Agenda item

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

 

The Project Manager (Planning) (KW) presented the application for the erection of a B1 Office Building, access and associated infrastructure works.

 

Members were circulated with an update sheet - attached to minutes.

 

Councillor Baldwin attended the meeting and spoke on this item under Standing Order No. 44. She made the following points:-

 

·         this application is the final phase of a three phase history of this and two adjoining sites, all strategically important in terms of the Topsham Gap open space. In anticipating opposition, Heritage Homes circulated an information leaflet as part of its public consultation, albeit only three to four days before submitting its first planning application for the land fronting Exeter Road (Phase I) stating that it would provide affordable, eco-friendly homes, taking account of the character and local distinctiveness of the Gap;

·         as well as protecting and enhancing the character of the surrounding area, Heritage Homes undertook to “provide an area of green open space between the proposed development and the motorway”;

·         following the granting of permission for Phase I, in which the number of homes increased from 23 to 28, Phase II, where the number of homes increased from nine to 22 was also granted permission, the density being close to the permissible maximum. At this stage, the issue of open space provision had become blurred and sidelined when a Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring a contribution of £40,500 to improve open space generally in the Topsham area was agreed;

·         for the area originally proposed as open space a change to BI use for a four storey building higher than the M5 motorway is now proposed contrary to comments given during the development of Phases I and II;

·         it has a relatively small footprint and will be higher than the surrounding residential area with a roof garden some 23 metres from the motorway bridge, which in itself will not be pleasant to use;

·         although the report states that the development is adjacent to a commercial boatway, Seabrook Gardens and the new Aldi store, the former is low level and totally screened and the two others sites are the other side of the bridge, the visible boundary between Exeter and Topsham;

·         the offices will be visually intrusive in a sensitive landscape and will spoil the view of the Exe estuary from the motorway;

·         whilst the residential use can be considered in the context of the wider need for housing in the City, this office will set a precedent for commercial development on the other side of Exeter Road adding further pressure on the Topsham Gap. The office should be located in a business park;

·         whilst the report stated that the use of this land for open space was negated by the provision of open space in Phase II, that provision is limited to a small area under the protected tree and the Section 106 monies for wider open space provision in Topsham, should also be utilised on this development site;

·         the building will be obstructive visually rather than iconic and will not be screened by the motorway bridge;

·         over 100 objections received to this commercial office block in a sensitive and strategic landscaped area contrary to promises in circulated leaflet; and

·         if not refused, request deferral for referral to the Devon Design Review Panel.

 

Councillor Leadbetter attended the meeting and spoke on this item under Standing Order No. 44. He made the following points:-

 

·         support comments of Councillor Baldwin and the need to protect the Topsham Gap and agree that the scheme should be referred to the Devon Design Review Panel;

·         the Topsham Gap has been under assault for a number of years and it is vital that what green space remains should be protected;

·         suggest access should be on to Retreat Road not Exeter Road; and

·         request deferral and referral to the Panel.

 

Mr Burley spoke against the application. He raised the following points:-

 

·         over 100 local people objected to this proposal. The Topsham Society's objection, is that the proposal;

·         is on land the applicant previously designated as open space and on which residents were consulted and wished to be retained as such;

·         is simply too big, too heavily grained, too corporate in appearance and is wholly out of character for this edge of small town location;

·         the officer report reveals a striking difference of principle between the town and the Council;

·         the City Council appear to regard this as a scruffy piece of spare land which can accommodate any development proposal, with little scrutiny. The town see its highly urbanised form as fundamentally wrong for the town fringe;

·         the City disregard their own landscape setting policy, overlooking when advertising the application. They stated that the proposal would have no impact on the City, but make no reference to the impact on Topsham. The North Gap appeal Inspector criticised the City Council for undermining it's key policy by approval of the South lands. The town asks, would it be competent to jeopardise this further?;

·         the City Council states that the proposal is iconic. Topsham says it doesn't want/need an Icon - and in any case, it is merely a standard development";

·         the City Council states that the proposal is three storey. But it is a big four storey commercial development. The City Council does not take into account that the proposal is 4 metres higher than the M5 – the previous ECC height limit on development;

·         the City Council states that the building is of similar style to recently approved housing. The town see the overly commercial aesthetic with mass glazing as wholly out of keeping with existing or recently approved residential buildings;

