Agenda item

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MH) presented the application for up to 155 residential units and a 64-bedroom residential care home with means of access to be determined with scale, layout, appearance and landscaping reserved for future consideration.

He referred to the nature of the highway improvements proposed as part of the access arrangements and explained that the detail and internal layout were indicative only. The key issues included the lack of a five year housing supply for the City, transport and sustainability for the wider area including the town of Topsham, green infrastructure and affordable housing provision.

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

Councillor Baldwin, having given notice under Standing Order No.44, spoke on the item. She raised the following points:-

• a feeling of déjà vu is apparent as Waddington Homes also applied for housing and a care home in the Topsham Gap at the land off Exeter Road and adjacent to Topsham Rugby Ground which was rejected by this Committee, but the developer went to appeal and won their case after a public enquiry. The land was then sold with outline planning permission to another builder to be developed. As a result Waddington Homes are now confident of this new application and have not bothered with a pre-application assessment;
• the issue of Exeter’s housing shortage is being used to override all other considerations and although understanding of Exeter’s housing problem this Committee, in the past, has accepted the importance of the open space between the city of Exeter and the town of Topsham. It has rejected other applications in the past which have only been allowed to progress following appeals to the Planning Inspectorate where the housing shortage was cited as the overriding factor;
• however, the Heritage Homes development and the Waddington, now Burrington Homes, development next to the Rugby Ground are both on the main Topsham to Exeter Road with relatively easy access to facilities. This new application is separated from the rest of Exeter by the Exmouth to Exeter railway line with the only possible road access to this green field site via Clyst Road. There is no other way in or out of the area and no way across the railway line;
• Clyst Road joins the edge of Topsham where Denver Road meets Elm Grove Road with Junction 30 of the M5 near Sandygate. For most of its length it is a narrow country road and within the East Devon District Council area. The edge of the proposed development is the boundary between Exeter and East Devon local authorities. From this boundary northward Clyst Road is exceptionally narrow for about half a mile with steep banks on either side and no pavements. Two cars can pass with care, two 4 x 4s struggle and any commercial vehicles cause a problem. Recently a car transporter got stuck and caused gridlock.  Any pedestrians or cyclists using this section are at grave risk to their safety; 
• traffic queues along Topsham Road and there is congestion around Countess Wear roundabout which has been exacerbated by the new developments referred to and in the Newcourt area. Anyone living on this application site will chose to travel along Clyst Road to avoid the congestion in Topsham; 
• the road travelling towards Sandygate in its present narrow condition will be unable to cope with an increase in car movements plus cyclists and pedestrians; 
• the land north of the application site is in East Devon, and according to their local plan the area is designated as Green Wedge and therefore protected from settlement coalescence;
• one of the potential results of ‘creeping’ development could be the coalescence of adjacent or neighbouring settlements, villages or towns.  To prevent such coalescence, it is important that open land between settlements to help them maintain their separate identities, their landscape settings and to avoid the creation of unrelieved development. 
• the application site is part of a small area of land within Exeter’s boundary that juts into the East Devon Green Wedge and is bounded on the west side by the un-crossable railway line. To the east of Clyst Road is the River Clyst flood plain which it is hoped will be kept as green open space in keeping with the adjacent Green Wedge. Because of the protected Green Wedge status of the area north of the application site it is unlikely that there are any plans to widen Clyst Road here as it would mean removing the Devon banks and mature trees forming the road side; 
• the application promises improvements to the Clyst Road going south to the junction with Denver Road. Denver Road itself cannot be further widened because of the railway bridge at that point which narrows the road so it is unclear what improvements are promised as part of the Section 106 Agreement. Clyst Road at this junction is wide enough for two way traffic for a short distance. It then narrows on a bend where the presence of existing properties, a farm wall and mature, protected trees makes it impossible to have a pavement. Pedestrians have to walk in the road at this point. How is this going to be widened to cope with increased movements of cars and pedestrians?;
• how will construction traffic reach the site. Coming south from Sandygate along Clyst Road will be impossible. Traffic coming down Topsham Road and then Exeter Road will have to turn left into Denver Road, negotiating traffic-calming road islands and speed humps, come under the narrow railway bridge and then left into Clyst Road. Traffic coming from the A376 will come past Darts Farm, across the narrow bridge by the Bridge Inn and then negotiate the tight traffic-calming road islands at the Station Road and Elm Grove Road junction. Devon highways officers may have considered traffic flows but not the difficulties of using the local road network;
• there are insufficient school places for children possibly moving in to the application site with Topsham School at bursting point and there is no way across the railway line to reach the new school at Newcourt, the only way being north along Clyst Road;
• there is no need for a further care home as Waddington Homes got permission for one on the land adjacent to the Rugby Ground. There are likely to be more service vehicles which tend to be bigger and would cause more problems in the narrow Clyst Road;
• although the report raises concerns it concludes that the housing shortage in Exeter tips the balance in favour of acceptance. Other factors should tilt the decision towards refusal. East Devon recognise the Clyst Valley as an area worth protecting. This application plot, although within the Exeter boundary, lies within this zone, is also part of what is left of the Topsham Gap and approval here will set a precedent for further development in the remaining green fields. It is separated from the rest of Exeter by the railway line and its only road link with Topsham or Junction 30 is via Clyst Road which is a narrow lane for much of its length. The local road network will make access very difficult; and.
• deferral might be appropriate for a site visit along Clyst Road to view the potential dangers and the environmental setting of the proposed development.

