Agenda and minutes

No declarations of interest were made by Members.

To consider the report of the Director City Development.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (HHS) presented the application for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a 145 bedspace co-living Development (up to 6 storeys in height) and associated works.

He provided the following information:-

·         The proposed development comprised the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a five and six storey co-living residential building;

·         The proposed development would feature communal facilities on the ground floor, with a further kitchen and dining space and a roof terrace at the uppermost floor, with 145 bedspaces in ensuite rooms on the first to sixth levels;

·         The building was arranged with perimeter block and internal court on upper levels and a ground floor that had roof lights from the rear court to give natural light to the rearmost spaces with more active uses arranged on street frontages;

·         The main entrance would be on Summerland Street with service accesses from Red Lion Lane and Verney Street;

·         The application has been revised since first submitted to reduce the height by one storey and reduce the number of rooms by 22:

·         Communal kitchen-diner spaces on each floor have been amalgamated to be provided at ground and uppermost floors.

Members received a presentation which included detailed location photographs, floor plans, street views and aerial views, room layouts, elevations, sustainability as well as highway, heritage and sustainability considerations. The presentation concluded with a summary of the potential benefits and harms of the project.

The application was recommended for approval subject to completion of a S106 Agreement relating to the matters identified and subject to conditions as set out in report, but with secondary recommendation to REFUSE permission in the event the S106 Agreement was not completed within the requisite timeframe.

In response to queries from Members, the Principal Project Manager (Development) (HHS) clarified that:-

·         the revised scheme reducing the height by one story was now the maximum acceptable;

·         any scheme increasing height over the existing would have impact in terms of daylight;

·         reducing the size (as opposed to height) of the project would only yield marginal benefits in terms of daylight;

·         the NHS had been consulted but had not requested a Section 106 contribution;

·         noise levels from the Unit 1 nightclub had been considered;

·         the design for the submitted project had been considered;

·         the type of accommodation offered by the project was not an in principle reason for refusal;

·         the national guidance for affordable housing for build-to-rent schemes was 20%.

Mr Petrou, speaking against the application on behalf of Acland House residents, made the following points:-

·         eight properties would see a total loss of 100% winter annual probable sunlight hours;

·         no attempt had been made to mitigate the impact on light for the residents at the front of Acland House through the design of the building;

·         the new development would be directly overlooking Acland House, diminishing the privacy of many of its residents;

·         the height of the proposal was not in keeping with the surroundings and the lay of the land;

·         there was no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

To consider the report of the Director City Development.

The Service Lead - City Development presented the application for Renovation, conversion and change of use from retail unit and office to form a co-living scheme of thirty-four units including communal facilities and a co-working office space, front extension with four floors, link building, public plaza on the existing car park and renovation of existing bridge link to New Bridge Street.

He provided the following information:-

·       The application sought full planning permission for the change of use and extension of Exeland House to provide co-living accommodation;

·       The proposals would convert the existing Exeland House into sixteen residential rooms across three floors, retaining the building's exterior. New window openings would be formed internally between existing windows. Dormer windows were proposed to the rear roof slope;

·       A part three, part four storey extension was proposed to the front of Exeland House. This would be linked to the existing building via a new glazed atrium entrance. The extension would provide a further eighteen co-living rooms

·       The residential floors would be grouped into six clusters, each having a communal kitchen;

·       The extension would have a red brick facade and use traditional proportions. The top floor would be set back and finished in standing seam zinc cladding. The proposed extension aimed to respect the scale of adjacent buildings and provide a transition between Exeland House and the more contemporary Frog Street development;

·       The existing frontage would be re-landscaped to provide a new public plaza, residents' cycle parking and co-working office accommodation on the ground floor. Vehicular access would be maintained via Hick's Court at the rear.

