Agenda and draft minutes

No declarations of interest were made by Members.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The Assistant Service Lead – Development Management (Major Projects) presented the application to modify the s106 legal agreement tied to planning permission ref. 21/1104/FUL to pay a financial contribution in lieu of the provision of affordable private rent units to improve scheme viability.

Members received a presentation which included:-

• site location plan;
• aerial views;
• overview of permitted scheme;
• approved site plan;
• streetscenes;
• hardworks plan – landscaped gardens;
• softworks plan – pocket park;
• interpretation centre;
• new footbridge;
• LVIA views – Upper Paul Street, Queen Street and proposed landscaped gardens;
• S106 planning obligations; and
• Recommendation.

The Assistant Service Lead – Development Management (Major Projects), the Strategic Director for Place and the Planning Solicitor responded to questions from Members as follows:-

·         details on the viability study were set out in the report;

·         discussions with the developer had started in 2023;

·         the S106 money to be paid by the developer would be capped at £7.5m;

·         the developer had agreed to pay some of the money (£2m) upfront;

·         the remaining £5.5m would be subject to a further valuation exercise;

·         the scheme was expected to be delivered towards the end of 2027;

·         it was difficult to determine how many 1- and 2-bedroom units Exeter City Council would acquire with the £7.5m;

·         the money would be spent on any form of affordable housing, as per the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF);

·         it was incorrect to state that the deed of variation would result in Exeter losing homes;

·         the deed of variation would make the scheme viable;

·         the funds would come to ECC directly;

·         ECC had used S106 money for the purchase of second-hand homes in the past;

·         up to five years after an application has been approved, the applicant would have to seek the approval of the Council for any further deed of variation. After five years, the applicant could make an application to amend the s106;

·         this was very much a one-off situation caused by exceptional circumstances and had not been the first choice of planning officers;

·         if the present application was refused, the scheme would not be built and the site would remain in its current state;

·         there would be no right of appeal against the decision taken at the present meeting;

·         all types of affordable housing were required in the city;

·         there was no evidence that the city centre is more in need of homes for key workers than any other part of the city;

·         the Planning Committee could not direct how the spending of the S106 money would be conditioned;

·         the S106 money would be ringfenced for affordable housing;

·         interest rates and rising building costs were some of the factors considered by the independent valuer in the viability study; and

·         it was expected that the affordable housing would remain so in perpetuity.

Speaking under Standing Order 44, Councillor Moore made the following points:-

·         the affordable housing element was a key factor of the original application;

·         allowing the deed of variation would make the housing crisis worse;

·         the Planning Committee was being asked to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The Assistant Service Lead – (DM) City Development presented the application for Change of use from vacant restaurant and takeaway (Sui Generis Use Class) to 24/7 Adult Gaming Centre (Sui Generis Use Class). She explained that:-

·         the applicant had lodged an appeal in December 2024 with the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds of non-determination of this application within the statutory timeframe;

·         the appeal would now be decided by the Planning Inspectorate;

·         however, the Planning Committee was asked to consider what decision it would have made if it were still within its remit to determine the application; and

·         the Planning Committee’s views would be reflected in the council’s formal submissions to the Inspectorate.

Members received a presentation which included:-

• site location plan;
• aerial views;
• view of rear of site in Acland Road;
• views to south west and north east in Acland Road;
• views of adjacent properties and of Sidwell Street;
• proposed ground floor plan & front elevation;
• proposal overview;
• key planning issues; and
• officer recommendation.

A Member enquired about the reasons for the statutory timeframe being missed; the Chair advised that team management issues would not be discussed at the present meeting.