Councillor Leadbetter, having given notice under Standing Order No.44, spoke on the item. He raised the following points:-

• support comments of Councillor Baldwin;
• residents of Topsham feel under attack with constant pressure on the Topsham Gap and the green buffer between Exeter and Topsham should be protected;
• the application should not be seen as the developer doing Exeter residents a favour by providing more housing;
• a site on a narrow country lane on the edge of Topsham is unsuitable for a development of this nature - the narrow nature of the lane with a number of bends creates dangerous traffic conditions and it is unsafe to walk along the Lane into Topsham;
• accept that the highway officers must work within their professional guidelines but non-technical arguments are also of value;
• further loss of green wedge land will contribute further to the “pack of cards” scenario and is a continuation of the thin end of the wedge
• the lack of detail for the application is unacceptable as is the lack of consultation on the proposals;
• the Committee refused an application for the West of England School site in order to protect green land and should do the same with this application.

Ms Neal spoke against the application. She raised the following points:-

• Mr. Andy Graham-Cummings’ document for the Topsham Society’s Planning Group dated 7 February 2018 shows clearly under the heading “Sustainability and Accessibility” that the applicant’s Transport Assessment is flawed. The proposal site is not a “level walk” from facilities in Topsham’;
• it is inaccurate to describe the proposed development as “sustainable”. The site is at a high and far extremity of Topsham, on a dangerous road where there is no bus service and is never likely to be one, whatever “enhancements to the local sustainable transport provision by the way of a significant financial contribution” are proposed by the developer;
• also question the applicant’s idea of siphoning the main road - where traffic at peak times can be high - through the development. The idea of making a short cycleway of the present stretch of road parallel with the edge of the field is questioned. The cycleway is a nonsense;
• Mr. Graham-Cummings also points out that Transport Assessment is based on modelling rather than actual measurements in Clyst Road itself and that the new junction proposed has not taken into account the blind bend just beyond it;
• there is also the matter of the mix of affordable housing and “market housing”. Other recent developments in the Topsham Gap has shown that even when a provision is proposed, as it is here, for 35% of the units to be “affordable”, this may never actually come to pass - at the reserved matters stage the provision may be transmuted to another site in the city. What Waddeton Park is really trying to make possible is the building of large, expensive houses on the outskirts of Topsham which will benefit from a Topsham postcode and therefore Topsham prices;
• the harm to the landscape setting of the city is the most obvious adverse impact. The report states “relatively modest”, but this is based on his assumption that “the remaining open land beyond the application site to the north and the land between the appeal site and the M5” would maintain the visual separation and separate identity of Topsham;
• each permission to build in the Topsham Gap begets another: if this one is passed it will only serve as a precedent to a further application, just as the Exeter Road developments have done for this one - it is another bite out of the fields and open space which are the Gap;
• adverse impact on the community of Topsham, a great many of whose residents demonstrably care about the preservation of the Gap; and
• the proposed development would not amount to sustainable development and that its adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the identified benefits.

