Agenda and draft minutes

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 29 May 2024

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 May 2024 were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as correct.

No declarations of interest were made by Members.

Councillor M Mitchell remarked that Planning Application No. 22/0511/OUT (Land Off Pendragon Road) had legal implications and, in light of the recent meeting of the Executive where the possible sale of amenity land adjoining this site had been debated, wondered if the member of the Executive sitting on the Planning Committee might find herself in an awkward position. The Planning Lawyer clarified that the matter discussed at Executive was about the sale of land, whereas the matter at hand at the present meeting was a planning application. Councillor M Mitchell felt that it was also about access. The Planning Lawyer reiterated that only planning matters would be considered at the present meeting.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The Principal Project Manager presented the application for a residential development of up to 100 dwellings and associated infrastructure (all matters reserved except access).

He provided the following information:-

·         The application site was at the lower two-thirds of a 5.18 hectare set of fields located to the north of Pendragon Road. It was bordered by mature hedgebanks with a central hedgebank dividing the two fields;

·         The top third of the set of fields, outlined in blue, was proposed to become public open space, with a new hedgerow installed to separated it from the development;

·         Access was proposed from the southern boundary onto Pendragon Road, across an existing hedgebank and grass verge owned by the Council. Any sale of this land to allow the access fell outside of the remit of this planning application;

·         There had been 196 comments received on the proposal with 132 objections and 62 supporting. The objections raised many issues including the loss of the open space, ecological harm, impacts on the landscape setting of the northern hills, highway concerns and lack of facilities. Supporting comments included the land gaining a use, the 50% affordable housing, the provision of more homes for the people of Exeter, lack of brownfield sites and the area having a history of residential developments.

·         The site was located within the northern hills landscape setting area and was adjacent to Sites of Nature Conservation;

·         The application followed application No. 21/0020/OUT, which had been refused at Planning Committee in March 2022 for the following reasons:

-               harm to the character and local distinctiveness of the landscape setting

-               loss of open space

-               harm to a Site of Nature Conservation along the southern boundary to create the access.

-               Access roads failing to integrate with the southern boundary and the landscape of the city.

·         This refusal was appealed and, following a hearing, the Inspector allowed the application in August 2023;

·         In relation to the appeal the following matters were of importance:

-               The southern boundary Site of Nature Conservation was confirmed as no longer existing and acceptable mitigation could be provided through the introduction of a new hedgebank between the new dwellings and the public open space area to the north.

-               The Inspector had considered that the loss of open space would be mitigated by the provision of public open space to the north of the site.

-               The Inspector considered that there would be ‘limited’ harm to the landscape setting and that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the harm.

·         During the appeal process a revised planning application was submitted. This saw the red-line of the site boundary reduced to remove the top area from it.

·         As this was a variation to the refused scheme, the application was accepted. The appeal decision was issued before a decision was made on this new application and it had remained as a live application. Following the appeal decision the applicant was asked if they wished to withdraw this second application but they declined to do  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The Principal Project Manager presented the application for outline planning permission for up to 85 dwellings (35% affordable), community hub and associated infrastructure (all matters reserved except access).

He provided the following information:-

·         The application site was 4.88 hectares of agricultural land, currently split into two areas;

·         There is an existing vehicular access on the western boundary onto Stoke Hill and a large agricultural barn in the centre of the site;

·         There had been 303 representations received on this application - 302 objecting and 1 supporting;

·         The objections raised issues that included loss of green space, impact on the rural setting and character of the area, urbanisation of the ridgeline, harm to the Valley Park, increase in traffic on already dangerous roads, inadequate access roads, loss of biodiversity, drainage issues, bus connection problems, encircling of the valley park, no need for a community hub, policy conflicts as brownfield land should be used, few job opportunities within walking distance;

·         The supporting comment made reference to building homes for future generations and helping with the housing shortage;

·         Objections had been received from a number of consultees (Devon County Council Highways, Devon Wildlife Trust, Exeter Civic Society, Exeter Cycling Campaign) as well as Exeter City Council’s Ecologist and Tree Manager;

·         The vehicular access is proposed using the existing point on the western boundary of the site leading onto Stoke Hill;

·         There was currently no safe and accessible footway for pedestrians to link up to the wider city, such as the closest bus stop on Mincinglake Road. It was therefore proposed to install a footway along Stoke Hill, leading south all the way up to join Mincinglake Road;