·         whilst previously approved adjacent schemes were too urban, the Society understood the Council was under pressure to achieve housing numbers. There is no similar driver to approve this application. It offers no local employment benefit and is isolated from non local need commercial uses;

·         the town are stunned by the recommendation to approve and would question what level of "grossness" has to come forward before the Council takes action to stand against inappropriate development blighting the environment of Council Tax payers, in favour of developers’ profit;

·         the Society have suggested that the scheme be referred to the Devon Design Review Panel;

·         given the clear doubts about the schemes suitability and that the application cannot be determined today in any case, this would have minimal impact on timescale and would assure the town that appropriate scrutiny had been given; and

·         the Topsham Society urge the Committee to at least, defer today and refer the application to the Panel.

 

 

 

He responded as follows to Members queries

 

·         the Devon Design Review Panel is a voluntary group of architect and the built environment specialists advising local authorities on contentious schemes;

·         the consultation before the submission of the first scheme was fairly misleading and glib and undertaken just to show that there had been consultation;

·         population of Topsham is 4,700; and

·         would accept views of the Panel.

 

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

 

·         theapplication is vitally important to Heritage as a local company and to its employees. It will allow the business to grow within the City and to accommodate additional new employees and new jobs to cater for the future growth of the company. Heritage Homes is not a big PLC and so the only affordable alternative to this is for Heritage to move to a less expensive building away from Exeter, with a significant loss of jobs to the City;

·         both the NPPF and Policy E5 of the Exeter Local Plan recognize the compatibility of business use such as offices within a residential area. In fact Southernhay now has numerous examples of offices mixed with residential dwellings;

·         the proposed office building will be a good neighbour to the adjoining residential dwellings; It will cause no disturbance and no additional traffic to Retreat Drive;

·         this is a scrappy piece of land, which is ill suited to any other use. It has been the subject of fly tipping and is wholly unsuited to use for open space as nobody would wish their children to play there or sit exposed to the noise from both Exeter Road and the M5 Motorway with the backdrop of a huge motorway embankment which this proposal will hide;

·         the building has been designed by a fully qualified RIBA Architect of many years’ experience;

·         it has been deliberately designed to have an interesting visual appearance with the extensive use of glass to lighten the appearance and mass of the building, which is specifically supported by the City Council’s own approved policy for office buildings. It has been designed to match the contemporary architecture of the development opposite and it will use high quality matching materials, which will stand the test of time; and

·         this is a good efficient use of a piece of poor quality land within the City next to other existing commercial uses, namely the Retreat Boatyard and a new Aldi supermarket. It will result in the area being well maintained and well managed with a high quality building and landscaping whilst, at the same time, generates jobs.

 

He responded as follows to Members queries’:-

 

·         the office development will be a similar height to residential developments nearby;

·         as open space provision within Phase II exceeds the 10% requirement there is no longer a need to utilise this small area of land for open space. Furthermore, it is a mess, subject to fly-tipping and has no trees. It does little to add to the landscaping of the area and has no effect on the land on the other side of the road;

·         the site will be landscaped with trees and shrubs to soften the impact of the building;

·         it was sensible to provide open space under the tree in Phase II, the design of this Phase also being acceptable to the residents of Wessex Close. With a financial offer of £40,500 there was no longer a need for this area to be landscaped for open space use. It is now a surplus area which no other party would have an interest in to take on and improve;

·         office use would be an acceptable neighbour to the residential properties, assist in their sale because of its quality design and will be a quiet area at night time;

·         views of designs are subjective, This proposal was designed by a qualified RIBA architect, the glass element will help reduce the heaviness of the building and it will sit well with adjacent residential developments. There is no other use for this site;

·         only the three storeys and parapet lip, but not the fourth floor, are visible from Retreat Road and the building is not visible from the motorway;

·         additional staff will be employed; and

·         have been straightforward in the application process for all three sites and use of this area of land for open space became redundant after permission was granted for Phase II with its area of open space.  

 

The City Development Manager noted that the Council may need to bear the cost of the referral to the Design Review Panel.

 

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

 

RESOLVED that planning permission for the erection of a B1 Office Building, access and associated infrastructure be deferred for the proposal to be considered by the Devon Design Review Panel.