She responded to Members’ queries:-

• the Great Horwood application, saw the Secretary of State rule against a similar development on the edge of a village even though Aylesbury District Council did not possess a five year housing supply;

·         the average walking time to the nearest bus stop near the railway crossing in Topsham would be 20 minutes or 30 minutes for an elderly person; and

·         Local Plan LS1 seeks the preservation of the Topsham Gap keeping it free of development to preserve Topsham’s landscape setting and to prevent coalescence of Exeter and Topsham.

Members criticised the absence of sufficient detail within the application, the lack of consultation as well as the absence of a representative of the applicant to speak in support of the application and to respond to the many issues of concern. It was suggested that the application should be deferred for a site inspection but the consensus was that a decision should be made.

Regard was given to the precedent set at appeal in respect of applications already referred to in Topsham and to housing developments being brought forward elsewhere in the City and how these related to this area of land on the outskirts of Topsham, the absence of a five year housing supply in the City and the guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework seeking presumptions in favour of sustainable development. Reference was also made to negotiations in respect of Section 106 Agreements under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It was also noted that housing supply was one of the issues currently being considered by the Greater Exeter Strategic Partnership, that the emergency services were yet to comment on the development and that CIL contributions towards education placements would be a matter for further consideration.

Members expressed particular concern over the issues of access along the narrow Clyst Road and the continuing pressure on the green wedge of land around Topsham.

Some Members felt that Clyst Road lacked sufficient capacity to support this development and that it was unsuitable for construction traffic and would result in extra congestion on to Junction 30. It was not thought that the local highways network would be able to cope with the extra traffic and one Member stated that the upgrading of the road network should be undertaken prior to any development being considered. Issues of highway safety were also raised particularly existing dangers being exacerbated with lack of sight lines, absence of pavements, narrowness etc.

The Devon County Council Development Manager Highways and Transport advised that the impact on highways of new developments was assessed through the Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS) data base modelling used nationally on the basis of six to eight traffic movements normally expected from a residence and that the results had shown that the development would not result in a severe impact. He also stated that necessary improvements would be brought forward in conjunction with the scheme. He also advised in response to Members that the highway improvements would be achieved on land on which there were highway rights and would not involve acquisition of private land.

Regarding the impact on the Topsham Gap, a Member suggested that the circumstances around the loss of green wedge/open space were different than experienced in applications for housing development in other parts of the Topsham Gap as referred to by the objectors as well as elsewhere in the City. A different scenario was evident in that part of the application site, although wholly within the Exeter administrative boundary, demonstrably encroached into a continuous area of land in East Devon specifically identified as green space and that it could be shown to cause an unacceptable harm to this East Devon District Council designation of Green Wedge.

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

The motion to refuse the application, moved by Councillor Denham and seconded, was voted upon and carried. The motion to use the encroachment of the development site into the East Devon Green Wedge rather than highways issues as the reason for refusal was moved by Councillor Denham, seconded by Councillor Harvey, voted upon and carried

RESOLVED that planning permission for up to 155 residential units and a 64-bedroom residential care home with means of access to be determined with scale, layout, appearance and landscaping reserved for future consideration be REFUSED, as:-

(1)        the proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Exeter City Council Core Strategy 2012 (the Vision, Spatial Strategy and policy CP16), Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011 (saved policy LS1) and the emerging Exeter Draft Development Delivery DPD 2013 (policy DD29) because:-

(a)          it would result in development outside the identified strategic locations for growth contrary to the Statutory Development Plan for the area; and

(b)          development within the strategic gap between Topsham and Exeter would compromise the separate identities of both settlements and would adversely affect the attractive rural landscape which provides the essential green setting to the historic settlement of Topsham and which is an integral part of the wider rural landscape of East Devon; and

(2)        in the absence of a planning obligation in terms that are satisfactory to the Local Planning Authority, and which makes provision for affordable housing, the proposal is contrary to Exeter Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2012 policy CP7, and Exeter City Council Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2014.