Agenda item

Councillor Gottschalk declared a disclosable pecuniary interest having previously been enrolled on the University of Exeter’s Graduate Budget Business Partnership and withdrew from the room during consideration of this item.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) presented the application for an outline planning application to build student accommodation and ancillary central amenity facilities (up to a maximum of 32,230 square metres) with associated infrastructure and landscaping (all matters reserved).

 

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

 

The Principal Project Manager updated the Committee on the application following deferral at the Planning Committee meeting on 13 February 2017. The total number of letters of objections was now 701 with 434 individuals/households responding, including 54 after the circulation of the update sheet, a particular area of contention being the nature of the consultation. He explained that the City Council had exceeded the legal requirements for consultation including notices on site, letters to neighbours and notification in the local press. He also advised that the University had met with three residents and four Councillors on 24 March 2017. With regard to the objection on the grounds of the absence of an environmental impact assessment, it had not been considered that such an assessment was necessary.

 

The Principal Project Manager advised that there were three main areas of objections being: opposition to any development of the site, any development should be for academic purposes as proposed in the Streatham Campus Master Plan and the size itself of the development.

 

The Principal Project Manager set out the background to the application and the changes made following the original submission and deferral at the meeting of this Committee on 13 February. As a result of Members comments at the meeting and a meeting between the applicant, agents, local Ward Councillors and local residents on 24 March, further amendments had been made. The overall quantum of development proposed was now a total of 32,230 square m (30,730 square metres for student accommodation and 1,500 square metres for ancillary facilities). At the February meeting it had been reported that the scheme originally put forward in October 2016 had been reduced. A further reduction in the floor space was now proposed from the 37,200 square metres reported at the February meeting to 32,230, representing a reduction of 13% in the quantum reported at that meeting, bringing the overall reduction to 18%. The nominal number of student bed spaces had been reduced from 1,300 to 1,200 with the relevant condition to refer to total floor area rather than bed spaces.

 

The area identified for development had been reduced, moving the development zone away from the eastern boundary of the site. This has resulted in blocks illustrated in the masterplan either being reduced in width or omitted completely. In particular, the reduced development zone has removed a proposed five storey block within the south east area of the site.The height of buildings to the northern and eastern edge of the site has been reduced one storey and in the case of the central northern block by two storeys. The height of the largest block of eight storeys would be approximately half the height of the John Lewis store in the City Centre.

 

The development included a 25 metre landscape strip within the site and 73% of the site would be for landscape and informal open space, an increase in the previous submission which identified 70% for this purpose. The proposal complied with the development plan policies including the Exeter Local Plan First Review, which had concluded that the principle of the development of this site was appropriate. Whilst the use of the site was now for student accommodation rather than for academic buildings, as stated within the University Streatham Campus Master Plan, it was considered that the area was suitable for this purpose.

 

Although the Master Plan represented a relevant material consideration as a supplementary planning document it did not form part of the Development Plan. The relevant Development Plan policies were Core Strategy Policy CP5 and, more specifically, Local Plan First Review Policy E4 which encouraged the further provision of purpose built student accommodation on the University Campus. With a number of student accommodation schemes located off Campus, a sustainable location on Campus was appropriate. 

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) covered other issues including parking, impact on neighbouring residential properties, noise disturbance, combined heating/power provision, light pollution and the need for additional purpose built student accommodation. In respect of parking, residents were concerned regarding the potential for students to permanently keep their cars within the residential areas surrounding the University during term time. Whilst it was considered that the sites on Campus location would deter students from bringing their own car, more effective control could be provided through the imposition of a Traffic Regulation Order, which has been recommended by the County Highway Officer and it was recommended that a financial contribution of £20,000 be made towards a review of the existing residential parking zones, the making and implementation of traffic orders and meeting the costs associated with technical design and physical road markings/signing.

