Agenda item

The Assistant Director City Development presented the application for outline consent for up to 123 houses and associated infrastructure, with all matters reserved except for access. He set out the planning history to the site, the implications on the natural habitat, the implications of the inability of the Devon County Council Development Management Committee to provide guidance relating to highways and how this should affect the decision process.

He reported in detail on the implications of planning law, the absence of a five year housing supply and the need to consider the presumption in favour of sustainable development which for decision making meant approving development proposals that were in accord with the development plan without delay. Further, where the development plan was out of date granting permission unless any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in this National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole or unless specific policies in the Framework indicated development would be restricted.

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

·         the development will lead to an increase in traffic on Topsham Road which is already busy and therefore to an associated increase in pollution which will be exacerbated by additional cars idling at the traffic lights. Many of the proposed new properties are likely to have at least two cars per household;

·         the pollution problem will be further exacerbated when other developments along the Topsham Road are brought forward;

·         the Special School and the West of England School for Children with Little or No Sight will be affected by construction traffic and also passing cars if the development is completed.

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

·         the views regarding the Cirl Bunting requires clarification by means of a formal survey by the RSPB not just a consultant engaged by the applicant using RSPB guidelines;

·         need to protect the sky line to retain views of green fields; and

·         failure to protect this area will set a precedent and lead to encroachment into other Valley Parks.

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

·         this area is one of the most extensively developed parts of the City with new developments in the Newcourt area and with the imminent arrival of IKEA and the loss of the Topsham Gap and will not be able to accommodate this further development;

·         the proposal will impinge on the Ludwell Valley Park, adversely impacting on an important resource of the City;

·         the adjoining estate is unique in the City with only one access in and one out and served by one set of traffic lights;

·         the two special schools will be affected, many of the pupils of both being delivered to and from the schools by taxis;

·         also made presentation to the County Council’s Development Management Committee and disagreed with the view that there would be no highway issues;

·         previous applications have also been refused when traffic was deemed too severe;

·         an area of open green land will be lost for ever;

·         development will impact adversely on wildlife

·         agree with previous view expressed regarding pollution.

·         the acknowledged need for housing can be addressed elsewhere in the City

Ms Keatt spoke against the application. She made the following points:-

·         understand need to balance the requirement to build 12,000 homes in Exeter against the need to retain green outdoor facilities;

·         speaking on behalf of people who live near the field in question and others who enjoy the Park, to urge rejection of the the planning application for this site and keep it from becoming a blot on the landscape;

·         Ludwell Valley Park is 80 hectares of Devonshire farmland, rolling hills and hedgerows. It is unique as its undulating hills offer significant views of the city and the sea at Exmouth. Such views are an asset to the site and, if the proposed houses are built, then these views will be affected forever;

·         if the field is built on then it will leave an isolated tongue of Park land between the proposed site and Woodwater Park offices to the north, reducing the impact of the Park and altering the skyline;

·         the prominence and importance of the Ludwell Valley Park is clear from the ‘Riverside and Ludwell Valley Parks Master Plan 2016 – 2026’ which looks to increase the use of the Park, whilst protecting biodiversity and enhancing natural wildlife habitats;

·         as the population grows it is so important to ensure that Exeter’s future development will protect its wildlife and give it space to thrive. It is vital to protect Ludwell Valley Park at a time of continued growth of the City;

·         places like Ludwell Valley Park improve the quality of life for people in Exeter and help to attract visitors to our City;

·         Ludwell Valley Park is a wildlife haven, which is very important at a time when wildlife is under threat. A wildflower meadow is planted in the field next to the proposed site attracting many types of wildlife. One of these is the rare Cirl Bunting, they, and other protected wildlife, need to be encouraged to remain and thrive in the Park – allowing this development will not help this to happen;

·         through the ‘Wild City’ partnership with Devon Wildlife Trust, the council is creating new habitats to encourage birds like the swift to increase in number. That seems at odds with allowing this application to go ahead as it would destroy a field that is part of Ludwell Valley Park – a field that can continue to offer a natural habitat for wildlife and that has the potential to attract more;

·         if Wendover Way is opened up to allow traffic through onto Southbrook estate, the safety of cyclists and pedestrians who use the roads may be at risk. Many of those are young people travelling to and from school as the cycle/ footpath is offering them a safer route than the very busy main roads. Traffic through from the proposed new site will increase the risk of a serious accident or worse;

·         poor air quality from pollution has already been identified in this area and a further increase of traffic fumes will have an adverse effect on health and wellbeing; and

·         do not allow this to go ahead as there is a need to protect and preserve this field so that future generations can continue to enjoy the beauty and wildlife within Ludwell Valley Park.

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

• a Director at Jones Lang LaSalle in Exeter and represent ADP&E Farmers, the landowners and applicants. The report is a culmination of more than two years of negotiation and consultation with officers, local residents and key stakeholders;
• the principle of development is not in doubt;
• there are no technical reasons to withhold planning permission;
• the report confirms that the development proposed is a sustainable development when viewed in the context of its location and the characteristics of the site - the City’s landscape policies are out of date as confirmed by the Planning Inspectorate and the High Court;
• the application must be judged in light of recent Appeal and High Court decisions that confirmed that the City does not have a five year supply of deliverable housing sites;
• crucially, this site proposes a higher number of dwellings than the allowed Exeter Road appeal meaning that its delivery is of greater importance than that site in addressing the serious housing shortfall in the City. The principle therefore cannot be in doubt because the site is sustainable and significant in addressing the identified housing supply deficit;
• there are no highways grounds to refuse the application as confirmed by Devon County Council Highway Engineers; 
• there are no ecological grounds on which to refuse the application.  A consultant ecologist has been surveying the site continuously since 2010 and their detailed surveys confirm that the site is not used by Cirl Buntings. The RSPB acknowledges in a letter to the Council, that the habitat at the site is not suitable for them;
• site will deliver 43 new affordable homes at 35% of the total;
• the application will deliver greater public access within and to the adjacent Valley Park and improved green infrastructure and ecological enhancement measures within the application site; and
• the principle of development cannot be in doubt and there are no technical reasons to withhold planning permission.

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

• both Southbrook School and the West of England School had been consulted  and were supportive of the proposal;
• given that highways safety was a concern in respect of the children attending the special schools a number of risk assessments had been undertaken which had concluded that the safety of the children would not be compromised by the additional traffic associated with the development; and
• not able to predict if, at the detailed stage, additional properties to the 123 proposed would be brought forward. The 2015 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment had allowed for up to 220 dwellings but this had not been considered an option because of the adverse impact on the skyline. 

The recommendation was for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

RESOLVED that the application for up to 123 houses and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except for access, be refused as the proposal was contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Exeter City Council Core Strategy 2012 CP16, Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011 Policies L1 and LS1 because:-

(a)        it would prevent the potential opportunity for informal recreation of the site in association with the Ludwell Valley Park designation; and

(b)        the proposal would harm the landscape setting of the City through development of Valley Park land.