Agenda item

To consider the report of the Service Lead City Development.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MD) presented the outline application for the demolition of existing structures, site remediation and redevelopment to provide Classes A1 (retail), A3 (Cafes and Restaurants), associated access, internal circulation, service yards, parking, landscaping, public realm works, infrastructure and dedication of land for improvements to Honiton Road (all matters reserved except access).

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MD) detailed the consultations undertaken, the representations received and supporting information supplied by the applicant for the proposal to re-develop the site to provide a total of 7,962 sq m (gross) retail floorspace comprising 6,900 sq metres (gross) for Class A1 (shops) and 1,062 sq m for Class A3 (cafes and restaraunts) including associated service yards, parking and landscaping, following demolition of the existing buildings and remediation of the site. The existing Moor Lane access would be modified to left in only. The report also detailed the key issues of the principles of the proposed development, access and impact on local highways, parking, impact on air quality, contaminated land and impact on amenity of surroundings, impact on trees and biodiversity, flood risk and surface water management and sustainable construction and energy conservation.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MD) advised that an updated response had not been received from the Local Highway Authority and he also referred to a late objection from the Crown Estate which supported the recommendation to refuse the application.

Councillor Holland, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on the three retail proposals in general. His comments are set out in Min No. 42 above.

Nick Freer spoke against the application, his presentation is covered in Min No. 42 above

Mark Scoot spoke in support of the application. He raised the following points:-

·                     Members will be aware of our concerns in the way in which these applications have been dealt with. The benefits of the WPD proposal have been completely ignored. The WPD site is a gateway site on the entrance to Exeter from the east and is able to make an important contribution to this part of Exeter if re-developed. It has been an un-sightly lorry/storage yard for the last 40 years. The application offers an attractive scheme fronting Honiton Road with associated benefits and there will not be another opportunity in the foreseeable future;

·                     the approach by officers has been inappropriate and none of the reasons for refusal are defensible. The retail advisor’s report was received by the Council in November 2018 but not provided for review and response. Council legal advise was that the reports should be immediately released;

·                     a key consideration in determining the application is the loss of employment land, even though it was agreed at the pre-application stage that there was no policy conflict. The specialist advise was only made available two weeks ago which is ten months after it was received. Officers did not provide the consultant with all of the viability information provided so no weight can be given to the comments raised in the response;

·                     the response of the Environmental Health officer was provided only a week ago, more than six months after the air quality assessment was submitted and it has not been possible to respond. By contrast, the consultation response on the Moor Exchange scheme appears to have been made publicly available within two weeks of that application being submitted;

·                     the report states that the scheme should also be refused on ecological grounds even though there is no objection from any relevant consultee and the applicant was not advised until the committee report was issued; and

·                     the application has not been dealt with fairly or competently and request that all applications are deferred.

Responding to a Member, he confirmed his concerns at the late release of pertinent information.

Both the Planning Consultant - Legal and the Service Lead City Development refuted Mr Scoot’s claim that the application had been dealt with unfairly. The latter stated that there was no obligation to release information produced from consultants but these had been released to the applicants before the Committee reports had been published.

The recommendation was for refusal for the reasons as set out in the report.

RESOLVED that planning permission for outline application for the demolition of existing structures, site remediation and redevelopment to provide Classes A1 (retail), A3 (Cafes and Restaurants), associated access, internal circulation, service yards, parking, landscaping, public realm works, infrastructure and dedication of land for improvements to Honiton Road (all matters reserved except access) be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1.    The site is located within the established employment area of Sowton and is in existing employment use. Therefore, redevelopment of the site to provide retail uses would contravene Policy CP2 of the Core Strategy and saved Policy E3 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review. There are no material considerations to indicate the application should be approved contrary to these policies. Furthermore, the Viability Reports submitted with the application to demonstrate that redevelopment of the site to B1 (office), B2 (general industrial) and/or B8 (storage or distribution) uses are not considered robust, and no evidence has been provided to test the market for the current lawful use of the site.

2.    Insufficient information has been provided to confirm that safe and suitable access can be achieved to the site for all users, taking into account the transport hierarchy in Policy T1 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review, or that the residual cumulative impacts of the scheme on the road network would not be severe. In the absence of this information and confirmation from the Local Highway Authority that these issues are acceptable it cannot be ensured that safe and suitable access to the site will be provided or that the development would not have severe cumulative impacts on the local road network, including securing the provision of any necessary infrastructure in accordance with Policy CP18 of the Core Strategy. The application therefore contravenes paragraph 108 of the NPPF.

3.    The proposed development would have a moderate adverse impact on air quality within the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The proposed air quality mitigation in the submitted Air Quality Assessment include measures already in the submitted Transport Assessment and therefore would not be new mitigation. In the absence of the information referred to in Reason 2, it cannot be established whether satisfactory air quality mitigation would be provided. Therefore the application contravenes Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy, saved Policy EN3 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review and paragraph 181 of the NPPF.

4.    The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal identified the site has potential to support bats and reptiles, which are protected species. Natural England’s Standing Advice states that protected species surveys should be up-to-date and ideally from the most recent survey season. A bat survey was carried out of buildings on the site in June and July 2016, and a further preliminary roost assessment of the buildings in February 2018, outside the bats’ active season, and internal inspections of the buildings could not be undertaken at this time. A reptile survey has not been submitted. Therefore, inadequate survey information has been provided to confirm the presence or otherwise of bats and reptiles, together with detailed mitigation and/or compensation schemes should these protected species be present on the site. Natural England’s Standing Advice states planning permission can be refused where species surveys are not suitable, carried out at the wrong time of year of if not enough information has been provided to assess the effect on a protected species.