 

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

 

·         main concerns expressed at the meeting on 13 February 2017 were scale and massing representing over development of the site, the development being detrimental to the environment and impacting adversely on protected species and the flawed argument that still further accommodation on the campus is necessary in order to exceed the 75% level for purpose built student accommodation;

·         the scale and massing remains excessive and still impacts adversely on the character and appearance of the area and is contrary to Policy H5 which states that the scale and intensity of use should not harm the character of the building and locality and is contrary to the Development Delivery Development Plan Document (Publication Version) published in 2015 as well as the Streatham Campus Master Plan. The 13% reduction is far short of a 40% reduction sought in order to be in line with the Master Plan;

·         the density of the development will be detrimental to the ecological, amenity and landscape setting of the area. Devon Wildlife Trust are concerned about the impact on wildlife in the southern and eastern boundaries and that legally protected species will be affected by the close proximity of the envisaged buildings;

·         the reference in Policy CP5 in the Core Strategy to a 75% level of purpose built student accommodation has been exceeded already and was now 78%, not including the proposed development at the Football Ground, so there is no need for a further 1,200 student beds;

·         should this development proceed, contributions from CIL and New Homes Bonus should be used to minimise the impact of University developments on communities;

·         given the letter from the University Registrar sets out the continued ambition of the University to expand and to provide additional accommodation, it is vital that the University works with the City Council to ensure an acceptable housing and social balance within the City; and

·         the application should be refused on grounds of unacceptable scale and massing, development remaining detrimental to legally protected species and the case for additional purpose built accommodation remaining flawed.

 

In response to a Member, the City Development Manager confirmed that the policy in respect of purpose built student accommodation did not refer to a maximum of 75% provision but a requirement of 75% or more and that 75% was therefore a minimum requirement. The Council was seeking as much purpose built accommodation as possible to reduce the impact on the private market.

 

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

 

·         the decision of the Committee on 13 February 2017 sought consultation with residents which occurred on 24 March but with only three residents in attendance, one of whom was the Chair of a residents association with the other two only representing their respective streets. Furthermore, the revised application was only received three weeks and three days ago and the consultation should have been on the detail of these plans;

·         a large number of objections have been received from individuals who did not object to the original application;

·         the reduction of 13% in the quantum remains unacceptable as a 40% reduction was necessary to match the envisaged developed area in the Streatham Campus Master Plan;

·         comparisons with other purpose built student blocks, such as that proposed as part of the Football Ground development in terms of distance from neighbouring properties, is not relevant, as the suitability of this application should be considered on its own merits;

·         the reductions in building heights and the reduced number of blocks still do not justify this proposal;

·         a minimum number of 1,200 bed spaces is proposed but this figure could be exceeded. The total needs to be established at reserved matters stage;

·         it was understood at the February meeting from advise by the Assistant Director City Development that the 75% target for purpose built student accommodation had been met;

·         the Police Architectural Officer requested reducing casual circulation within the campus by limiting access onto the campus from the permissive footpath on the eastern side of the site in order to reduce anti-social behaviour. This had not been recommended;

·         advise in the Streatham Campus Master Plan for a “light touch” development is ignored with this development;

·         the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995 to 2001 Policy E4, requires that development will only be acceptable if the character and setting of the campus is protected - this development does not protect the campus;

·         on-going problems of anti-social behaviour in Duryard and St James and Pennsylvania wards with late night activity from students returning both to their rooms on campus and in surrounding areas will be exacerbated by this development;

·         the policy to enable residents to call the University to complain about noise does not work properly as the precise location on the campus where the noise originates is often unclear;

·         a number of objectors recognise the importance of the University to the City, as does the City Council, but there is a growing feeling that the continued expansion in student residences harms the reputation of the University and fosters ill will amongst residents generally; and

·         the University should seriously consider revising its plans and seek more acceptable solutions.

 

Responding to Members, he confirmed that the issues of transient noise and anti-social behaviour had been raised with Ian Lugg, the Neighbourhood Beat Officer who had advised that the Police lacked sufficient resources to adequately address the problems. He also reiterated the failure of the University to adequately consult and confirmed that he believed that the permissive footpath on the eastern side of the site was privately owned.

