Agenda item

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) presented the application for development to build student accommodation and central amenity facilities up to a maximum of 32,230 square metres with associated infrastructure (Reserved matters application for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale following outline permission 16/1232/OUT granted 5 July 2017).

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) explained that outline permission had been previously granted with associated conditions and a Section 106 Agreement and detailed the layout plans, elevational details, access arrangements, computer generated images and the elements of the student management plan. He reported the receipt of a further email in respect of the number of students to be accommodated and concerns regarding parking, the City Development Manager referring to changes to conditions three and five as requested by the applicant.

 

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

 

·         it is accepted that outline planning permission has been granted but there remain a number of issues of concern to local residents;

·         submitted drawings are believed to be incorrect;

·         an access road is too close to the arboretum;

·         concerns that the pedestrian/cycle route into Higher Hoopern Lane will be used by motorcycles and scooters with fast food deliveries late at night to a large market at great disturbance to neighbouring residents;

·         working hours should not include 8:00am to 1:00pm on Saturdays and should be restricted to the normal five day working week and that the hours during the working week, as set out in the condition, should be strictly adhered to unlike in some other developments in the city. The residents have already suffered from certain Sunday working on the campus and the justification put forward for this by the University is not valid;

·         Hill Crest Park residents have complained about noise resulting from work near the entrance to the site;

·         request that any proposed bund or bank be of sufficient height to reduce noise and dust pollution during construction;

·         assurances sought that the northern meadowwill not be used for locating caravans accommodating workers;

·         a robust student management plan is necessary to prevent anti-social behaviour including the prevention of student parties and bar-b-ques on the northern meadow;

·         best practice to be utilised on external lighting to prevent overspill of artificial light;

·         residents request that tree screening is effective and that new trees are at least five years old and of significant size and that the University engages with residents on the landscape details; and

·         the local community have requested compensation such as the provision of super fast broad band to the residents of Higher Pennsylvania and that a strategy be agreed to facilitate its provision prior to the occupation of the first student flat. This has been achieved in Cambridge as part of planning permission agreed by South Cambridgeshire District Council.

 

The Principal Project Manager responded to the queries raised:-

 

·         the correct revised drawings had been submitted and changes to the master plan were inevitable during the detailed drawing up of developments and were within the limits set by outline conditions for this development;

·         the access road near the arboretum had been narrowed slightly in consultation with Natural England;

·         access on to the site by scooters and motorbikes would be difficult to control by condition and would be for the University to monitor;

·         a bund/bank may assist in reducing noise and because of concerns around noise during construction. The extra half day construction period would assist in the earlier completion of the development. Further, the central communal area would be located away from residential properties;

·         construction vehicles and accommodation facilities were not being provided in the paddock to the north of the site;

·         meadow to the north would remain and enhanced as part of the landscape/biodiversity plan;

·         a condition had been imposed on the original outline requiring the submission of external lighting details;

·         the University would liaise with residents on the tree strategy; and

·         the applicant had fully consulted with the Police and Fire authorities

 

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

 

·         it is understood that this is a reserved matters hearing and that the proposed development has already been approved in principle;

·         many of the objectors, and a far greater number at the provisional application, believe it is a development on too large a scale for the site despite the requirement placed on the developers to reduce the quantum and scale of the development;

·         significant areas of the site include five storey, 50 bedroom extensions running north/south on the site and is combined with some significantly misleading illustrations in the current submission;

·         little faith in the planning process nor the relationship between the University and its immediate neighbours in respect of planning issues;

·         it is a done deal and therefore not worth pursuing other than to provide context to the remaining areas of objection which are largely concerned with the impact on immediate neighbours of the nearly, three year-long construction period;

·         concerns regarding noise generated by vehicles and machinery and power tools as well as generation of dust and overspill of floodlighting during periods of darkness. This is in contrast to the natural and peaceful amenity that has been so important to many local and University residents;

·         the immediate access to quiet green space has been trumpeted as an important part of the University’s offer and is also recognised as important in the city’s green space strategy;

·         request that building operations are limited to week days only to provide some respite over the prolonged building period to neighbours on and off campus; and

·         request that residents and neighbours are consulted in the development of the detailed tree planting strategy to ensure that sufficiently mature trees (at least five years old) are planted in strategic locations to reduce line of sight overview and reduce acoustic transmission from the finished development and that existing trees are properly maintained in the boundary valleys.

