Issue - meetings

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The Chair invited Councillor Moore to speak under Standing Order No. 44, who made reference to:

·        the site being a flagship, council-owned site, and her comments reflected those of herself and Councillor Read, and the work undertaken with local residents;

·        the proposal referred to a gate in an existing alleyway between 20 and 21 North Street;

·        the alleyway provided a historic, publicly owned access used by residents and a gate would create a dead-end, increasing community safety risks rather than reducing them;

·        a gate would also restrict evening and winter access, contradicting claims of community involvement. The access routes were important for public access to the rear of the properties, and for bin collection and needed to be retained;

·        a gate would also conflict with the NPPF and Local Plan, which required connectivity and respect for existing urban structure;

·        the Frank Knight report failed to reference the Exeter Local Housing Needs Analysis 2024 and the demand for co-living was not evidenced, with growth in single-person households was predicted to be low;

·        the financial contribution toward housing supply was noted but units were not suitable as long-term homes and there was a lack of futureproofing if demand dropped;

·        the area already had a high concentration of co-living and student accommodation, which conflicted with policy and the need for a mixed community;

·        the development was a very high density, with a proposed sixth floor and rooftop equipment, which made the height five metres higher than the existing car park and created a visual dominance over Mary Arches Street and Bartholomew Cemetery;

·        there was a conflict with emerging Local Plan D1, which required appropriate density and compatibility with its surroundings and this was not sufficiently sympathetic to nearby heritage buildings;

·        the development would damage the medium and short range views around the city centre;

·        the views from Mount Dinham and St. David’s Hill into the conservation area would be lost;

·        longer distance views would result in a solid block, which was contrary to council development plans;

·        there was an issue with disabled parking allocations which was not clear;

·        the synagogue had requested dedicated disabled parking for deliveries and access with one space was allocated, so disabled parking for residents would be insufficient;

·        disabled parking needed to be provided proportionally to the housing units; and

·        greater horseshoe bats were present in St. Bartholomew Cemetery but were not referenced in the report and appropriate mitigation for light impacts and bat flight paths was needed.

In responses to questions from Members, Councillor Moore made the following further points:

·        the alleyway access routes were not public rights of way, but were public footpaths;

·        there were two alleyways off North Street which served properties on both sides and provided access to buildings at the rear and connected through to Mary Arches Street;

·        the proposed locking of gates at night would prevent winter access and make the routes unusable during evenings;

·        gates would also be placed at the end of the alleyways, creating dead ends and increasing safety issues;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57