Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Atkinson, with Councillor Wood attending as her substitute. It was confirmed Councillor Wood had undertaken the required training and understood the responsibilities of the role.

Apologies were also received from Councillor Hughes.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 10 November 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 November 2025 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.

A Member raised a point of order regarding receipt of an 82-page presentation less than five hours before the meeting and enquired about any potential legal risk for Members who had a statutory duty to read all papers before the meeting.

The Planning Solicitor advised that he was unaware of any legal risk and highlighted that officers provided presentations ahead of meetings and Members had the opportunity ask questions on it.

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

·        planning officers were thanked for their extensive work on the appeal that followed the committee’s refusal of the previous application and welcomed the Planning inspector’s decision to uphold the refusal of the earlier scheme in dismissing the appeal;

·        the project was not part of the Liveable Exeter initiative and did not provide the required mix of homes;

·        it was disappointing that neither the public-sector landowner nor the Police & Crime Commissioner Office had not brought forward a scheme which supported the Council’s Liveable Exeter vision for a car-free garden-city neighbourhood, but acknowledged the outcome being attributed to market forces;

·        the affordable housing element was welcomed, but it was hoped that it would be higher;

·        he noted that the argument for PBSA (Purpose-Built Student Accommodation) and Co-living had been made, and his objections were not about the type of housing, and his preference would be for more affordable and social family housing;

·        although the scheme had improved significantly, it was not a development suitable for this key gateway site;

·        the loss of 79 mature trees was a huge disappointment, and the landscaping was not enough for such an important site;

·        comments from Dorset Council’s ecologist stated that the scheme would result in the loss of most of the existing trees and grassland;

·        onsite gains would be in the form of a new habitat rather than an enhancing the existing habitat resulting in the loss of mature trees lost;

·        he expressed concerns about tree canopy losses and the arboriculture impact assessment had not adequately assessed the wider effects of tree loss;

·        the trees along the western boundary, formed a strong green feature, and would be threatened, reducing visual amenity and screening;

·        the residents of the houses and flats at Higher Summerland’s would be overlooked and dominated by the development;

·        privacy distances were below the 22 metres requirement set out in the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD);

·        the Conservation Officer also shared concerns that the proposed tree planting would appear small compared with the proposed buildings;

·        there were concerns about flood risks and the missed opportunity to improve climate resilience;

·        Devon County Council, as the local flood authority, had objected, and their points needed to be addressed before the application was approved;

·        the points raised from the cycling-campaign needed to be considered and scrutinised;

·        if the application was approved, it needed to be suitably conditioned to ensure a car-free status, and a pedestrian crossing at the Waitrose junction; and

·        recommendations from the Police Crime Officer needed to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

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 Strategic Director for Place advised that the planning decision for 371 Topsham Road, which was refused by Planning Committee, against officer recommendations was appealed and that that an application for costs was submitted but refused and there were no findings for unreasonable behaviour by the council.

The report of the Strategic Director for Place was noted.