 

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

 

·         representing WYG planning consultants. Outline planning permission has been granted for the scale of the development proposed by this reserved matter application, subject to a number of strict parameters;

·         the main purpose is to accommodate more students, particularly first years, on campus to benefit the wider community by reducing pressure on the City’s housing stock and support the University’s plans for gradual growth over the next few years;

·         the proposed floor area, the height of each building and the location of each building within the site accords with the approved parameters for the site. On average, the proposed buildings are over one metre lower than the approved height parameters, with some of them being as much as four metres lower than the approved scheme;

·         the key considerations are the design and appearance of the buildings and the proposed landscape setting with the design evolved through a number of meetings with key stakeholders such as the Design Review Panel, the Fire and Police services and Council’s officers as well as consultation with the local community;

·         the scheme has been improved since outline permission by retaining trees and hedges, enhancing the overall bio-diversity of the site through the creation of wild meadows and the planting of over 450 trees and lowering the buildings;

·         care had been taken to reduce environmental and residential amenity impacts through submitted bespoke construction management plans, noise, air quality, lighting and noise assessments;

·         a Combined Heat and Power system is proposed to provide electricity and heat to the whole site to ensure the outline permission requirement for a BREEAM excellent rating and carbon reduction is achieved; and

·         the approach taken is considered to be logical in design terms and is landscape led, proposing buildings set into the landscape and using high quality materials.

 

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 

·         a condition requiring the provision of broad band to the wider community would not be practical. Although infrastructure can be provided there would be difficulties in agreeing provision with the utilities. It would be for the community and the University to lobby separately;

·         the landscape scheme will include the larger “heavy standard” trees and these will be provided in key locations to provide additional screening as well as ensuring that any gaps in the hedgerows are replaced to accord with the existing hedge height. Consultation will take place with residents on the scheme;

·         lifts within the blocks can accommodate heavy electric wheelchairs;

·         development includes sprinklers and any fire alarms will be filtered through the campus wide control centre before emergency vehicles are called. Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service consulted and access roads to the campus fully “tracked”;

·         Natural England consulted on biodiversity issues;

·         students will be required to sign a residents’ agreement;

·         a mitigation manager will meet fortnightly with residents to discuss the construction plan and seek to resolve any problems including those relating to noise;

·         construction will not occur on Sundays; and

·         the construction and environment plan identifies a site within the development in the south west corner away from neighbouring properties and adjacent streets for the location of vehicles and materials.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) further explained that a student management plan will include 24 hour warden living on the site, additional University Partnerships Programme staff and a 24 hour security presence. The developer and University had undertaken to ensure robust tenant liaison. In response to a Member, he also confirmed that a five and a half day working week was standard practise and had been set out in the outline permission.

 

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

 

RESOLVED that planning permission for development to build student accommodation and central amenity facilities up to a maximum of 32,230 square metres with associated infrastructure (Reserved matters application for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale following outline permission 16/1232/OUT granted 5 July 2017) be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:-

 

(1)        The development hereby approved must be begun with five years from the date of the grant of outline planning permission, or two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, whichever is the longer.

Reason: To ensure compliance with section 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

(2)        The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance with the submitted details received by the Local Planning Authority on 9 August 2018 as modified by other conditions of this consent.

Reason: In order to ensure compliance with the approved drawings.

 

(3)        Samples of the materials it is intended to use externally in the construction of the development shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The following materials shall not be used before their approval is obtained in writing and the materials used in the construction of the development shall correspond with the approved samples in all respects.

i) hard surfacing material;

ii) external light fittings.

Reason: To ensure that materials conform with the visual requirements of the area.

 

(4)        All conditions imposed on notice of outline approval (ref no. 16/1232/FUL) are hereby reiterated in as much as they relate to the development and have yet to be discharged in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the rights of control by the Local Planning Authority in respect of the reserved matters.

 

(5)        Notwithstanding condition 2, no superstructure work shall commence on site under this permission until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be provided in accordance with such details:

i) brick detailing including mortar colour;

ii) cladding including colour and fixings;

iii) windows farming including reveals and cills;

iv) roofing material.

Reason: Insufficient information has been submitted with the application and in the interests of visual amenity.

 

Notes to Applicant:

 

1. 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 negotiated amendments to the application to enable the grant of planning permission.

 

2. The Local Planning Authority considers that this development will be CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) liable. Payment will become due following commencement of development. A Liability Notice is attached to this permission.

It is also drawn to your attention that where a chargeable development is commenced before the Local Authority has received a valid Commencement Notice (ie where pre-commencement conditions have not been discharged) the Local Authority may impose a surcharge and the ability to claim any form of relief from the payment of the Levy will be foregone. You must apply for any relief and receive confirmation from the Council before commencing development. For further information please see www.exeter.gov.uk/cil.

 

3. In accordance with Chapters 1 and 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, this development has been screened in respect of the need for an Appropriate Assessment (AA). Given the nature of the development, it has been concluded that an AA is required in relation to potential impact on the relevant Special Protection Areas (SPA), the Exe Estuary and East Devon Pebblebed Heaths, which are designated European sites. This AA has been carried out and concludes that the development is such that it is highly unlikely to have a significant impact on protected habitats, alone or in combination with other plans or projects.