Agenda item

To consider the report of the Service Lead City Development.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) presented the application for the retention of the Sorry Head public house and demolition of the vehicular servicing centre and re-development with a three/four storey building comprising of a ground floor retail unit (Class A1), purpose built student accommodation development (72 bedspaces) above, one warden’s flat and associated private amenity space, secure cycle storage and landscaping.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) stated that several revisions had been made to the proposal including a reduction in height and the setting back of the development into the site. It was considered to be acceptable in the setting of the Belmont Conservation Area with the retention of the frontage of the Sorry Head also making a positive contribution. The appropriate use of render and brick would be addressed within the conditions.

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

• local residents accept the need to re-develop the site but disappointed that it is identified for student housing rather than affordable accommodation to help contribute to the character of the area;
• the development will have an adverse impact on existing heritage assets including the Sorry Head, the Moose Hall and the neighbourhood has particular sensitivities because of the 15^th Century St Anne’s Chapel as there will be an impact on the view of this building;
• the development is detrimental to local residents’ amenity, outlook, light and quality of life;
• roof design is incongruous to existing buildings in the area;
• removal of parking bays to enable dropping off and picking up of occupants will result in an increase in on-street parking in the area particularly as some students may still bring cars;
• development will contribute to the over saturation of student accommodation/houses in multiple occupation in the area and tip the balance in respect of late night noise etc. already experienced;
• fire safety is a concern and a report from the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority is necessary;
• the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site and shadow analysis has confirmed the adverse light impact on properties and gardens resulting in the loss of outlook for neighbours. This, in turn, will impact on the health and wellbeing of residents;
• a gap of 17 metres from the rear of the development to some neighbouring properties falls short of the 22 metres standard; and
• it is a regressive and anachronistic proposal which does not reflect the ambitions of the City Council’s Liveable Exeter Garden Vision and should be rejected on grounds of design, scale, height and impact on residents and their quality of life

Mr Summers spoke against the application. Referring to a series of sectional drawings and photographs of his garden and the surrounding area he raised the following points:-

• the four-storey block replaces a much lower building on the site impacting on the amenity of 116 Old Tiverton Rd. The proposed new building is very tall and close and will have a detrimental effect on the outlook from the back;
• the new building will significantly interfere with sunlight and daylight as evidenced by a shadow analysis. This analysis differs from that of the architect as it used British Standard Time not Greenwich Mean Time; and
• the proposed development does not allow residents to enjoy good quality outlook because the existing properties are entirely dominated by the proposed building.

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

• one Member was supportive of the design;
• other Members, with one suggesting that the location could possibly be acceptable for student accommodation, were opposed to the appearance, scale and massing, considering the building to be overbearing and having an oppressive impact on neighbours including their back gardens;
• the scale and massing to the rear rather than the front was of concern;
• a report from the Fire Safety Officer was sought; and
• some concern was raised in respect of the frontage elevational treatment.

RESOLVED that the application for the retention of the Sorry Head public house and demolition of the vehicular servicing centre and re-development with a four storey building comprising of a ground floor retail unit (Class A1), purpose built student accommodation development (72 bedspaces) above, one warden’s flat and associated private amenity space, secure cycle storage and landscaping.

beDEFERRED for the following issues to be addressed:-

• impact of the development on the street scene;
• loss of light and outlook to neighbouring properties;
• revisions to rear elevation and rear amenity space;
• provision of secure cycle parking; and
• to seek the views of the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority.