Agenda item

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MD) presented the application for the construction of a 60 bed student accommodation building on the corner of St David's Hill and Howell Road, with new pedestrian access on St David's Hill, footpath and landscaping.  He also referred to a late drawing submitted by the applicants which had been drawn up to show proposed emergency access to the site for the Fire and Rescue Service.  He indicated that, due to its late receipt, the views of both the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service and Highway Authority had not yet been received. 

 

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

 

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

 

·         objecting to this proposal on the grounds that there had been a lack of community consultation in respect of the application and its impact on the local neighbourhood;

·         the 200+ signature petition which had been received;

·         the lack of a noise assessment;

·         the significant disruption there would be in the vicinity during the construction period and the impact this would have; and

·         concerned at the level of supervision there would be in place for the occupants of the accommodation.

 

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

 

·         the significant harm that the proposed development would have on the historic environment and character and appearance of the conservation area and adjoining listed buildings;

·         no clear and convincing justification (as required by the National Planning Policy Framework) for harm to a heritage asset;

·         alternative sites were available elsewhere on the college campus which would have a lesser impact; and

·         suggestions of alternative uses such as a gateway feature or tourist attraction into the City.

 

Christine Fraser spoke against the application. She raised the following points:-

 

·         she supported the comments already made by the local councillors about the impact on harm to this historic area of the City;

·         the lack of consultation with the local community;

·         the imbalance to the local community that this further educational accommodation would bring; and

·         the breakdown of the local community at the expansion of the business priorities of the college.

 

She responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 

·         the inadequate level of supervision proposed compared to the number of students who it was proposed would be housed in these blocks;

·         degradation of this important green space; and

·         the lack of public consultation undertaken by the college in respect of this application.

 

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

 

·         the college had a property masterplan and a desire to remain a City Centre College;

·         with the on-going success of the college there was a need to invest to meet the needs of learners from both Exeter and the wider south west area. The most critical element was that the College builds out to the extremity of the Hele Road site;

·         application was part of the first phase of the masterplan development and looks to cater for an existing demand, a varying cohort including small numbers of sixth form, Higher Education, International, Exeter Chiefs Academy students and Haven Banks summer course customers. Some of these currently reside in homestay facilities across the city and beyond which are not sustainable;

·         the building is not a typical student residential application as it is on College land, is of relatively small scale (61 units) and will be self-contained, with no offsite parking requirements. In terms of management, the staffing structure includes a student residential manager and a pool of live in wardens to ensure 24 hour cover for the property. There will also be an evening curfew of 11pm for the majority of learners. As well as significant management plans and policies, the 16 to 18 age group attracts a separate Ofsted inspection, to ensure that the highest standards are adhered to;

·         a key element was to open up a gateway between the two main college sites and the bounding Exeter St Davids and Exeter Central railways stations. The landscape plan accompanying this application included a new routeway with amphitheatre social spaces with the aim of reducing pressure on other footpaths in the St Davids area and providing spaces, sympathetic to the conservation area surroundings, for students to meet in;

·         have listened to community feedback and statutory consultation and amended both the design and the management arrangements. The core funding is 21% less than a school receives for young people up to the age of 16, so it is critical to enhance our current offer; and

·         the site provides a challenging topography, but believe proposal meets student requirements, while being sensitive to the local needs. This is not an application by a third party commercial provider but by the city’s college servicing a local demand.

 

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 

·         that the college had sent letters to 120 local residents in the immediate vicinity;

·         his view that the proposed amendment to the plans to include an additional access to the site which would be restricted to the Fire and Rescue Service was adequate;

·         that the students for whom this accommodation was proposed were already housed elsewhere in the community, and that the proposed accommodation would be more suitable and viable than that currently used;

·         that the college was committed to remain city centre based, but only if it were able to build up to the extremities of the existing site; and

·         that the level of warden provision had been increased to meet concerns previously expressed.  He also commented that the college now employed a small mental health support team to support its students’ community.

 

The recommendation was for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the Update Sheet and a Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990/Unilateral Undertaking to ensure the accommodation is only used by students of Exeter College and securing a student management scheme.

 

During discussion, the following points were raised:-

 

·         concern at the lack of support for the application from the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service;

·         similar lack of comment from the Highways Authority on the revised fire access proposals;

·         the impact on the historic environment of the area;

·         a number of councillors stated that they were not against the concept of development on this site, but that the type and scale of that proposed was inappropriate; and

·         the large number of additional conditions which were proposed and were included on the late list, and the fact that Members had not been given the opportunity to consider these in any detail.

 

A proposal to defer the matter so as to allow time to receive the comments of the Highway Authority on the fire access arrangements was put to the vote and declared LOST.

 

A recommendation for approval (as per the agenda and late list) was put to the vote and LOST.

 

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:-.

 

(1)        the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of St David's Conservation Area and the setting of the Grade II* listed Imperial Hotel, due to the loss of open space and trees on the site to built development, which are integral to the character of the area, contrary to saved Policies L3, C1 and C2 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011, and paragraphs 126, 131 and 132 of the NPPF. In addition, the proposed development through its massing, form and external appearance is considered to lack the design quality and distinctiveness to justify the development of the site taking into account the historic context and its prominence in the public realm, and to outweigh the harm that would be caused to the heritage assets. Therefore, it is considered to be a poor design for the site, contrary to Policy CP17 of the Core Strategy, saved Policy DG1 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011, and paragraphs 56, 58, 60, 61, 64, 66, 126 and 131 of the NPPF. For the same reasons as above, the proposed development is considered to conflict with emerging Policies DD12, DD25 and DD28 of the Development Delivery Development Plan Document - Publication Version (July 2015);

 

(2)        a Section 106 Agreement under the Town And Country Planning Act 1990 or Unilateral Undertaking had not been prepared in accordance with the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document and emerging Policy DD12 of the Development Delivery Development Plan Document - Publication Version (July 2015) to ensure that the proposed accommodation was only occupied by students of Exeter College and to secure a student management scheme, including: staff to manage the welfare and behaviour of the students; no car parking on the campus for occupiers of the accommodation; no issuing of parking permits in relation to any residents' parking scheme in force in the area to the occupiers of the accommodation; measures to manage the move-in and collection process; and provisions for monitoring and enforcement. The Local Planning Authority considers that the design of the proposed development and its location on the College campus means that it would only be suitable to be occupied by students, and the student management scheme is necessary in the interests of local amenity, sustainability and highway safety. The Local Planning Authority considers that it would be inappropriate to secure the above provisions by any method other than a legal agreement; and

 

(3)        an informative be added that, in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Council has worked in a positive and pro-active way with the Applicant and has looked for solutions to enable the grant of planning permission. However, the proposal remains contrary to the planning policies set out in the reasons for refusal and was not therefore considered to be sustainable development.