorry Head public house and demolition of the vehicular servicing centre and re-development with a three/four storey building comprising of a ground floor retail unit (Class A1), purpose built student accommodation development (72 bedspaces) above, one warden’s flat and associated private amenity space, secure cycle storage and landscaping.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) stated that several revisions had been made to the proposal including a reduction in height and the setting back of the development into the site. It was considered to be acceptable in the setting of the Belmont Conservation Area with the retention of the frontage of the Sorry Head also making a positive contribution. The appropriate use of render and brick would be addressed within the conditions.

 

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

 

  • local residents accept the need to re-develop the site but disappointed that it is identified for student housing rather than affordable accommodation to help contribute to the character of the area;
  • the development will have an adverse impact on existing heritage assets including the Sorry Head, the Moose Hall and the neighbourhood has particular sensitivities because of the 15th Century St Anne’s Chapel as there will be an impact on the view of this building;
  • the development is detrimental to local residents’ amenity, outlook, light and quality of life;
  • roof design is incongruous to existing buildings in the area;
  • removal of parking bays to enable dropping off and picking up of occupants will result in an increase in on-street parking in the area particularly as some students may still bring cars;
  • development will contribute to the over saturation of student accommodation/houses in multiple occupation in the area and tip the balance in respect of late night noise etc. already experienced;
  • fire safety is a concern and a report from the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority is necessary;
  • the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site and shadow analysis has confirmed the adverse light impact on properties and gardens resulting in the loss of outlook for neighbours. This, in turn, will impact on the health and wellbeing of residents;
  • a gap of 17 metres from the rear of the development to some neighbouring properties falls short of the 22 metres standard; and
  • it is a regressive and anachronistic proposal which does not reflect the ambitions of the City Council’s Liveable Exeter Garden Vision and should be rejected on grounds of design, scale, height and impact on residents and their quality of life

 

Mr Summers spoke against the application. Referring to a series of sectional drawings and photographs of his garden and the surrounding area he raised the following points:-

 

  • the four-storey block replaces a much lower building on the site impacting on the amenity of 116 Old Tiverton Rd. The proposed new building is very tall and close and will have a detrimental  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

18.

Planning Application No. 19/0962/FUL - Land off Pulling Road, Pinhoe, Exeter pdf icon PDF 150 KB

To consider the report of the Service Lead City Development.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) presented the application for residential development for 40 dwellings with associated access, landscaping, open space and infrastructure.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) reported that:-

 

·         the applicants were promoting zero carbon housing for the whole scheme, a consequence being an increase in the building cost per dwelling (estimated at approximately £27,700);

·         the applicants had offered a provision of only 15% affordable housing whilst the policy required a 35% provision, that is, an offer of six affordable housing out of a total of 40. They had submitted a viability report stating that the combination of zero carbon dwellings and highway and educational contributions had resulted in the policy compliant level of 35% provision being unachievable. This conclusion of the viability assessment had been accepted by the Council’s independent viability assessor as an acceptable compromise; and

·         a request could be made for the provision of a footpath to the boundary but there was no guarantee that this would be continued should the adjacent site be developed.

 

Responding to a Member’s query, the Highways Development Management Officer advised that a Pinhoe Area Access Strategy had been produced identifying mitigation measures across the highways network in this area including the E4 Cycle route, improvements to the pedestrian network and enhanced bus provision together with the proposed Langaton Lane Link Road.

 

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

 

  • object to yet a further development in an area where there has been a significant number of other developments impacting adversely on the green belt land and wildlife corridor;

·         major increase in population causing additional sewage, drainage, light pollution and impact on ground stability;

  • Pinhoe suffers from severe traffic congestion particularly around commuter and school traffic periods and the present road infrastructure is inadequate to cope with further developments;
  • the road is too narrow and additional properties will lead to highway safety issues;

·         noise will be generated from the heat pumps; and

·         detrimental impact on residential amenities, schools, medical surgery etc.

 

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

 

  • Verto has operated for 10 years and its key goal is to change the way people live and to provide a radical change in the South West housing market;
  • wishes to encourage a carbon zero lifestyle and use of clean renewable energy away from fossil fuel, CO2, gas burners and wood burners; and
  • reflects the City Council goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2030.

 

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 

  • can look to reduce car parking provision to help development proceed but acknowledge that a car free offer can hinder sales;
  • at previous schemes a slight premium has been added because of the sustainable nature of the properties and as a response to demand;
  • heat pumps will not be noisy and will not be audible outside properties;
  • will seek to add two electric car charging points in each household port; and
  • would be open to the suggestion to review affordable housing provision.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

19.

Planning Application No. 19/1460/OUT - Land off Pennsylvania Road, Exeter pdf icon PDF 130 KB

To consider the report of the Service Lead City Development.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) presented the application for outline application for residential development for up to 26 dwellings with all matters reserved except access.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) reported the receipt of further representations from the applicant’s agents objecting to the reasons in the report for refusing the application and requesting the deferral of the application. He advised that the report’s recommendation that the site for housing would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area identified as important for landscape setting remained and that the protection of the landscape outweighed the need for housing. The request for deferral therefore was not warranted.