 

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

 

·         not anti-University and pleased that the University is to hold an open forum meeting on transport and parking on 24 May 2017;

·         following the decision to defer the application at the February meeting, only three residents attended the meeting with the University representatives as well as four Councillors on 24 March and the request to the University to invite community groups from Pennsylvania was declined. The presence of only three residents does not reflect the quantity of wider community representations. As there have been over 700 objections, the claim of adequate community consultation is misleading and inaccurate;

·         the student population within the City is equivalent to towns such as Bideford, Newquay, Tiverton and Truro and the estimated students of 1,200 on this site equivalent to towns such as Bampton, Beer or Chumleigh etc.;

·         there is no evidence that purpose built student accommodation has reduced the number of students in houses in multiple occupation accommodation. Both types of student residences are increasing and there is no evidence that this trend will change if this site is developed as proposed, as the majority of students will live out in their subsequent years in Exeter;

·         the reduction in the quantum of 13% is a minimum;

·         the failure to provide an environmental impact assessment, particularly given the 700 plus objections, undermines the University’s claim that it has good relations with the local community;

·         the Devon Wildlife Trust state that East Park is a haven for protected species and the open space is an important community resource;

·         the Streatham Campus Master Plan refers to East Park as an important landscape area highly visible from the surrounding area and that the biodiversity of the Taddyforde and Hoopern Park Valleys should be retained. It also states that any development should be light touch and not detrimental to the setting of the area. These criteria are not met by these proposals;

·         the development will undermine the character of the campus and erode the quality of the environment and landscape to the detriment of health and wellbeing of residents; and

·         application should be refused. 

 

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

 

·         the applicant has failed to honour the community consultation directive given by this Committee on February 13^;

·         the only consultation that has taken place is a one hour meeting, to which only three residents and ward councillors were allowed to attend and the only agenda item was the quantum of scale. Many of the 700 objections relate to other relevant quanta such as the quantum of noise pollution, the quantum of students and the quantum of light etc. and there has been no consultation on these. Members cannot therefore be satisfied that the applicant has met the resolution for community engagement;

·         the current plans fall short of the recommendations that the three residents were able to make. The plans have lowered some building heights and removed a couple of buildings. But forget the 13% reduction, the scheme is still 22% bigger than the Masterplan quantum and still includes, two huge seven storey towers and a massive eight storey building by the pond picnic area. The scale is still unacceptable to the community, hence the huge number or recent objections;

·         the quantum of 1,200 students is unchanged. This is not meaningful re-design;

·         how will the implications for serious light pollution be handled after the Police report stated that the scheme has inadequate lighting to mitigate crime?

·         why has no Environmental Impact Assessment been provided?

·         in light of falling student applications and confused bed space requirements, is there certainty of the need to put so many students so near to so many residents?

·         plans still ignore the Masterplan stipulations for how this treasured green space should be treated;

·         how will localised power be generated to avoid massive noise pollution issues?

·         ecology concerns raised by Devon Wildlife Trust have not been addressed;

·         the scheme will lead to the destruction of a precious community asset and Conservation site, used by thousands of Exeter citizens and it will negatively affect a local population who have a right and need to co-exist with the University. Many objections are from people who work at the University who want the University to prosper;

·         cramming the same quanta of students into a marginally smaller set of tower blocks, on the back of a disrespectful lack of required consultation cannot be what Members intend; and

·         the scale is still far too big, the necessary consultation is missing and serious questions remain.

 

Responding to a Member’s reference to a comment at the meeting on 24 March 2017 that 40% of existing objections related to the scale of the development, he commented that this figure was now closer to 65%.

 

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

 

·         representing the University as its Registrar and Secretary;

·         the site is a part of the campus that has long been identified for development, and the University wishes to use it now to accommodate more of its students on campus; a wish shared by the City Council, and a goal that is encouraged in planning policy and Supplementary Planning Guidance;

·         since the request at the February committee meeting that the amount of development should be reconsidered, responses received over the past six months have been reviewed, consultations held with local ward members and residents’ representatives regarding how best to achieve this and a number of significant changes made;

·         the University has gone to great lengths to take account of its neighbours’ comments in arriving at a suitable compromise between the efficient use of the site and their concerns. Most notably, the amount of floor space proposed has been reduced by a further 13%, leading to a total of an 18% (7,270 square metres) reduction since the original proposals;

