Agenda item

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Assistant Director City Development presented the application for the construction of seven residential units (flats), 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:-

·         the objections are from 129 separate individuals regarding land where previous applications have been refused because of the adverse impact on the Topsham Gap;

·         the size and scale of this application differs little from the previous applications other than it is for housing;

·         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 which should be considered as a whole and not as isolated applications. It is therefore “creep”;

·         Heritage Homes circulated an information leaflet as part of its public consultation, 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 and that the frontage would be screened by semi mature trees and would enhance the area;

·         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 – a play area was not included on the grounds that open space would be provided throughout the site to give the requisite 10%;

·         now have a further seven units bringing the total to 57 all without the play area needed;

·         this four storey block is next to the M5 motorway, the top floor being close to the height of the motorway. Although environmental health state that the quality of life will not be affected road traffic noise and pollution will affect the health of the residents;

·         an objector has stated that the noise assessment is inaccurate and the appropriate information has not been fed into the acoustic modelling – also stating that the development is too close to the motorway;

·         Retreat Road is used by commercial vehicles so parking of vehicles associated with this development will be hazardous;

·         The application should be refused as the density is greater than the initial proposals and the lack of open space provision;

·         the previous application for an office block was refused as it was contrary to policies LS1 and CP16 and this application should be refused on similar grounds; and

·         a four storey block is unsuitable and a far cry from the original concept and is in a sensitive environmental location.

Responding to a Member’s question, she confirmed that, contrary to the original claim of the applicant, there had been no consultation with the local community, on the proposed use of a commuted sum for open space provision.

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

·         Members previously refused development of this land on the basis of the LS1 designation, Heritage Homes clear manipulation of the application process and the earlier Section 106 legal under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 agreement prohibition of development of this land;

·         the applicant has previously stated that this site is unsuitable for recreation use. How can it be suitable for housing? Both the air quality and noise surveys are based on highly dubious data as set out in a detailed objection by Dr Graham-Cumming;

·         the proposal is highly urban and significantly taller/bulkier than the majority of the previously approved adjoining Exeter Rd houses. It is an ugly, brutal “lump” and grossly unsuitable for this small town fringe location;

·         whilst the application creates housing, numbers are so insignificant that they do not offset the risk to City Council policy arising from development of LS1 land and the likelihood of encouraging applications on other city gap and fringe sites;

·         the applicant may return in a few months time saying that he doesn't want to build that replacement golf range on the North Gap land, but 150 houses instead; 

·         the developer is attempting to completely avoid any affordable housing provision - in contrast to the original poster claiming affordable homes for local people - by artificially separating this application from previous approvals; 

·         bearing in mind the LS1 designation, whilst the Topsham Society believe that there are strong reasons to resist, if Members feel compelled to acquiesce to the councils inability to provide a 5 years housing allocation, it should only consider a scheme in scale with the road frontage buildings, accessed off Exeter Road and for 100% affordable housing for people within the Topsham Parish - on similar grounds to rural exception schemes adopted by other authorities; and

·         the principal of this proposal is the same as that previously refused and Members should maintain their previous position and refuse this application.

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

·         despite backing from the Design Review Panel for the previous office proposal, and the single reasonfor refusal, Members mostly found the design of the building and particularly it’s proposed use, unacceptable;

·         a smaller residential building is now proposedfor just seven modest two bed apartments, which we hope you will find more acceptable. It is 1.4m. lower and set further back from thejunction with Exeter Road allowing for a substantial screen of semi mature trees and shrubs along the frontage which willlargely hide the building;

·         both the ridge height of the building and the eaves height of the third floor are now the same as the apartments beingbuilt opposite;

·         when Members granted consent for the adjoining development which extends 167m. along the Exeter Road frontage,both the SHLAA and the Committee Minutes stated very clearly: “It is not considered that development of this small area would significantly harm the landscape setting of Exeter or Topsham’.Similarly the SHLAA for the Aldi site approved on the other side of the Motorway, also states: “Its future role in providinglandscape setting to the City is limited. Therefore the site is not discounted on landscape grounds.’Given that this site has a frontage of only 28m, just one 1/6th of the frontage of the adjoining site, and the urbancharacteristics of the Aldi site are also reflected here, the same conclusions must apply to this small piece of landsandwiched between the two much larger sites and the motorway embankment;

·         the site is so narrow as to make little or no difference to the open aspect of theTopsham gap on the northern side of the Exeter Road. In fact the proposed tree planting where none currently exists, willenhance the landscape setting;

·         the NPPF makes it clear that in the absence of a five year land supply, relevant housing policies are deemed to beout of date and the presumption in favour of residential development should be applied. The Council does not even havea three year land supply;

·         the proposals will add seven inexpensive two bed homes to the five year land supply, which are needed in Topsham. In this context, given this proposed scheme has virtually no impact upon the Topsham Gap and the precedent for development of the land on this side of Exeter Road has been established, the Council’s Countryside Policies must be given little, if any weight, and the presumption in favour of residential development must apply to this application; and

·         ask that the Committee’s applies the same reasoning to this application as  applied to the two adjoining sites and approve in accordance with the recommendation and the NPPF rules.

Responding to a Member, he stated that in the event of the application being refused he would not offer this area of land to the local community for use as open space instead of the commitment within a previous application for play are/open space elsewhere in Topsham.

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

Some Members were of the view that, although the application had changed from that previously refused, the principle of utilising this area of land and further impacting on the Topsham Gap remained and was not outweighed by NPPF guidance in favour of consent and that, on this basis, the reasons for refusal should mirror that of the previous application also refused.

RESOLVED that planning permission for the construction of seven residential flats, access and associated infrastructure works be REFUSED because of the adverse impact on the landscape setting and the impact on the strategic Topsham Gap.