·         The site was within the northern hills of Exeter and is within a Landscape Setting Area;

·         The site had been subject to two Landscape studies and two Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessments, all of which concluded that the site was not suitable for housing or employment due to the high sensitivity of the area;

·         A landscape Visual Impact Assessment had been submitted with the application and followed by with a statement in response to initial objections from the Council’s Urban Design and Landscape Officer;

·         The Council had commissioned an independent consultant on the previous application and, whilst the red-line had been changed, the conclusion that the overall site was not suitable for development due to landscape harm was still relevant;

·         The Council’s Urban Design and Landscape Officer raised objections to the scheme, noting that ‘…the essential nature of the proposal can clearly be seen to be an isolated development form poorly connected to the existing structure of any existing neighbourhoods, posited in the green space that provides a natural subdivision of the urban structure’;

·         The development would see amenity impacts through additional vehicle movements and domestic noise that will impact on the amenity of the Mincinglake Valley Park;

·         It has been demonstrated that larger vehicles will be able to enter the site;

·         The pedestrian access into the site had originally been proposed to be via  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The Assistant Service Lead – Development Management (Major Projects) presented the application for the erection of a freestanding restaurant with drive through facility, car parking, landscaping and associated works, including Customer Order Displays (COD). He talked Members through a presentation which included:-

·         site location plan;

·         aerial view;

·         proposed development;

·         site layout;

·         elevations;

·         the 26 objections received;

·         the acceptable principle of the proposed development;

·         the absence of objections from the consultees (including the NO objections from consultees including the Local Highway Authority and Environmental Health);

·         the withdrawal of the previous objections from the Urban Design Officer;

·         improvements;

·         character of area;

·         tree screening (summer and winter);

·         pedestrian access;

·         biodiversity enhancement;

·         mitigation; and

·         planning balance.

It was considered that the adverse impacts of this proposal would not outweigh the benefits and, therefore, planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

In response to queries from Members, the Assistant Service Lead – Development Management (Major Projects) and the Devon County Council Highways Development Management Officer (Exeter) clarified that:-

·         the site was constrained and the dense piece of vegetation would mitigate visibility;

·         applications for an associated logo and for lighting would have to be made separately;

·         any application for the restaurant to be open 24/7 would have to go through Licensing;

·         detailed reports had been submitted about lighting and odours; Exeter City Council’s Environmental Health team had been consulted these matters and found the levels acceptable;

·         no confirmation had been received about the positioning and reach of the CCTV cameras;

·         it was not possible to reduce the 30mph maximum speed limit between the roundabout and the traffic lights but, if speeding became an issue, the matter should be reported to the police;

·         it was unlikely that there would be major instances of cars backing up at the drive-though; and

·         it was not the remit of the Planning Committee to insist that a sign reminding members of the public of speed limits in force be displayed on the site;

·         the possible weight given to the Exeter Plan was limited at this stage and, while officers agreed with the assessment that the site should be allocated to housing, they deemed the site equally viable for commercial use;

·         a condition had been added about litter picking; and

·         conditions needed to be relevant to the development and as opposed to addressing existing problems.

During debate, Members expressed the following views:-

·         the application needed to be judged on planning terms alone;

·         it was regrettable that a drive-through was part of the application;

·         crossing Russell Way was dangerous for pedestrians;

·         there had been a precedent of unpleasant odours emanating from another fast-food restaurant on the site;

·         the lighting coming from the restaurant would be intrusive;

·         the CCTV should cover the wider Tesco car park;

·         the application provided the opportunity to urge everyone at Exeter City Council to look into anti-social behaviour on supermarket car parks, e.g. joyriders;

·         the proposal offered opportunities for residents;

·         the site was in a state of neglect;

·         with regard to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

Councillor M Mitchell remarked that there was a discrepancy in the headers and dates of delegation briefings listed in the report. The Head of City Development acknowledged this and advised that he would look into it and write to Councillor M Mitchell.

The report of the Strategic Director for Place was noted.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

Councillor M Mitchell drew the attention of Members to the fact that the appeal for application no. 22/0756/FUL (Newbery Car Breakers, Redhills) had been dismissed and that the Planning Inspectorate had supported the view of the Planning Committee Members, who had taken a decision opposite to that of the Highways authority.

The report of the Strategic Director for Place was noted.