Minutes:
The Development Control Manager presented the application for 32 dwellings, parking, vehicular and pedestrian access; a previous application on this site had been refused. This re-submitted application sought to address those reasons for refusal.
The Development Control Manager reported that the Director of Environment, Economy and Culture comments were that from a highway view the proposal was generally acceptable, although he recommended that a 2 metre wide footway should be provided on Woodwater Lane frontage to provide safe pedestrian access to local facilities. He also recommended additional conditions were attached to any permission to secure the submission of full construction details together with the provision of adequate means of access and off-street parking before the occupation of any residential unit.
He reported that 50 additional copies of a standard letter of objection had been received, along with 24 other letters of objection. The objections raised similar concerns about the impact of the proposal to those already listed in the main report, and referred to the impact on local wildlife.
The Environment Agency confirmed they had no objection provided the methods of surface water disposal as set out in the submitted supporting information were adopted. The Landscape/Tree officer had confirmed that subject to appropriate conditions being attached to any consent he was satisfied with the proposal in terms of the potential impact on existing trees.
The applicant had also submitted a non-technical summary, which stated how this scheme had changed to address the 3 reasons for refusal on the previous application. It also referred to a ground condition survey carried out in respect of the boundary of the site with Woodwater Lane. It stated that the survey confirmed there were no visual signs of any historic slippages and that the slope appeared to be stable. It also included a photomontage and visual perspective.
The Development Control Manager advised that the Planning Officers’ views were that to provide a footway on the frontage to Woodwater Lane was not essential and would cause the unnecessary loss of an embankment and trees.
The recommendation was for approval with an additional condition regarding the trees and an addition to condition 12 regarding pedestrian access and visibility splays onto Woodwater Lane.
Mrs R Holbrook spoke in opposition to the application. She made the following points:-
· proposal was too high and too dense
· was detrimental to the sky line of Exeter
· only part of the site could be developed therefore the density was higher than the 32 dwelling per hectare stated
· detracted from the quality of the environment
· negative impact of the traffic generated, in particular on ‘Park Drive’
· valuable piece of land and should be developed in a sympathetic way.
Councillor Mrs M Danks attended the meeting and spoke on this item having given notice under Standing Order No. 44. She made the following points:-
· overdevelopment of the site
· Aspen Close could not cope with amount of traffic the proposal would generate
· safety aspect of the proposed footpath onto Woodwater Lane as it came out onto a busy road
· proposal should be refused as it was overdevelopment and out of character with the area
Councillor Mrs J Morrish attended the meeting and spoke on this item having given notice under Standing Order No. 44. She made the following points:-
· the density was the same as the previous application that the Committee had refused
· out of character with the surrounding area
· would cause traffic problems in Parkland Road
· pedestrian access on to Woodwater Lane was dangerous as no pavement was proposed
· asked Committee to refuse the application as nothing had changed from the previous refusal.
Members had concerns regarding the overdevelopment of the site, loss of the sky line, safety aspects in relation to the traffic generated, the pedestrian access onto Woodwater Lane, and the unique position of the site.
RESOLVED that planning permission for redevelopment to provide residential units, comprising 4 detached, 11 terraced and 17 flats, parking, vehicular and pedestrian accesses to highway and associated works be refused for the following reasons:
1) Due to the siting, size, design and height of the proposed buildings the proposal would constitute an incongruous form of development in the context of its surroundings to the detriment of the character and appearance of the local area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies ST1 and CO6 of the Devon Structure Plan 2001 to 2016 and Policies LS1, DG1 and DG4 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995 -2011.
2) The proposal relates to a visually prominent site located on a hillside adjoining Ludwell Valley Park. By virtue of their siting, design and height, the proposed dwellings would result in an unduly prominent form of development that would breach the existing skyline and would have a significant adverse visual impact on the skyline and the setting of the adjoining Valley Park. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies ST1, CO1 and CO6 of the Devon Structure Plan 2001 to 2016 and Policies LS1, DG1 and DG4 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995 - 2011.
3) The proposal is likely to generate pedestrian usage of that part of Woodwater Lane which adjoins the site and the lack of a footway along this frontage will require pedestrians to cross the road twice or walk within the carriageway to the detriment of highway safety in the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy TR5 of the Devon Structure Plan.
4) In the absence of a planning obligation in terms that are satisfactory to the Local Planning Authority, and which make provision for affordable housing and a contribution to off site play area/open space improvements, the proposal is contrary to Policy ST18 of the Devon Structure Plan 2001-2016, and Policies H6 and DG5 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review.