Minutes:
Councillor Hannaford declared a prejudicial interest as he had expressed a view on this application previously and he left the meeting during consideration of this item.
The Head of Planning Services presented this application. The description was to be amended as the proposal was for 112 dwellings and included an access as a reserved matter.
He reported that that the Director of Environment, Economy and Culture stated that the off-street parking provision, comprising of approximately 1.5 spaces per unit, complied with national and local recommendations and was considered appropriate at this location in the city. He also recommended that a condition was attached to any permission to secure the provision of these off-street parking facilities before the occupation of each residential unit that they served.
‘Transport 2000’ had commented that the one parking space proposed for the car club scheme was inadequate.
The Head of Planning Services reported that following legal advice it was proposed to delete reason 3 regarding affordable housing as it was considered unnecessary given the provisions of the section 106 agreement.
The recommendation was for refusal.
Councillor Fulham attended the meeting and spoke on this item having given notice under Standing Order No. 44. He made the following points:-
· thanked the applicants for listening to the residents
· accepted that houses would be built on the site but this proposal was still overdevelopment
· design must blend into the surrounding area
· asked Committee to support the officers’ recommendation of refusal.
Mr Harding representing County Ground Concern spoke in opposition to the application. He made the following points:-
· County Ground Concern was formed two years ago to campaign for the right development for the site
· this application did propose more parking
· the proposal was too dense and there was still a lack of amenity space
· render was out of keeping with the surrounding area, the edge of the development should be in brick to blend in with adjacent properties
· roof lights caused overlooking to properties on Ferndale Road
· garages should not have doors otherwise they would be used for storage.
Mr Mellor (agent) spoke in support of the application. He made the following points:-
· officers’ report was misleading
· the application had been amended several times
· there was to be a section 106 agreement to secure the affordable housing contribution
· none of the consultees objected to the proposal
· some of the elevations were brick
· national and local guidance promoted the use of brownfield sites
· if the Committee refused the application then the applicant would go to appeal which could involve costs being awarded against the Council.
Members were in agreement that the proposal was overdevelopment of the site, was of poor design and the proposed amenity space was inadequate.
RESOLVED that planning permission for redevelopment to provide 112 dwellings, parking and associated works (approval sought of reserved matters on Ref. No. 03/1611/01 granted 23 August 2004) for siting, design, landscaping and external appearance be refused for the following reasons:
1)The proposal does not accord with national and local planning policies promoting good design in all development proposals. By reason of its inappropriate design, layout, scale, massing, materials and inadequate landscaping the proposed development fails to create a distinctive sense of place, a quality public realm, or spaces and routes that are attractive and safe. The proposal therefore detracts from the character and appearance of the surrounding area and is contrary to Policies ST1 and CO6 of the Devon Structure Plan 2001 – 2016, Policies DG1, DG4, DG6 and DG7 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review, and advice in the DETR document “By Design – Urban design in the planning system: towards better practice”.
2)The proposal would be contrary to Policy CO6 of the Devon Structure Plan 2001 – 2016 and Policy DG4 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review because it would provide inadequate amenity provision in terms of garden depth, area and quality, to the detriment of the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed dwellings.