The Assistant Service Lead – (DM) City Development responded to questions from Members as follows:-

·         the three conditions suggested by Environmental Health were: restrictions around the hours of use, limitations during construction hours and additional noise insulation;

·         licensing matters such as opening hours could be considered by the Planning Committee if they were material to the application;

·         the Inspectorate would be assessing the application on the assumption of round-the-clock opening hours;

·         the licensing side of the project had already been heard by Exeter City Council’s Licensing Sub-Committee, which was a totally separate process;

·         she was unable to confirm if there would be public conveniences for users on site. As this was a change of use application, such information was not required;

·         there was a condition recommended in the report around the shop frontage;

·         while officers recognised the existence of a school and of places of worship in the vicinity of the site, the policy in place was about noise and general disturbance;

·         while it was noted that the applicant already ran a similar operation in another part of the city, conditions could be recommended that were specific to this unit;

·         all comments made and recorded at the present meeting would be sent to the Inspectorate.

Members expressed disappointment that no representatives for the applicant were in attendance.

Speaking under Standing Order 44, Councillor Palmer made the following points:-

·         the socio-economic makeup of Sidwell Street, in particular the index of deprivation, made the proposed location particularly inappropriate;

·         the Gambling Statement in Exeter’s Local Plan stated that such premises would not be permitted where they were in close proximity to schools, sixth form colleges, hostels or support services for vulnerable people or religious buildings;

·         evidence suggested that harmful gambling should be considered a public health issue because it was associated with harms to individuals, their families, close associates and wider society;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

The Assistant Service Lead – (DM) City Development presented the application for Redevelopment of an existing boat repair and maintenance storage shed with accommodation above.

Members received a presentation which included:-

• site location and aerial view;
• constraints – designated heritage assets;
• view from steps of Grade II* listed St Margarets church;
• constraints – environmental/ecological;
• site photographs;
• earlier superseded scheme;
• revised/current scheme;
• proposed side elevation and ground floor plans;
• proposed river front elevation and first floor plans;
• proposed Ferry Road elevation and floor plans;
• sections;
• shadow study;
• building heights;
• visualisations;
• LVIA viewpoints;
• summary of objections and expressions of support;
• assessments from statutory consultees; and
• officer recommendation.

The Assistant Service Lead – (DM) City Development responded to questions from Members as follows:-

·         the balcony would be set back from the edge of the roof;

·         the planning officer has consulted ECC’s own archaeological expert about the proposal;

·         the proposal, if approved, would enable the accommodation of bigger boats for maintenance and repair;

·         there was a residential element to the scheme measuring 215sqm (on the upper floor);

·         mitigating measures would be put in place against flooding;

·         no objections had been received from the Environment Agency; and

·         no discussions have taken place as part of the planning process with the Harbour Master or the Marine Management Organisation.

Speaking under Standing Order 44, Councillor M Williams made the following points:-

·         the report faithfully represented both the aspirations of the applicant and the concerns of residents;

·         the applicant deserved credit with regard to the evolution of the application over many years;

·         if the proposal was approved, construction would likely start in spring or summer and would therefore have an impact on Topsham’s peak tourist season;

·         the narrow nature of Ferry Road had to be taken into account, specifically the risk of construction vehicles being stuck if attempting a sharp turn;

·         clarity was needed around construction hours;

·         concerns had been raised by residents about building materials;

·         there was a feeling among residents that the consultation period had been too short; and

·         in deliberating, Members would have to consider both the concerns raised by residents (particularly with regard to the nature of Topsham’s classic narrow streets and potential impact on residents and tourists alike) and the needs of a long-standing Topsham business and catering for activities linked to the “Port of Exeter”.

Mr Marc Millon, speaking against the application, made the following comments:-

·         he had lived at Quay Cottage for 43 years;

·         he was representing close neighbours as well as 64 objectors;

·         the original application was for two storeys;

·         the finishing materials had not yet been finalised;

·         the proposal did not enhance the conservation area;

·         if approved, the proposal would result in a loss of privacy as well as considerable loss of light;

·         more importance had been given in the officer report to wildlife than to human life;

·         there was a clear risk of subsidence if the proposal was approved;

·         the issue of loss of privacy had been unfairly dismissed in the officer report;

·         the proposed development was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The report of the Strategic Director for Place was noted.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The report of the Strategic Director for Place was noted.