 

Councillor Begley, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on the item. She raised the following points:-

 

  • the safety of local residents will be compromised as an additional development will increase the dangerous traffic conditions along Pennsylvania Road which lacks footpaths on both sides. Motorists often miss the speed limit sign which is located outside the built up area. There are a number of incidents where debris has been collected resulting from accidents and there has been one fatality;
  • the road is not safe for pedestrian and cyclists and there is a long walk to the nearest bus stop in Stoke Valley Road;
  • the site is close to two stables and the safety and health of horses may be compromised;
  • adverse impact on bio-diversity of the area;
  • an additional settlement will adversely affect water supply in the area as well as causing additional flooding during periods of high run off; and
  • there will be an adverse impact on the landscape setting and character of the green hills.

 

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

 

RESOLVED that outline planning permission for residential development for up to 26 dwellings with all matters reserved except access be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

 

1.         The development is contrary to Policy LS1 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review and Policy CP16 of the Exeter Core Strategy. The development would result in harm to the character and local distinctiveness of this rural area evidenced in the Exeter Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study and the Devon Landscape Character Area Assessment by reason of it contributing to the urbanisation of the area and detracting from the rural green hillside setting.

 

2.         The development is contrary to Policies LS1 & LS4 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review and CP16 of the Exeter Core Strategy. The creation of vehicular access for the site to the serve the residential units in this location would result in the loss of a substantial section of hedge bank fronting onto Pennsylvania Road detrimental to the visual landscape character and appearance of the area and harmful to the biodiversity of the area located with a site of local interest for nature conservation.

 

3.         In the absence of sufficient highway information, particularly in respect of a Road Safety Audit regarding pedestrian access to and from the site,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

20.

Planning Application No. 19/1621/FUL - Whipton Barton House, Vaughan Road, Exeter pdf icon PDF 160 KB

To consider the report of the Service Lead City Development.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (HS) presented the application for demolition of existing buildings and construction of 92 apartments, access and parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure/highways works.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) reported:-

 

  • the comments of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer on additional design issues;
  • an updated condition two;
  • objections in respect of tree planting;

·         the use of Passivhaus construction techniques throughout;

·         car parking limited to 46 spaces including five disabled spaces and five for electric car club cars on Vaughan Road and Hill Lane. Five hire bikes would be provided together with 118 cycle parking spaces. Charging points would be installed for electric vehicles. There would be eight units of a wheelchair accessible design and eight scooter charging points;

·         in respect of affordable housing, a viability assessment had been carried out by Plymouth City Council which advised that the return would be less than that expected by a commercial developer and that, whilst the scheme would be required to make a CIL contribution, it would not be able to support affordable housing sought by Core Strategy Policy CP7 or Section 106 developer contributions. The scheme would therefore be considered as from a planning perspective as 100% market housing with restrictions on occupation or disposal. Whilst no affordable housing would be secured through the planning system it was the applicant’s intention that 60 of the 92 units would be delivered as affordable housing with third party funding.

Mr Tarbet spoke in objection to the application. He raised the following points:-

 

  • the RD&E had made a Section 106 claim under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 worth £118,000 in December 2019 but the Council officers had rejected the claim based on no justification and insufficient information;
  • legal opinion states that health is a material consideration and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) covers healthy communities;
  • approximately 1,000 houses require £1 million to deliver health service per annum which is considered reasonable and fair and is related in scale and kind to the development;
  • a failure to mitigate will result in lower quality care and higher costs of vital health services; and
  • a detailed model used elsewhere in the UK had been provided as evidence.

 

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 

  • support is sought for secondary care not primary;
  • with regard to timing and expectation behind the request, the NHS has only recently considered the need for contributions because of the growth in housing developments nationwide and is considered legitimate in law. Although a contribution of £1,000 would be the average sought for a property, when aggregated, the contribution for 50,000 new homes would require a £50 million contribution without which the performance of hospitals would be expected to dip. Contributions would not be just for A and E but towards patient flow through the hospital; and
  • similar approaches are being made to neighbouring authorities with a lead being sought from Exeter. A Teignbridge contribution was being sought in respect of Torbay Hospital.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) reiterated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

21.

List of Decisions Made and Withdrawn Applications pdf icon PDF 45 KB

To consider the report of the Service Lead City Development.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The report of the Service Lead City Development was submitted.

           

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

 

22.

Appeals Report pdf icon PDF 86 KB

To consider the report of the Service Lead City Development.

Minutes:

The schedule of appeal decisions and appeals lodged was submitted.

 

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

 

 

23.

SITE INSPECTION PARTY

To advise that the next Site Inspection Party will be held on Tuesday 3 March 2020 at

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

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the next Site Inspection Party will be held on Tuesday 3 March 20202 at 9.30 a.m. The Councillors attending will be Councillors Ghusain, Harvey and Mrs Henson.