Agenda item

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MD) presented the application for an extension to hotel accommodation block to form nine self-catering holiday apartments and four new hotel bedrooms (net loss two), following partial demolition of building and demolition of bungalow (net gain 16 bedrooms overall).

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MD) reported that, as the applicant

had appealed against non-determination within the statutory time period, the recommendation in the report of the City Development Manager for this application had been updated, as set out in the update sheet, the recommendation for refusal remaining. It was not therefore the intention to seek a resolution to determine the application but simply to seek a view as to what the Committee would have resolved had it been asked to deal with the application.

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

The Principal Project Manager (Development)(MD) reported that the development would extend the existing hotel accommodation block to the west andnorth, following partial demolition of the building and demolition of the bungalow, in order toprovide four new hotel bedrooms and nine, two-bed self-catering, serviced holiday apartments. Threebedrooms would be lost in the bungalow and three in the existing block (one staff), resulting in a netloss of two hotel bedrooms. Overall there would be a net gain of 16 bedrooms. The extension to the west would be two storeys and contain the four new hotel bedrooms; these would be accessed from the existing block. The extension to the north would be three storeys and contain the nine self-catering apartments; these would have independent accesses. The extension to the north would include a basement with a gym, store and plant room.

One letter of support has been received from the occupiers of Pinhoe Lodge, Gipsy Hill Lane welcoming investment in the hotel. A further letter of support, as set out in the update sheet, had been received from the Isca Community Church, who held services at the Hotel helping it to make connections with the local community.

Two objections had been received.

Devon County Council had objected and recommended refusal as it was concerned about public safety and was contrary to paragraphs 32 and 41 of the National Panning Policy Framework (NPPF). The former stating that planning decisions should take account of whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people, and the latter stating that local authorities should identify and protect, where there was robust evidence, sites and routes which could be critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choice. There was robust evidence to protect Pinn Lane and Gipsy Hill Lane as pedestrian and cycle routes. The proposal would result in a net increase of 16 bedrooms which would generate more vehicle movements along Pinn Lane and Gipsy Hill Lane.

The Exeter Cycling Campaign had also objected stating that the E4 strategic cycle route between Black Horse Lane in East Devon and Cumberland Way in Exeter was the only traffic free route in and out of Exeter to the east. It was therefore critically important to sustain the growth of Exeter and its hinterland, providing the only active alternative to the private car. The proposed development would directly increase vehicle traffic on this route and would not constitute sustainable development. It would also have serious safety implications on both Pinn Lane and Gipsy Hill Lane.

A Member, in noting that the applicant had submitted an appeal for non-determination within the statutory time period, expressed concern over the delay in the process.

The Assistant City Development Manager, in advising that discussions had been held with the developers of the adjacent site (Sandrock), where objections had also been received from the Gipsy Hill Hotel applicant in the past regarding increased traffic use along Pinn Lane, suggested that a scheme had been identified that could overcome the concerns regarding traffic flow on Gipsy Hill Lane, that is, provision of a segregated pedestrian/cycle route through the adjacent site. As there was uncertainty when it could be provided, it was not possible to progress this avenue further at this stage. When there was clear evidence that this segregated route would be provided, the County Council would look favourably on recommending approval with a Grampian condition. The application was at present recommended for refusal based on NPPF Paras 32 and 41.

In response to a Member’s queries, the Development Manager Highways and Transport reported that he did not have figures available regarding the number of cycle journeys into the City across Redhayes Bridge and confirmed that it was the intention to improve the cycle infrastructure across the City, the E4 route to include a bi-directional supercycle lane along Cumberland Way which would led across to the University.

Councillor Mrs Thompson attended the meeting and spoke on this item under Standing Order No. 44. She first declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of a nearby area of land but stated that she would confine her comments to the Gipsy Hill application.She made the following points:-

• the application has just passed the 13 week period required to determine planning applications and the planning department have always sought to determine applications within the statutory time period;
• at the pre-application stage another officer had stated that variations to proposals were acceptable and that the Highways Officer had not anticipated highway objections in pre application discussions;
• the site visit on 17 October had not included a visit to the Hotel itself even though the applicant was available to show the proposals;
• the road is narrow and has been narrow for some time and although Highways may call it a cycle way it is a road;
• Devon County Council Highways have a wish list for a strategic cycle way but this is a long term aspiration and, currently, both Gipsy Hill Hotel residents and staff and other residents along the Lane use it for vehicular journeys;
• this Committee has no jurisdiction to refuse or grant and the application has to go to the Secretary of State, as an appeal for non-determination. Because of this, and the variances within the officer’s report, the decision should be left to the Secretary of State. The Committee should suspend its judgement; and
• the hotel car park does have planning consent.