·         two buildings have been entirely removed, making way for additional areas of landscape planting;

·         in response to concerns about the heights of buildings further reductions have been made and the heights of four buildings have been reduced, one by two storeys and three by one storey. These respond to feedback from the voluntary balloon test in November 2016;

·         the scale and amount of development fits very comfortably within the guidance provided by the Masterplan Framework as it fits within the boundary identified for development,building heights proposed are within the indicative heights suggested, adjacent valleys will be retained intact and enhanced with new planting and the buildings will have a generous landscape setting, with 73% of the site being green landscape, integrated with the wider landscape and no closed than 105 meters to neighbouring properties. Further, this part of the Campus will reflect the overall campus character of ‘buildings in a landscape’;

·         the proposals will provide an excellent and much needed addition to the Campus and help meet student accommodation needs by taking pressure away from existing residential areas, and will assist in both supporting and driving the local and regional economy through the creation of at least another 50 jobs on top of the 4600 people already employed by the University;

·         the University is aware of a range of issues that can be addressed at the detailed design stage for example the University will look in include appropriate light and noise control measures into the proposals as well as maintaining and enhancing permissive access across the site;

·         the site has been identified since 1971 and approval of the proposal is crucial to the future success of the institution. The University have been honest and transparent about their plans for developing this site and have listened to feedback from Members following the February meeting, stakeholders and the community. The University considers that its proposal is in line with planning policy and there are no other material considerations that weigh heavily against it, and it should therefore be supported.

 

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 

·         the noise assessment will be carried out to a very high standard by the University Estates team as it will be essential to minimise the potential for complaints relating to noise and disturbance;

·         there will be no outsourcing of the University’s patrol/security service not least because this is a welfare issue. There is close liaison with the local community and the Police;

·         the University, as an institution, has changed since the production of the Streatham Campus Master Plan in 2010, as has its vision for the future. Other plans for the Campus include additional teaching and learning spaces and the provision of student information hubs;

·         investment in purpose built student accommodation reduces pressure on general housing provision in the City;

·         the edges, rather than the whole of the site, are being used for recreational and leisure purposes and the development will increase the number of accessible parts thereby enhancing the amenity of the site. The University has one of the largest arboricultural/ground maintenance units in the country and sets the highest standard for maintaining and enhancing the campus including the sculpture trail. A fund of £500,000 has been set up to enhance public art on the campus;

·         the development is needed to support the next stage of the University’s strategic plan, including growing post graduate and overseas student numbers and increasing students studying medicine and allied disciplines as sought by the Government. The development proposal will allow the University to provide a wider range of accommodation types;

·          no parking will be provided other than for set down and pick-ups at beginning and end of term for which there will be close liaison with the Police to ensure as smooth a transition as possible;

·         the University do not own the permissive footpath close to the site and has no interest to develop. The University supports the retention of the path to facilitate general access to the campus;

·         the University works closely with the Student Guild on the requirements of students in accommodation blocks and accept the need for community areas to socialise. There is also a demand for learning spaces and retail facilities. The goal is to provide excellent facilities for students; and

·         the University complied with the requirement to consult with residents in accordance with the decision of the Committee on 13 February. Given that there have been some 400 submissions, community views have been fully expressed and the University has endeavoured to respond to the concerns. In particular, the two main changes relate to reduction in height of the blocks and an increase in the buffer zone between the development and neighbouring residential areas.

 

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

 

The City Development Manager reiterated the steps taken in respect of consultation which had been considered to be appropriate and had been organised by the officers and not the University. There was no requirement to consult on an amended scheme and the period for objecting had been extended from the normal seven days to 21. He stated that the role of ward Councillors was critical and that the case officer had spoken to many of the objectors.

