Agenda and draft minutes

No declarations of interest were made by Members.

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.

Members noted that there were no appeals items to consider.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

Councillor Hussain arrived during the item and did not participate in the debate or vote on this item.

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

·        as a St. Thomas ward Councillor, she strongly objected to the proposed development, and welcomed the detailed officer report recommending refusal;

·        there were a large number of resident objections who recognised the need for affordable and sustainable housing in Exeter;

·        resident objections were on the proposal’s scale and design, which were considered to be out of character with the area and conflicted with Exeter’s long-standing avoidance of building along the ridgeline area;

·        there were unresolved issues around infrastructure, public services, and transport, as well as significant environmental concerns, notably on increased flood risk, which was insufficiently addressed by the developer;

·        development in Exeter should enhance the city, rather than diminish it; and

·        the Planning Committee was urged to refuse the application, which would place undue pressure on the community, harm local environment, and lacked proper resident engagement.

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

·        their objection was focussed on active travel and transport issues;

·        despite the transport assessment deeming the risk acceptable, the development would  increase car use and congestion on Dunsford Road, as well as across the city;

·        residents had already reported heavy traffic in the area with buses currently struggling to access the area due to obstructions from parked cars;

·        walking and cycling access was unrealistic, given that the nearest railway station was a 20-minutes’ walk away and the site required walking up a steep hill;

·        walking routes to bus stops exceeded the 10-minute threshold, which would encourage further use of cars;

·        the proposed development would diminish the rural character of the Exeter Green Circle walking route;

·        cycling was considered to be unsafe and impractical due to fast traffic, lack of cycle lanes, steep gradients, and that the National Cycle Network route was only suitable for highly confident cyclists;

·        transport issues were beyond the control of the developer and geography was the main barrier to active travel in this area, making the site inherently unsuitable for sustainable transport; and

·        significant transport limitations and the wider aesthetic and environmental concerns justified refusing the application in line with officers’ and residents’ views.

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

·        officers, Councillors and the 200 plus residents who unanimously opposed the proposal were thanked;

·        the urban context of St. Thomas was described as a dense area, with very limited green space and Barley Lane acting as a vital green escape from the urban environment;

·        the area offered countryside for local residents, walkers, and dog owners and developing the site would push the accessible green space much farther away, whilst further deepening the urban footprint;

·        the issue was not about resisting development, but about the principle of protecting the prominent ridgeline of the city. Building on the ridgeline would permanently  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The Chair invited Mr Andy Martinovic, to speak for five minutes in support of the application, who made the following points:

·        his company was a local family company who had been engaging with officers and consultees since validation in September 2020;

·        there had been numerous consultees, including EEA, RSPB, Highways Authority, Lead Local Flood Authority, Waste Planning Authority, South West Water, Police, and Ecologists;

·        the Local Plan team had confirmed that there was a lack of a five-year land supply;

·        infrastructure works would be delivered within the site boundary, avoiding disruption to Topsham Road;

·        the site was already allocated within the emerging local plan;

·        the scheme had been developed collaboratively with heritage development consultants and officers;

·        the reason for Members to consider approval was that there was no five-year housing land supply, was a sustainable location, acceptable design and visual impacts, would cause no significant harm to neighbouring amenities and there were no material considerations justifying refusal;

·        proposed benefits included: carbon-neutral homes, 19 affordable homes, of which 70% would be for social rent units, totalling at 35% overall contribution;

·        NHS contributions would be £16,990 for Foundation Trust and £35,032 for NHS Integrated Care Board;

·        the CIL contribution would be £1,177,000 for managing public open spaces, children’s play areas, biodiversity net gain, SUDS, and habitats mitigation; and

·        there would be a continuity of work for local trades and suppliers, supporting the local economy as part of the company’s values.

Mr Martinovic responded to Members’ questions as follows:

·        homes were being built to A+ rating under EPC standards, which was the highest energy-efficiency rating;

·        he lived locally and knew the area well and considered the site location to be sustainable;

·        the proposed road would extend to the site boundary, for a future link road to Newcourt Road with a cycleway. This was subject to adjoining land becoming available;

·        although the developer was willing to work with others, they could not control what other landowners or developers decided to do;

·        the scheme included 19 social homes, of which, 35% would be affordable housing;

·        access for vehicles, pedestrians and bikes was designed to reach the boundary, as requested by the Highways Authority;

·        there would be no direct connection beyond the boundary because the developer did not own the next field; and

·        biodiversity net gain was being handled by the consultants but the planning officer may provide the explanation.

The Principal Project Manager – Development Managementpresented the application for demolition of existing buildings/structures and proposed residential development of 54 residential units, including affordable housing, plus open space, landscaping, car parking, drainage, vehicular access, internal roads and all associated infrastructure and development which was recommended for approval.

Members received a presentation and the following information:

·        a key added obligation in the update sheet was on ensuring the road and cycle/pedestrian route extend to the site boundary to secure future connectivity;

·        aerial views showed the new development to the east; heritage site to the south and motorway to the west, which required noise mitigation;

·        access arrangements  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.