Agenda and draft minutes

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 4 August 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 August 2025 were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as correct, subject to the following amendments:-

Minute No. 26: - Councillor Ketchin –

·       Bullet point 4 - he had not heard a compelling reason to choose this site and that the public had not been consulted;

·       Bullet point 5 - some parts of Marsh Barton could be amenable for a harvesting waste stream and not all options for the site of the energy hub in Marsh Barton had been explored; and

·       Bullet point 8 - biodiversity was NOT a material consideration for this site, it would easily be done but building an industrial site in the middle of the area would hinder this.

Additional Bullet points to read as:-

·       the original plan for the hub was 2.5 acres and the new site has expanded over threefold; and

·       the remainder of the Grace Roads playing fields being outside of the red line boundary, should have been clarified as neither a material consideration and not consulted on with the public.

No declarations of interest were made by Members.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

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

·        objected to the new application for student accommodation based on community balance issues;

·        this was a new application rather than a simple amendment to the previous consented planning application and much had changed in terms of the student accommodation since that original planning permission was granted;

·        Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) was dominating much of the city centre with even more planned;

·        the National Planning Policy Framework promoted inclusive, well-designed places with accessible services and vibrant communities, in which this development did not achieve this;

·        the St James Neighbourhood Plan highlighted the area as being unique, with and predominantly residential, acting as a gateway to the city centre;

·        more than 50 percent of residents in the St. James area were students, who were welcomed but was already the highest proportion in the city;

·        there has been no evidence provided that PBSAs had led to HMOs returning to residential use;

·        currently there were 17 HMOs for sale in St James, all marketed as HMO investments and due to costs involved were unlikely to be returned to use as a residential or rental property;

·        there was almost no rental properties in the St James area, which were not student HMOs;

·        an appeals inspector in St James ward, last year noted that, there was an over-concentration of student accommodation which harmed the objective of creating a balanced community;

·        the appeals inspector further noted that the Council was not achieving its target of at least 75% increase in student numbers accommodated by PBSA;

·        though additional PBSA’s were expected, it needed to be weighed against other plan policies including plan C3 of the St James Neighbourhood Plan to avoid an over-concentration of student accommodation and harming community balance;

·        there were 12,500 PBSA beds in Exeter, the majority, of which were in the St James area or its fringes, which were in addition to the hundreds of student HMOs;

·        the site needed to be developed for permanent residential homes as a key site in the city centre, not for further student accommodation; and

·        the site was currently a mess and as a key gateway into the city should be developed for permanent residential homes for residents.

In response to questions from Members, Councillor Palmer made the following further comments:

·        there was no clear evidence of under-occupancy or over-occupancy of the 12,500 student beds;

·        data was lacking due to private ownership and no central data source, but not all PBSAs were fully occupied;

·        many international students tended to stay in PBSA for three years;

·        first-year students preferred PBSA for safety and security, but they moved to HMO housing after the first year for lower cost and social reasons;

·        residential accommodation for young professionals in the city centre would be more viable and sustainable than PBSA, but only flats were feasible on this site; and

·        young professionals would benefit from city centre living and there would be longer term demand for residential accommodation.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The Strategic Director for Place, the Principal Project Manager, City Development and the Chair responded to Member questions as follows:

·        increasing occupants in an HMO, would require either a new HMO license, which was a separate from planning, or, if the number exceeded six, a new planning permission for a 'sui generis' HMO;

·        a change in occupants between three and six was under class C4 and did not need a new planning permission;

·        the reason for turning down the application for 2 Woodville Road, would be provided outside of the meeting;

·        details of the location of the application for the Alphington Cross Store, would be provided outside of the meeting;

·        Exwick Ward did not appear, due to there being no applications for this ward;

·        the term split decision was rare and was an unusual type of decision where some aspects of a planning application were approved and others refused; and

·        the DCC application at County Hall fell under the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 - Regulation 3, which allowed planning applications by a planning authority to develop any land of that authority, or by an interested planning authority. In this instance DCC was the planning authority and the application site was their land, so they could apply for planning permission to be determined by itself.

The report of the Strategic Director for Place was noted.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The Strategic Director for Place in responding to a Member’s enquiry confirmed  that the officer's summary in the appeals report had not been permanently removed. Its absence in the report was an exception because all the appeals were for household applications, and summaries were usually provided for other types of appeals.

The report of the Strategic Director for Place was noted.