Agenda item

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

Councillor Spackman declared a disclosable pecuniary interest as a Trustee of the Feoffees of St Sidwell, the applicant, and left the meeting during consideration of this item.

The Project Manager (Planning) (GM) presented the application for the demolition of 11 garages to be replaced by a two storey development of six apartments.

He clarified that the level of the green space should be approximately 1,5 to 2,5 meter higher than the road, correcting what was described in the Committee Report.

He updated Members on revised plans submitted by the applicant on 22 July, three days before the meeting, the applicant stating that the changes would address one of the reasons of refusal, that is, nationally described space standards not being met. The changes had not led to the required improvements in space standards.

The new drawings had decreased the space for the area for entrance and stairwell together making apartment 1. smaller to be able to make the other apartments larger within the same foot print for the development. As described in the Committee Report the plans did not show the outer wall thick enough to contain both the existing retaining wall as well as the proposed structural wall, shown on the submitted section. This had not been amended on the new drawings.

Before the submission of the new drawings the apartments had been below nationally describe space standards even without the necessary changes needed to include the structural wall shown in the section. Now the apartments on the ground floor with the layout in the new drawings would be approximately 2-3 m² below nationally described space standards if the plans show the full width of the outer walls.

As described in the Committee Report considerations of not building in the root zone of the protected Lime tree or incorporate highway land as private footpath, to enable the development to sit closer to the street, would have further impact on apartment sizes. His conclusion was therefore that the applicant was not showing that they could comply to the nationally described space standards even with the new drawings.

He clarified that the communal open space, as described in the Residential Design SPD, was approximately 130 m²,not including areas for private sitting out space, correcting what was described in the report. The communal open space wasnot 150 m²  as shown in the new drawings. If including the private sitting out space, three metres out from the apartments facing and levelled with the green space, only approximately 58 m² remains of the communal open space. Approximately 18 m² of these 58 m² was directly under the protected Lime tree, as shown on the drawings.

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

• the lateness of the submission puts the residents at a distinct disadvantage, as they have had no time to properly assess the plans;
• applicant has known about the minimum standards failure since 31 March, 2016, and failed to do anything;
• the measurements and living space figures don’t add up - the developer appears to have created 7m² out of thin air on the ground floor;
• on the revised application, the height of the building has been slightly lowered by reducing the number of floors from three to two, however, the actual footprint has been increased from 204.5 metres to 211.7 metres;
• the design is still out of keeping with the neighbouring houses and streetscape, which is composed of Victorian terraced houses;
• the issue of scale and mass is central to the residents’ objections;
• a challenging application for the planning officer and local residents which, to an extent, has been made even more difficult by the lack of clarity in the applicant’s planning statement relating to lack of detail;
• there are a number of errors and omissions;
• the applicant states that the provision of good access amenities for all the tenant age groups and abilities is a fundamental convention of the design. However, there is no direct access to the amenity area from the ground floor flats. The proposed balcony to the apartment 4 is too small when measured against the Council’s Residential Design Guide and, critically, it overlooks a number of adjacent properties in Toronto Road.
• one of the most contentious issues is the impact on residents’ privacy;
• ecology and biodiversity reports have not been carried out;
• the site is listed by Natural England as a traditional orchard and Devon County Council lists these orchards as a key feature for conservation in its Devon Biodiversity Plan.The impact that this development will have and already has on the overall biodiversity in the adjacent gardens has been extremely controversial. A pond, built by the residents has been already filled in by the applicant. In addition, this garden contains several mature fruit trees, which have been there for at least 30 years and which do not appear on the applicant’s plan;
• impact on amenity space - children are currently able to play in the area adjacent to this development and adults also use this area for street parties. If this application is granted this amenity space will be lost;
• when Toronto Road was built, there was an orchard, which the residents were able to enjoy as a communal space. Subsequently, the owners built the garages on this land and abandoned an area, which they rented out to the residents who levelled the land, built supporting walls, created a vegetable garden and lawn area;
• impact the development will have on the lime tree referred to in the Council’s Belmont Conservation Document. The tree report submitted by Aspect Tree Consultancy on behalf of the local residents states that the tree is a high value specimen and is protected by virtue of its location in a Conservation area and contributes to the character of the area;
• the rear elevation of the building is a retaining structure and, as such, will require the bank to the rear wall of the proposed building to be excavated to provide appropriate retaining. This will take place within the tree roots, which is contrary to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Design policy and would lead to an unacceptable level of root disturbance and impact on the drainage and health and life of the tree;
• cycle and bin store is combined contrary to the Council’s sustainable transport strategy which sets out the same space cannot be counted for both
• Devon County Council state that, due to the number of families and children expected to move into this development, it is anticipated that this application will put pressure on local schools, where there is limited capacity to accommodate them;
• the loss of amenity space is contrary to the Local Plan relating to high density development within city areas;
• Article 4 Directions state the quality of the conservation area is threatened by the cumulative impact of numerous changes and that new developments will be required to preserve and/or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area by ensuring the scale and massing reflects and respects the existing Conservation Area;
• by reason of the design, volume, massing, increased footprint and materials the development does not relate to the existing street scene and character of the area;
• critically, the loss of privacy for residents living adjacent to the development only 11 metres away, which is a distance of just half the National Minimum Requirement;
• previous and present planning officers have both recommended a refusal on the grounds of poor standard of amenity for neighbours, poor quality of amenity for future occupiers, potential impact on the health of a protected tree within a conservation area and failure to protect and enhance biodiversity on the site;
• the objections from 77 local residents were credible, detailed and comprehensive and based on Government Guidelines, Devon County Council Biodiversity Plan, Exeter City Council Core Strategy and the Belmont Conservation Management Plan; and
• all the objections are compelling and contribute in supporting the officers’ recommendation that this application should be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment within this Neighbourhood Community.

