Agenda item

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

 

The Principal Project Manager presented the application for outline planning permission for up to 85 dwellings (35% affordable), community hub and associated infrastructure (all matters reserved except access).

 

He provided the following information:-

·         The application site was 4.88 hectares of agricultural land, currently split into two areas;

·         There is an existing vehicular access on the western boundary onto Stoke Hill and a large agricultural barn in the centre of the site;

·         There had been 303 representations received on this application - 302 objecting and 1 supporting;

·         The objections raised issues that included loss of green space, impact on the rural setting and character of the area, urbanisation of the ridgeline, harm to the Valley Park, increase in traffic on already dangerous roads, inadequate access roads, loss of biodiversity, drainage issues, bus connection problems, encircling of the valley park, no need for a community hub, policy conflicts as brownfield land should be used, few job opportunities within walking distance;

·         The supporting comment made reference to building homes for future generations and helping with the housing shortage;

·         Objections had been received from a number of consultees (Devon County Council Highways, Devon Wildlife Trust, Exeter Civic Society, Exeter Cycling Campaign) as well as Exeter City Council’s Ecologist and Tree Manager;

·         The vehicular access is proposed using the existing point on the western boundary of the site leading onto Stoke Hill;

·         There was currently no safe and accessible footway for pedestrians to link up to the wider city, such as the closest bus stop on Mincinglake Road. It was therefore proposed to install a footway along Stoke Hill, leading south all the way up to join Mincinglake Road;

·         The site was within the northern hills of Exeter and is within a Landscape Setting Area;

·         The site had been subject to two Landscape studies and two Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessments, all of which concluded that the site was not suitable for housing or employment due to the high sensitivity of the area;

·         A landscape Visual Impact Assessment had been submitted with the application and followed by with a statement in response to initial objections from the Council’s Urban Design and Landscape Officer;

·         The Council had commissioned an independent consultant on the previous application and, whilst the red-line had been changed, the conclusion that the overall site was not suitable for development due to landscape harm was still relevant;

·         The Council’s Urban Design and Landscape Officer raised objections to the scheme, noting that ‘…the essential nature of the proposal can clearly be seen to be an isolated development form poorly connected to the existing structure of any existing neighbourhoods, posited in the green space that provides a natural subdivision of the urban structure’;

·         The development would see amenity impacts through additional vehicle movements and domestic noise that will impact on the amenity of the Mincinglake Valley Park;

·         It has been demonstrated that larger vehicles will be able to enter the site;

·         The pedestrian access into the site had originally been proposed to be via a stepped access; however this would not be accessible to all and it was now proposed to install a sloped route through the site. This had been shown to have a gradient of no greater than 1 in 10. Whilst this gradient was acceptable, there would need to be flat space to offer recover due to the increased length of the access route and this had not been demonstrated at this time;

·         There was also proposed to be a new footway installed on Stoke Hill to allow non-stepped access to connect up to Mincinglake Road to the south, and link towards local schools and other facilities. DCC Highways had advised that there was a steep gradient on this road which could lead to accessibility issues; however it would need to be considered that it was existing carriageway and highway land;

·         The issue of trip generation must also be considered. Trip calculations did not include any details for users, workers or deliveries to the ‘community hub’ building;

·         The site was positioned immediately adjacent to Mincinglake Valley Park and had the potential to significantly impact a Site of Nature Conservation;

·         The ECC Ecologist had objected to the proposal for a number of reasons. Updated surveys were required on roosting bats, as well as a Phase 2 Habitat Survey and demonstration of overall biodiversity net gain;

·         The submitted Arboricultural Assessment had noted a veteran oak tree close to the vehicular entrance. The Council’s Tree Manager objected to the scheme, noting that the proposed access route would be within its root protection zone and would cause unacceptable harm to the tree;

·         The proposal was acceptable at Outline stage in relation to drainage, would be conditioned to require 10% public open space and was acceptable in relation to neighbour amenity impacts.

·         Air Quality Impacts could not be confirmed as the trip generation had not been fully considered; however this can be dealt with via condition;

·         In assessing the overall planning balance of the proposal there were benefits such as the 35% Affordable Housing, the improvements to Stoke Hill Roundabout, provision of play areas and employment; and

·         The overall proposal was considered to generate significant harm for the full reasons set out at the end of the report and was recommended to this Committee for refusal.

 

Members received a presentation which included:-

·         site location;

·         wider ownership;

·         indicative layout;

·         vehicular and pedestrian access;

·         proposed footways;

·         landscape setting;

·         2007 and 2022 landscape studies;

·         LVIA viewpoints;

·         highways;

·         nature conservation; and

·         T1 tree location.

 

In response to queries from Members, the Principal Project Manager and the Devon County Council Highways Development Management Officer (Exeter) clarified that:-

·         the proposal did feature a non-stepped accessible area for pedestrians and cyclists but it was very long; and

·         the access itself provided sufficient visibility as far as Devon County Council Highways were concerned, although the visibility splays were to the near-side carriageway edge, which would pick up any cyclist that went up that section of the carriageway.

 

Speaking against the application, Mr Francis Hallam praised the Principal Project Manager for his work on the application and advised that he had organised leafletting and public events about the application at own expense. He made the following points:-

·         the earlier – withdrawn – application had received 390 objections;

·         the statement about the proposal not being visible was incorrect, as the site was visible even from Exmouth;

·         reducing the size of the project to 85 houses amounted to greenwashing;

·         public patience was close to being exhausted; and

·         the credibility of the present application had to be questioned.

 

He called on the Committee to not only refuse the application but also to ensure that it doesn’t come back in front of the Committee in another guise.

 

Speaking under Standing Order 44, Councillor Snow strongly opposed the proposal, making particular reference to:-

·         transport issues;

·         the lack of pavement on either side of the access road;

·         the shaded and slippery nature of the access road;

·         increased car use;

·         how the combination of the narrowness of the bridge and economic reality made a bus service unlikely;

·         conflicts with Policy CP16; and

·         net biodiversity loss instead of gain.

 

He advised the Committee of his membership of the Bat Conservation Trust and urged them to refuse the application.

 

Also speaking under Standing Order 44, Councillor R Williams praised the work of the Principal Project Manager as well as the speeches from Mr Hallam and Councillor Snow. She made particular reference to:-

·         the sensitive setting;

·         the significant harm to the landscape; and

·         the fact that the application was even more sensitive than the one heard earlier in the meeting.

 

She urged Committee members to refuse the application.

 

The Director City Development made the following concluding points:-

·         the proposal was contrary to the Local Plan and conflicted with several policies; and

·         the harm caused by the proposal outweighed its benefits.

 

During debate, Members expressed the following views:-

 

·         It was telling that the applicant was not in attendance;

·         It was reassuring to see the Local Plan being defended; and

·         The applicant had displayed a lack of consideration for people with mobility issues.

 

The recommendation was for refusal.

 

The Chair moved and Councillor Ketchin seconded the recommendation, which was voted upon and CARRIED unanimously.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission for outline planning permission for up to 85 dwellings (35% affordable), community hub and associated infrastructure (all matters reserved except access) be refused.