The Development Manager Highways and Transport advised that the initial number of bedrooms differed from those within the application before the Committee and that proposals for the cycle route as part of a City wide strategy had been included within the Exeter Core Strategy in 2012. The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MD) reported that a planning case officer had provided positive advice in respect of the application from the design point of view at the pre-application stage but had also stated that it was subject to the views of consultees, such as the Highways Authority.

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

·         Exeter Cycling Campaign is objecting to the proposed expansion of the Gipsy Hill Hotel on grounds of sustainability and safety;

·         Gipsy Hill Lane forms a key part of the strategic E3 and E4 cycling routes that run from the east of Exeter to the city centre and university. It connects directly to the Redhayes pedestrian and cycle-bridge which was built to provide a traffic-free route between Exeter and East Devon. This is the only near traffic-free route between Exeter and East Devon;

·         However, the proposed development will increase vehicle traffic on Gipsy Hill Lane, along with Pinn Lane, which was stopped-up to traffic by Devon County Council in 2014;

·         if Exeter is serious about reducing congestion, improving air quality, and providing real alternatives to the private car, we must safeguard and improve the strategic cycling routes that we have. This applies just as much to the E3 and E4 routes via Gipsy Hill Lane and Pinn Lane as it does to the Exe Estuary Trail, or indeed, to the planned E9 route along Old Rydon Lane;

·         it follows that our second reason for objection is safety. Gipsy Hill Lane is a narrow country lane.  There are no pavements, cycleways or street lights. High hedges on either side of the lane mean that, in the face of an oncoming car, there is no safe refuge for people walking and cycling;

·         visibility is very poor, particularly at the hotel entrance onto Gipsy Hill Lane, and at the junction between Gipsy Hill Lane and Pinn Lane. There is therefore a danger of collisions between pedestrians, cyclists and cars travelling to and from the expanded hotel. The nature of a hotel means that many of the people driving there will be unfamiliar with the local roads, further increasing the danger of collisions;

·         the need to keep the junction of Gipsy Hill Lane and Pinn Lane as traffic-free as possible was stressed by Devon County Council in their speech to this committee in 2014. They noted that these lanes should be 'safe routes to school', and are used by people commuting on foot and by bike between Pinhoe and Sowton. This remains the case, as evidenced by the objections Exeter City Council has received in relation to the nearby Sandrock housing proposal on Pinn Lane. The proposed expansion of Gipsy Hill Hotel will have an equally negative impact on the safety of people walking and cycling along these routes; and

·         for the safety and sustainability reasons outlined, Exeter Cycling Campaign respectfully ask committee members to refuse this application.

She responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

• the Campaign does not have a formal membership but 450 are signed up to the Facebook page, there are 1,500 twitter followers and between 15/20 regularly attend the Campaign planning application assessment meetings which meet for up to two hours;
• the Campaign was late to object as unable to access application details from the web site due to a change to the IT systems during the application;
• not opposed to the development of the hotel and wish to see it succeed but the route is identified as a Green Infrastructure Route in the Exeter Core Strategy and is the only route between Exeter and Cranbrook that cannot be used by motor vehicles;
• it is important to prioritise the delivery of the E3 and E4 cycle route for the overall benefit of the community and important to protect the cycle route into the future;
• a strategic cycle route into the City is important as it is a link from the Cranbrook new settlement which is likely to increase to 25,000 residents with cycle link to City Centre; and
• E4 now serving the University linking it to the Science Park and Cranbrook with a drop down to the City Centre. It widens the transport choice, serving the north of the City and can be used by all ages as well as different modes of transport such as ecycles and mobility vehicles.

Mrs Carleton spoke in support of the application. Prior to her allotted three minutes she raised the following points:-

• submitted evidence relating to planning consent in respect of the Gipsy Hill Hotel overflow car park; and
• confirmed that the hotel expansion plans were predominantly to meet a growing business market rather than for holiday lets.

Shortly after commencing her three minute slot, the meeting was adjourned for ten minutes in response to the speaker’s requirement for a short recess.

Mrs Carleton re-commenced her three minute presentation making the following points:-

• she emphasised that she was not presenting the merits of her case as they would be presented to the planning inspectorate;
• thanked the Councillors for the site inspection on 17 October but disappointed that the opportunity had not been taken to view the full site and to see the various facilities including meeting rooms, grounds that had been used to celebrate the Queen’s 90^th birthday in 2016 when over 100 people in the local community had enjoyed a free day out with games and free strawberries and cream;
• also wanted to show Members the bedroom where Baroness Brinton, who had been in a wheelchair, had stayed;
• land has been given freely by the Hotel for cycle infrastructure;
• why is there no reference in the report to the Sandock application which was approved in 2014 and now lapsed. The outline was granted even though an extra 1,045 vehicles were predicted along Pinn Lane. The Sandrock application should also be refused – it is a mockery of the consultation process;
• the £27 million cycle way will double the number of cyclists which brings into question the safety of this route. To ensure safety the Redhayes Bridge should be closed;
• the Gipsy Hill application will have the least impact on the Lane which can not be closed as it is the only access in; and
• the policies are not functioning.

Responding to Members’ queries, she stated that a professional Transport Assessment had been made in respect of Courtlands and that the assessment for Gipsy Hill, which was not a professional one, had been based on the Courtlands one and used in the two pre-application discussions with the Highways Authority.

A Member supported the view that, as the application had been referred to the Secretary of State, then this should be the final arbiter. She also stated that support should be given to the expansion plans of this long established hotel and business helping the economy and creating jobs. She was also concerned about the delay in the planning process in respect of this application.

A Member asked the case officer about the existing housing in Gypsy Hill Lane and why this was acceptable and the proposed development was not. The case officer stated that this was historic and that planning decisions had to follow the planning policies and guidance that existed at the time the decision is made.

The City Solicitor and Head of Human Resources advised that the Planning Inspector would make a decision on the application since the matter had been referred to them by way of appeal for non-determination. The Planning Committee were being asked to indicate how they would have dealt with it had they been making the decision.

Members accepted the importance of reaching a view for submission to the Secretary of State. Whilst recognising the importance of supporting the City’s economy as would be the case with the re-development of the Hotel, a Member felt that appropriate weight should also be given to the economic benefits an enhanced cycle network will also bring to the City, particularly as this cycle lane formed part of the primary cycle route between the East of Exeter and Exeter and was set out as a primary route in the Exeter Cycle Map within the Local Transport Plan and Exeter Cycle Strategy.

RESOLVED that if Exeter City Council were the determining Authority  planning permission for an extension to hotel accommodation block to form 9 self-catering holiday apartments and 4 new hotel bedrooms (net gain 2), following partial demolition of building and demolition of bungalow would have been REFUSED for the following reason:-

The proposed development will increase vehicle traffic on Gipsy Hill Lane and Pinn Lane, which are adopted Green Streets in the Sustainable Transport Supplementary Planning Document (March 2013) intended for use as footpaths and cycleways with no access for motorised traffic. Gipsy Hill Lane is also a Green Infrastructure Route in the adopted Core Strategy and a primary cycle route as part of the adopted (in principle) Strategic Cycle Network for Exeter. The additional traffic generated by the proposed development will reduce the attractiveness and functionality of these routes for walkers and cyclists, contrary to Policy CP17 of the adopted Core Strategy, saved Policies T3 and DG1(a) of the adopted Exeter Local Plan First Review, emerging Policies DD20(a) and DD25(g) of the Development Delivery Development Plan Document (Publication Version July 2015) and paragraph 41 of the NPPF which seeks to protect routes critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choice. In addition, the roads giving access to the site (Gipsy Hill Lane and Pinn Lane) by reason of their inadequate widths, lack of segregated footways/cycleways, lack of street lighting, and poor visibility at the junction between them, do not provide safe and suitable access to the site for all users, contrary to saved Policy AP1 of the adopted Exeter Local Plan First Review and paragraph 32 of the NPPF, and the increased traffic generated by the proposed development will make these routes less safe for existing users, particularly walkers and cyclists.