Members received a presentation which included detailed location photographs, the existing site plan, street views and aerial views, historic streetscapes, the isometric view, room layouts, elevations, proposed site plan, the New Bridge Street entrance, floor plans and various illustrative views. The presentation was concluded with a summary of key issues as well as the full, revised recommendation. He also advised that;-

·       the Environment Agency were close to withdrawing their objection; and

·       if significant changes were required, the scheme would come back in front of the Committee.

The revised recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions as set out in the update sheet.

In response to queries from Members, the Service Lead - City Development clarified that:-

·       there would be a vehicular right of way across the site but no dedicated bay was planned for deliveries and emergency vehicles;

·       the average room size was 19sqm;

·       Historic England has praised the modern element of the project; and

·       cycle parking and electric bike charging were compliant with Exeter City Council standards.

No objectors had registered to speak at the meeting.

Mr Collar, speaking in support of the application, made the following points:-

·       discussions had been taking place for years with the Service Lead - City Development and Historic England;

·       the location was highly sustainable for a co-living scheme;

·       he expected the Environment Agency to withdraw their objection imminently;

·       there would be no bedrooms on the ground floor;

·       there would be a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To consider the report of the Director City Development.

The Assistant Service Lead - City Development (HSS) presented the application for replacement of existing garage, forecourt and retail units with a mixed-use development including residential and commercial (revised plans).

She reminded Members of the planning history for the scheme and provided the following information:-

·         The proposal included ground floor commercial use and would provide residential development in close proximity to local amenities such as shops and schools;

·         The proposal was for a two-and-a-half-storey development consisting of 1 no 4-bedroom dwellinghouse, 4 no. 2-bedroom flats and 4 no. 1-bedroom flats, 447.82sqm of commercial development and associated landscaping and parking for the commercial use;

·         The site was situated within an eight-minute walking distance of Pinhoe railway station and within a fourteen-minute walking distance of a large supermarket.

Members received a presentation which included detailed location and existing site photographs, floor plans, back to back distances, proposed sections, street views and aerial views, elevations, landscaping as well as neighbour consultation. The presentation concluded with a summary of the proposed uses for the various components of the development.

The application was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

In response to queries from Members, the Assistant Service Lead - City Development (HSS) clarified that:-

·         the house had parking facilities;

·         the proposal had originally been presented to a Delegation Briefing but referred to the Planning Committee because of concerns from Devon County Council Highways;

·         the mature ash tree would be removed after a tree officer had assessed that it suffered from ash dieback;

·         the landscape conditions could be negotiated;

·         there were no plans to set the buildings back as the proposal had already been revised; and

·         there would be 10 cycle parking spaces for eight dwellings.

Speaking under Standing Order 44, Councillor Duncan Wood made the following points:-

·         the site was prominent in Pinhoe and was currently unattractive;

·         as a brownfield site, the location was suitable for development;

·         condition #13 in the recommendation failed to mention the approved business hours for the commercial properties;

·         some of the current businesses on the site caused heavy car use;

·         it was not strictly true that this was a zero-car development;

·         parking was currently at a premium in Pinhoe and the proposed development could make the situation even more difficult;

·         two driveways in the proposed development led to a tight curved road, which was concerning;

·         the house inset instead of aligned with the other properties in the development;

·         the food kiosk was not a walk-past facility and customers required parking.

The Assistant Service Lead - City Development (HSS) explained that there was a layby and that the new proposal would make parking in the tight curved road more difficult.

Cllr Wood responded as follows to queries from Members:-

·         although this was the best proposal he had seen for this site, illegal parking would increase as a result;

·         there was a private car park nearby, where people could park for one hour for free;

·         the concept of the proposal was good but required better  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To consider the report of the Director City Development.

The report of the City Development Manager was submitted.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To consider the report of the Director City Development.

The Director City Development advised that there was a slight inaccuracy in the report, namely that, while the appeal for 22/1177/FUL Land Adjacent to Gras Lawn and Fleming Way had been allowed, costs had not been awarded. Further details would be provided at the earliest opportunity.

The schedule of appeal decisions and appeals lodged was submitted.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.