Agenda and minutes

No declarations of interest were made by Members.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) presented the application for the conversion of former school to create 41 residential units including demolition, conversion and new buildings.

Members were circulated with an update sheet - attached to minutes.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) reported that a 16 signature petition had been included in one of the letters of objection. Concerns had been expressed regarding bin storage, in addition to the objections already stated in the report. This has been subsequently addressed by the applicant’s intention to re-locate the original storage area elsewhere in the site.

Councillor Robson, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on the item. She made the following points:-

• in light of two recent traffic accidents, the residents of Baring Crescent have requested a red flashing 20mph sign and a hatched “keep clear” box near to the junction with Magdalen Road;
• concerns expressed that the 55 parking spaces will be insufficient for the proposed number of properties and, with no residents’ parking permits to be provided, problems of traffic congestion and pollution on Magdalen and Heavitree roads may result; and
• the insufficient number of parking places could be alleviated by a reduction in the number of properties by reducing the height of Block 1.

Mr Potter spoke against the application. He circulated a photomontage of the prospective Heavitree Road frontage. He raised the following points:-

·         the expected number of occupants of these luxury flats will be 80+, some of whom may have two or more cars for which the proposed number of parking spaces will be insufficient. As parking permits will not be issued, the only solution is to reduce the number of units;

·         the design of Block 1 is not in keeping with the adjacent detached Georgian residential properties on Heavitree Road. This block is more akin to a tower block with the four stories higher than the three stories of the Georgian properties. This was compounded by the loss of three oak trees; and

·         the location of Block 2 which will result in loss of amenity to neighbouring residents given its proximity to the boundary. This issue was not expanded on due to lack of time within the allocated three minutes..

Mr John spoke in support of the application

·         scheme details have been discussed at length with planning and conservation officers, the intention always being to provide high quality residential units and not to maximise the number of units;

·         the County Council are satisfied with the highway and parking issues and traffic flow will be less than for when the school was operational;

·         conversion costs of the listed buildings are high and mitigated against the provision of affordable homes. Have sought to retain sizable properties as greater sub division would impact on the listed building features. A £1million contribution to off-site affordable housing will be made; and

·         the three trees to be removed are of poor quality and replacement planting will take place.

He responded as follows to Members queries:-

·         the proposed pedestrian/cycle path  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director Environment.

The City Development Manager presented the application for the development of up to 23 dwellings, access and associated services.

Members were circulated with an update sheet - attached to minutes.

The City Development Manager reported that eight further letters of objection had been received and that he had been handed a further letter of objections prior to the meeting. Of the nine letters, seven of the authors had previously written. He clarified condition 14 which would refer to an Environmental Management Plan and proposed the addition of conditions relating to noise insulation and land contamination.

Councillor Leadbetter, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on the item. He read out the following statement provided by the Topsham Society:-

• the Society is not opposed to the provision of new housing, especially that which is at affordable prices for people brought up in and around Topsham, but believes approval of the current application is inappropriate and premature;
• the preservation of separation between Exeter and Topsham has been a part of the City Council’s Local Plan Policy and Spatial Strategy for many years and is still incorporated in the current Core Strategy;
• whilst the City Council have consulted on the possible allocation of this site in its draft DPD, this process is still in it’s early stages and is yet to be subject to examination at a Public Inquiry. To grant approval before this key part of the statutory process is complete, denies the public their right to consultation and proper consideration of their representations. The Society are advised that such action would be Ultra Vires and place the Council at threat of a Judicial Review. It would clearly be fundamentally wrong for the Council to place itself in this position and expose Council Tax payers to risk of considerable costs;
• there are now numerous proposals for the Gap being bought forward. This application if approved, would inevitably lead to the piecemeal erosion of this important policy. We believe that a Council acting in a considered manner would wish to assess these holistically. The Society will be undertaking a Housing Forum later this year and believes strongly that local people should have their say. Isn't this what “Localism” is supposed to be about? The Society is prepared to work with the City Council to collectively find a solution to the housing needs of Topsham that maintains the integrity of the town;
• the applicant’s promise of local affordable housing for the people of Topsham is misleading and cannot be delivered. It is a bribe to enhance it’s online consultation; and
• the City Council are not under immediate pressure to grant approval and it has significant and defendable justification not to. The Society would urge the City Council to, at the least, defer this application until after the DPD Public Inquiry and give the community the opportunity to influence what happens to it’s town as part of the wider city of Exeter.

Councillor Leadbetter also stated that the proposal will result in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

The Assistant Director City Development presented the application for the extension to the front of the dwelling including a dormer window.

RESOLVED that planning permission for the extension to the front of the dwelling including dormer window be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The report of the Assistant Director City Development was submitted.

            RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The schedule of appeal decisions and appeals lodged was submitted.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To advise that the next Site Inspection Party will be held on Tuesday 14 October 2014 at 9.30 a.m.  The Councillors attending will be Sutton, Williams and Winterbottom.

RESOLVED that the next Site Inspection Party will be held on Tuesday 14 October 2014 at 9.30 a.m.The Councillors attending will be Lyons, Williams and Winterbottom.