 

A number of Members expressed their support for the scheme, noting that the University had submitted revisions in response to the concerns raised at the February meeting, that it had undertaken consultation although it did not have to and was also not legally bound by proposals within the Streatham Campus Master Plan. Members also acknowledged the need for extra student accommodation in the City, one Member referring to the provision of 4,000 purpose built accommodation since 2006 which otherwise could have resulted in additional pressure on the wider housing market and was a welcome move away from converting large houses into HMO student residences. Another Member emphasised that the University was expanding and that, following a number of student developments in the City Centre, the call for provision on the Campus had grown and would be met with this proposal. The City Council policy was to encourage more purpose built student accommodation. There would also be better control on Campus within a University run facility as opposed to other student blocks which were privately run and which were closer to residential properties.

 

One Member, noting the significant level of objections and concerns regarding consultation, was opposed to the proposal and another remarked that, whilst there had been a 13% reduction in the quantum size, there had been little change in the number of students likely to occupy the development. He was also concerned that problems of noise resulting from students returning to the campus area from the City Centre late at night would increase. 

 

Additional conditions would be added requiring suitable attenuation measures relating to flooding.

 

RESOLVED that, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing a Student Management Plan and a financial contribution of £20,000 towards a Traffic Regulation Order for nearby residential areas, planning permission for an outline planning application to build student accommodation and ancillary central amenity facilities (up to a maximum of 32,230 square metres) with associated infrastructure and landscaping (all matters reserved) be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:-

 

1)	Approval of the details of the layout, scale, appearance of the buildings, the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: To safeguard the rights of control by the Local Planning Authority in respect of the reserved matters.
2)	C07  -  Time Limit – Outline
3)	The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the Land Use Parameters Plan (250001B Rev D); Building Heights Parameter Plan (dwg no. 250001B/P004 rev C) & Landscape and Biodiversity Strategy Plan (250001B/P006 Rev C) dated 31 March 2017as modified by other conditions of this consent. Reason:  In order to ensure compliance with the approved drawings.
4)	Before works commence on any individual building(s) details of the finished floor levels and overall roof heights of the building(s) in relation to a fixed point or O.S datum (not to exceed the AOD specified in the Building Heights Parameter Plan dwg no 250001B/P004 rev B) have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and the appropriate development of the site.
5)	No development shall take place until an Outline Landscape and Ecology Management Plan, to include recommendations contained within the Lindsay Carrington Ecological Services report dated November 2016, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The Management  Plan shall indicate a) how the existing biodiversity of the site will be protected, in accordance with all relevant legislation; b) how the proposed development and associated works will enhance wildlife in the area and c) how the landscaped area is to be managed to include an ecological clerk of works and shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for review on a 24 month basis unless otherwise agreed in writing; Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.
6)	C36  -  No Trees to be Felled
7)	No development (including ground works) or vegetation clearance works shall take place until a Construction Environmental Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Statement shall provide for: a) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors. b) Loading and unloading of plant and materials. c) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development. d) The erection and maintenance of securing hoarding, if appropriate, which shall be kept clear of graffiti and fly-posting. e) Wheel washing facilities. f) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction. g) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from construction works, with priority given to reuse of building materials on site wherever practicable. h) No burning on site during construction or site preparation works i) Measures to minimise noise nuisance to neighbours from plant and machinery. j) Construction working hours and deliveries from 8:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period of the development. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
8)	No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The statement should include details of route of construction traffic vehicles, access arrangements, timings and management of arrivals and departures of vehicles. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity
9)	No development shall take place on site until a full investigation of the site has taken place to determine the extent of, and risk posed by, any contamination of the land and the results, together with any remedial works necessary, have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The building(s) shall not be occupied until the approved remedial works have been implemented and a remediation statement submitted to the Local Planning Authority detailing what contamination has been found and how it has been dealt with together with confirmation that no unacceptable risks remain. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity
10)	The applicant shall undertake a noise impact assessment for this application, which shall be submitted and approved in writing prior to commencement of the development. This report shall consider the impact of noise from the development on local receptors and shall include noise from plant and equipment as well as noise from deliveries, communal areas, residents and events. If, following the above assessment, the LPA concludes that noise mitigation measures are required, the applicant shall then submit a scheme of works to ensure that the development does not have a significant negative impact on local amenity. These measures shall be agreed in writing by the LPA and shall be implemented prior to and throughout the occupation of the development. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
11)	Prior to the commencement of the development an assessment of the impact of all external lighting associated with the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment should address the impact of the lights (including hours of use) on the nearest receptors. Thereafter the lighting shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the specifications within the assessment. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
12)	No development shall take place on site until an air quality assessment for any combined heat and power (CHP) plant has been carried out in accordance with a programme and methodology to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the results, together with any mitigation measures necessary, have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall not be occupied until the approved mitigation measures have been implemented. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
13)	No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use until secure cycle parking facilities have been provided and maintained in accordance with details that shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and retained for that purpose at all times Reason: To ensure that adequate facilities are available for the traffic attracted to the site
14)	No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied until the 2010 masterplan framework proposal for a permissive pedestrian/cycle route linking the Campus to Higher Hoopern Lane in the vicinity of Higher Hoopern Farm (as indicated on the Movement and Access Parameter Plan (dwg no. 250001B/P005 Rev B) has been provided in accordance with details that shall previously have been submitted to, agreed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To provide adequate facilities to promote the use of sustainable modes, in accordance with paragraphs 29 and 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
15)	C57  -  Archaeological Recording

