Agenda item

The Assistant Director City Development presented the outline application for up to 123 houses and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except for access.

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

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

• circulated photos of the applications site showing its beauty;
• additional car journeys generated by the development will increase pollution – a recent House of Commons Committee inquiry being informed that some 40,000 deaths a year result from pollution and a recent air quality survey near Poppies on Topsham Road show pollution levels to be at a dangerous level in this area;
• two special needs schools are located in this area including the West of England School and pollution problems will add to the difficulties experienced by the children; and
• evidence provided by a consultant professor at the RD&E Hospital confirms that high pollution levels impact adversely on the health of children.

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

• the statement from thethe applicants in the visual and landscape assessment supporting the scheme which concludes that “development on this site will not have any substantial effects upon landscape resources and visual amenity within the local or wider area, including the strategically important Ludwell Valley Park is not correct”;
• the Valley Park is greatly valued by residents for physical/mental wellbeing, with volunteers having planted over 250 trees for the benefit of future generations;
• the development will prevent the desire of residents to nurture a semi wild area which enhances the value of the Valley Park;
• the RSPB state that the application site is an integral party of the Valley Park and recommend that all Valley Parks should be enhanced and maintained for green infrastructure purposes;
• the proposed mitigation measures of additional hedgerows and trees will not compensate the destruction of this area;
• will do unacceptable harm to visual amenity;
• local residents were not consulted;
• the Council acknowledges the importance of the Park as whole and has refused repeated applications.

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

• endorse the above comments;
• the Government in recent years seems to have provided a developers’ charter to encourage unacceptable developments such as this;
• accept that recent appeal decisions must be taken into account with regard to the housing supply situation. Equally, there is a need to take into account the impact of all developments along Topsham Road which are impacting adversely on traffic and resulting in increased pollution. The cumulative impact is not sustainable and will adversely affect the future of this area for the next 20 years; and
• will lead to the loss of an important landscape area, visible from many parts of the City, and it is important to protect what little remains in the City of green field areas.

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

·         some 3,000 additional properties have been provided in this area which is one of the most extensively developed parts of the City with new developments in the Newcourt area etc. which cannot accommodate further development;

·         adverse impact on the Ludwell Valley Park, which should be kept for future generations;

·         the adjoining estates have only one access in and one out and the roads themselves are restricted served by one set of traffic lights;

·         the County Council’s Development Management Committee did not support the scheme; and

·         identical applications have been refused in the past.

Mrs Keatt spoke against the application. She raised the following points:-

• speaking on behalf of many people to urge rejection of the planning application for this site and keep it from becoming a blot on the landscape. It is part of Ludwell Valley Park that people first see on their approach in to Exeter and if this field is built on then it will alter the skyline forever;
• Ludwell Valley Park is unique as its undulating hills offer significant views of the City, of the Haldon Hills and by looking across this field; the estuary from Topsham winding out to the sea at Exmouth;
• the prominence and importance of the Ludwell Valley Park is clear from the Council’s Riverside and Ludwell Valley Park Master Plan. This looks to increase the use of the Park, whilst protecting biodiversity and enhancing natural wildlife habitats. As the population grows, it is important to ensure that Exeter’s future development will protect its wildlife and give it space to thrive;
• the Council’s ‘Wild City’ partnership with Devon Wildlife Trust is creating new habitats to encourage birds but is at odds with allowing this application to go ahead as it would destroy a field that, for almost 25 years, has been included in the Ludwell Valley Park designation;
• places like Ludwell Valley Park improve the quality of life for people in Exeter (physically, emotionally and mentally) and help attract visitors to Exeter. It is vital to protect Ludwell Valley Park at a time of continued growth of the city as people of all ages need open spaces to explore and enjoy;
• the field should be protected for future generations to enjoy the beauty and wildlife within Ludwell Valley Park. Allowing this development, with all the extra pollution, buildings, noise and traffic, will not help this to happen.

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

• the principle of development is not in doubt and some changes have been made to the layout;
• the scheme reduces the amount of land taken from the Valley Park in comparison with the earlier scheme and the financial contribution of £250,000 is offered towards mitigation measures;
• only 0.003% of the City’s population are objecting which should be taken in the context of the housing shortage in the City
• 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;
• there are no highways grounds to refuse the application as confirmed by Devon County Council Highway Engineers; and
• there are no ecological grounds on which to refuse the application.

He responded, as follows, to Members’ queries:-

• the contribution of £250,000 for mitigation measures was requested by the City Council;
• can not advise of precise location of the access for construction traffic but use of the access onto the M5 from the A379 was requested by officers; and
• no highway reason to withhold planning permission.

Members requested that their concern in respect of the stance of the County Council, which is set out below, be recorded.

The County Council’s Development Management Committee had debated this recommendation in July 2016 and considered a highway objection by reason of safety and congestion; however this was withdrawn on the advice from the County Solicitor. Consequently, County Members had voted on agreeing the Officer recommendation of no objection. This motion was voted on and lost. Members then took a second vote, in light of the above and resolved that Exeter City Council be advised that the Committee is not able to submit any view on this application. Following a request from a local County Councillor the revised application was taken back to the County's Development Management Committee in March 2017 to consider the Highway Authority's response. The minutes state that “the Chairman reminded Members that this Committee on 20 July had considered this matter as the Highway Authority and it had been resolved 'that Exeter City Council be advised that the Committee is not able to submit any view on this application'” Subsequently the application had been refused by the Exeter City Council and was now the subject of an appeal. The new revised application received by the Exeter City Council was unchanged in highway terms and the officers would respond in the normal way reflecting the Committee's previous considerations'.

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

RESOLVED that planning permission 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.