Agenda and draft minutes

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2026.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2026, were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as correct.

No declarations of interest were made by Members.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The Committee considered the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The Committee considered the report which outlined appeal decisions received and new appeals lodged since the previous report.

A Member noted there was missing information on the report for 3.05 - 25/0763/FUL 6 Matford Lane, Newtown & St Leonard’s, and requested the information be made available.

The Chair advised that the report would be corrected accordingly.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

Councillor Williams, M arrived during the officer’s presentation and did not participate in the debate or vote for this item.

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

·        she was speaking on behalf of herself, Councillor Rees, and consulted local residents;

·        need and demand were not the same, and the applicant had not demonstrated a demand for over 55s accommodation at this location;

·        Heavitree Ward already contained nine existing over 55s retirement housing sites, with some units currently empty and unsellable;

·        questioned the evidence for approving a further 36 units within a conservation area, particularly where need could potentially be met elsewhere;

·        the applicant’s had claimed that the scheme would save the NHS £3,500 per resident per year; however, the Devon Integrated Care Board comments indicated local GP surgeries lacked capacity for new patients and required funding;

·        the proposed permissive path was challenged as a public benefit, noting that the officer report confirmed that it could not be made step?free, was unable to accommodate segregated cycling, constrained by existing trees, and was gated and privately managed;

·        the path would exclude wheelchair users, mobility scooters and prams, and that RNIB guidance had not been followed, resulting in ineffective tactile paving and difficulties for guide dog users;

·        the development gave the appearance of inclusion rather than genuine accessibility;

·        Sport England had requested to be re?consulted once mitigation projects were confirmed, and enquired whether this consultation had occurred;

·        if consultation had not taken place, a national consultee had not signed off a material obligation;

·        if the committee were minded to approve, it was requested that the £95,000 sports pitch contribution be directed specifically to Heavitree Ward play and sports facilities;

·        the 10% Biodiversity Net Gain could not be achieved on the site, and required off?site provision;

·        the location of the off?site land, ownership and how long?term management would be secured was queried;

·        biodiversity net gain was statutory, and should carry significant weight in the planning balance;

·        the Principal Heritage Officer’s comments in the update was cited, noting: the previously undiscovered archaeological remains and recommendation for full archaeological investigation;

·        what due diligence had been undertaken before proposing permanent development on such land;

·        the Principal Heritage Officer was quoted in concluding the proposal failed to meet a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, identifying a legal failure rather than a design issue;

·        despite this, officers still recommended approval, and asked officers how public benefits could outweigh a statutory failure, and requested that this question and response be recorded in the minutes;

·        Historic England’s objection was also referenced, stating that the scheme failed to preserve or enhance the conservation area;

·        reference was made to the former headteacher of Bramdean School, stating that the associated playing field had not been sold off during earlier housing development and that residents understood she had wished for the space to remain open;

·        the role of Bramdean Field C.I.C  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

In accordance with Section 10.5 of the Members’ Planning Code of Good Practice, Councillor Ketchin left the meeting at the start of the item as he was not present when the application was previously considered and deferred on 19 January 2026.

Councillor Williams, who had arrived late for the previous item, was present and took part in the consideration of this item.

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

·        concerns relating to heritage impact, massing and density, referring to the summary section of the officer’s report, highlighting that those concerns were widely shared by residents of St. David’s ward;

·        the amendments made to the scheme were acknowledged, however, the development remained over?massed and visually dominant for longer?range views, particularly from St. David’s Hill and the Iron Bridge approach;

·        the report concluded that key views of historic buildings, including the Cathedral, would not be impeded, the wider heritage setting and the proximity to the St. David’s Hill Conservation Area had not been given sufficient weight;

·        the enlarged structure would tower over nearby heritage assets, including Napier Terrace, Bartholomew Cemetery, the Grade II Synagogue and the Mecca Building, disrupting the established scale and character of the area, which was in-line with concerns expressed by Historic England;

·        the proposed sixth storey and rooftop plant, would increase the overall height and create an unduly dominant skyline feature, causing harm to the St. David’s Hill conservation area;

·        Historic England’s view was that a four?storey development would be more appropriate for the character of the area;

·        the impact on longer?range views was unacceptable, in which the report acknowledged the loss of views of St Michael’s on Mount Dinham and from Fore Street and the application had not included sufficient visual assessments of those views;

·        significant visual harm would arise from more distant viewpoints, including from Exwick and St. Thomas, affecting the wider landscape setting of the city;

·        the changes presented through developer briefings, had not adequately addressed wider visual harm, and even a reduction by one storey would still result in a large, uniform structure harming key city views;

·        concern was expressed about diminished views from St David’s Hill towards the Cathedral and city centre, which would erode the historic relationship between the valley and the city;

·        agreed defined views from this location did not appear in the submitted material;

·        the proposal failed to respect the surrounding scale and architectural context;

·        the building should not exceed the height of the existing multi?storey car park and should incorporate greater articulation to break up its massing;

·        had the outcome of the further Design Review Panel been published and, if so, where it could be accessed, or if not, why it was unavailable; and

·        in closing they objected to the application on their own behalf and on behalf of local residents, citing concerns over scale, massing and the resultant harm to heritage assets and their setting.

In responses to questions from Members, Councillor Read made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.