 

16)	Unless it is demonstrated that it is not viable or feasible, or that equivalent carbon emission abatement can be achieved by alternative means, the development hereby approved shall be constructed with centralised space heating and hot water systems that have been designed and constructed to be compatible with a low temperature hot water District Heating Network in accordance with the CIBSE guidance "Heat Networks: Code of Practice for the UK". The layout of the plant room or rooms, showing provision for heat exchangers and for connection to a District Heating Network, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved details shall be implemented on site unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reason: In accordance with the requirements of policies CP13 and CP15 of the Exeter Core Strategy 2012 and DD32 of the Development Delivery DPD Publication Draft and in the interests of sustainable development.
17)	Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the development hereby approved shall achieve an overall BREEAM scoring of "excellent" (70 percent or greater). Prior to commencement of development the developer shall submit to the Local Planning Authority a BREEAM design stage assessment report, the score expected to be achieved. Where this does not meet the above requirements the developer must provide details of what changes will be made to the development to achieve that standard, and thereafter implement those changes. A post completion BREEAM report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within 3 months of the substantial completion of any such building hereby approved. The required BREEAM assessments shall be prepared, and any proposed design changes approved prior to commencement of the development, by a licensed BREEAM assessor. Reason: To ensure that the proposal is in accordance with the aims of Policy CP15 of Council's Adopted Core Strategy and in the interests of delivering sustainable development.
18)	Before the submission of first application for approval of reserved matters a detailed sustainable design and construction strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority. Submissions for approval of reserved matters shall be in accordance with the approved strategy. Reason: In accordance with the requirements of policy CP15 of the Exeter Core Strategy 2012.
19)	This consent does not imply the approval of the details of access, siting, layout or design shown on the illustrative masterplan, which must be the subject of a further application for approval of reserved matters. Reason:  To safeguard the rights of control by the Local Planning Authority in respect of the reserved matters.
20)	The development hereby permitted shall be limited to a total floor area of 32,230 sq metres. Reason: To ensure that the environmental and residential amenity considerations are safeguarded.

21)       The development hereby approved shall achieve Secured By Design ‘Gold’ Standard which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Reason: To ensure that both the physical and environmental crime prevention measures are taken into account throughout the design and construction of the scheme.

 

22)       No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a programme of percolation tests has been carried out in accordance with BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design (2016), and the results approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. A representative number of tests should be conducted to provide adequate coverage of the site, with particular focus placed on the locations and depths of the proposed infiltration devices.

Reason: To ensure that surface water from the development is discharged as high up the drainage hierarchy as is feasible.

 

23)       No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system will be informed by the programme of approved BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design (2016) percolation tests and in accordance with the principles set out in the Flood Risk Assessment (Report Ref. 10782, Rev. A, dated 04/01/17).

Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is discharged as high up the drainage hierarchy as is feasible, and is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems.

 

24)       No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for the full period of its construction has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system must satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site.

Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area.