Mr Jenner spoke against the application. He made the following points:-

·         our Community is overwhelmingly opposed to the application;

·         the application itself is incomplete, inaccurate and the proposed development is unsuitable for the site;

·         application fails to meet at least ten national and local standards, policies and guidelines, and the development is too large for the land it’s on;

·         no consideration to the requirement that special attention is paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area;

·         overlooking and loss of privacy to the surrounding properties is considerable;

·         the poor spatial relationship between the Lime Tree and the development, creates problems for the new residents;

·         sections of the application form relating to biodiversity are not completed and there is no biodiversity impact assessment. The applicant has removed wildlife and destroyed an existing habitat already. There is also a failure to mention the existence of trees both on the site itself, and the enormous Lime Tree that is endangered by the proposal;

·         almost no consultation by the applicant with the community;

·         support the recommendation and request the following additional refusal reasons:-

o   the failure to assess how the proposed development of the site affects the setting of the Conservation Area, or of the design to latch onto any architectural features in the locality and, in particular, the conservation area it borders, or to take account of the significant view identified in the Council’s own conservation area appraisal;

o   the failure to provide an assessment of the impact on the site’s biodiversity;

o   failure to meet additional standards that caused the previous application to be refused;

·         the above refusal reasons as well as those in the report, are each sufficient on their own to refuse the application. Together, they provide compelling grounds to refuse;

·         the applicant may say they have duty to the community to provide affordable housing but this community is adversely affected.  Providing affordable housing is a worthy ambition, but not where it so negatively impacts on the existing community, while providing sub-standard accommodation to the intended residents.  The benefit, if any, of this application, is far outweighed by the detriments of it; and

·         the residents have to live with the consequences of this development if the application is granted. 

Responding to a Member, he confirmed that the improvements to the garden area to rear of the garages had been undertaken by the local residents, having obtained permission from the applicant

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

RESOLVED that the application for the demolition of 11 garages to be replaced by a two storey development of six apartments beREFUSED as the proposal is contrary to paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, the requirements in Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard 2015, Policies CP4 and CP17 of the Exeter Core Strategy, Policies C1, DG1 and DG4 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011, Residential Design SPD 2010, Sustainable Transport SPD 2013 and Trees and Development SPD 2009 because, by reason of its size and the surrounding constraints, the site is not large enough to accommodate the proposed development. As a consequence the development would result in:-

• poor standard of amenity for neighbours;
• poor quality of amenity for future occupiers;
• potential impact on the health of a protected tree within a conservation area; and
• failure to protect and enhance biodiversity on the site.