Agenda item

To consider the report of the Assistant Director City Development.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) presented the application for the demolition of the existing eastern and western podiums and construction of two new buildings for student accommodation comprising 387 units, cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping and associated facilities.

The areas of concern were the design of the building and impact on historic assets. Heritage England had objected because of the proximity of historic buildings. A cross section of the area from Exe Bridges up to the City Centre showed a stepped progression up to the Cathedral.

Councillor Packham attended the meeting and spoke on this item under Standing Order No. 44. She made the following points:-

• scale, massing, height, design and siting are entirely inappropriate;
• Renslade House is already considered by many to be an                                                                                                          inappropriate landmark and this will be increased three fold with two large constructions on either side;
• represents over-development of the site;
• scale of the development is inappropriate in comparison with neighbouring listed buildings;
• it will impact adversely on views out from the historic core of the City on to surrounding rural areas as well as views from the other direction up into the City;
• national planning policy framework accords great weight to protecting heritage sites;
• one of the highway solutions put forward for crossing Frog Street is more likely to increase the dangerous nature of this road; and
• adverse impact on adjoining residential properties.

Councillor Mrs Brock attended the meeting and spoke on this item under Standing Order No. 44. She made the following points:-

• support statement of previous speaker;
• the Council works closely with the University to provide quality student accommodation, but the scale of the development is out of character with the area and will dominate the near-by Conservation Area, Bartholomew Terrace and surrounding area;
• will provide an adverse view from all roads approaching the City Centre from the west; and
• change is needed as Renslade House is not a good example of British architecture but the right quality design is required. The current proposal will result in three blots on the landscape.

Mr Caswell spoke against the application. He made the following points:-

• resident of Exeter for five years and concur with the above statements by Councillors;
• light pollution will be a significant problem. At present, office workers leave in the early evening, but a 379 student presence will result in the building being heavily illuminated for much of the year. The existing problems associated with a spotlight to the rear of the building have failed to be rectified by the owners;
• the University needs to provide accommodation for its students but a development of nearly 400 students in one place will have a considerable detrimental impact on the quality of life of existing residents and on the character of this part of the City. The area will become saturated with students with attendant problems of noise etc.;
• very familiar with many parts of the City and believe that views from many areas will be significantly changed by this development;
• the applicant’s architects visited his property and were clearly cognisant with the impact the development would have on amenity but advised that  a reduction in volume was not financially viable; and
• concerns also about massing, access and parking

Mr Hodder spoke in support of the application. He made the following points:-

• Exeter based architect with experience in the provision of student accommodation including Rowancroft and on land next to the Imperial Hotel;
• undertook early dialogue with the Council and stakeholders on the project for this low level topographic site which is the only site in the immediate area capable of accommodating this project;
• presented proposal to the City Council Planning Member Working Group and the Devon and Somerset Design Panel, the latter expressing admiration at the ambition of the project which would have a lasting impression;
• the additional wings would complement the existing 10 storey tower and provide a viable gateway feature and suitable statement for this approach to the City;
• consultation with stakeholders will continue;
• high quality architectural design proposed to provide attractive student accommodation which will help reinforce the international reputation of the University of Exeter;
• zinc cladding will be used to create a separate identity;
• respectful of local heritage and will protect views of the Cathedral; and
• believe that Renslade House will not be that visible from other parts of the City as it is set down at river level.

The Highways Development Management Officer referred to the desire line for movements to New Bridge Street involving crossing Frog Street, a busy urban dual carriageway. Given the speed, volume and behaviour of traffic on Frog Street, the ad-hoc crossing was not considered safe and suitable and the proposed development would significantly increase the demand for this movement. Providing steps to New Bridge Street from the north of Frog Street would negate the need to cross Frog Street and was considered a better option than a signalised crossing of Frog Street, providing a route to steps on the south of Frog Street. Given the proximity of the site to Exe Bridges there would be limited time for pedestrians to cross with pedestrians crossing without a green man in an inappropriate location.

Members felt that the existing building was already inappropriate for Exeter and that this incongruity would be exacerbated by the addition of the two wings.

The recommendation was for refusal for the reasons set out.

RESOLVED that planning permission for the demolition of the existing eastern and western podiums and construction of two new buildings for student accommodation comprising 387 units, cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping and associated facilities be refused for the following reasons:-