Agenda item

To consider the report of the Director Planning and Development

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (HS) presented the planning application for the re-development for retirement living accommodation (60 years old and/or partner over 55 years old) comprising 84 retirement apartments including communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping. Attention was drawn to the matters on the update sheet and wording for conditions 3 and 15 listed in the report was provided.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (HS) described the layout and location of the site through the site location plans, aerial views and photos of the site and panoramic views from and to adjoining areas, elevations of the development in relation to adjoining roads and the design and layout of the three, four and in part, five floors, the report presented setting out the following key issues:-

 

·         principle of development

·         scale, design, impact on character and appearance;

·         access and parking;

·         affordable housing;

·         impact on amenity and biodiversity;

·         sustainable construction;

·         contaminated land;

·         economic benefits and viability; and

·         Development Plan, five year housing land supply and presumption in favour of sustainable development.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (HS) advised that a petition with 952 signatories had been received in the following terms:-

 

“We the undersigned petition the Council to consider the new planning application for a Retirement Living Complex on the former ERADE site 21/1864/FUL with an increase from 61 to 84 residential units together with the new Care Home below it using the proposed access road into and out of the new development via the Weirfield Road cul-de-sac.

 

Weirfield Road is a public taxpayer funded steep, narrow, residential cul-de-sac which already provides sole access to St Leonard's Church and adjoining roads. The detrimental impacts include unsustainable traffic congestion and reduced safety for pedestrians and vehicles. Current proposals expect the existing community to carry the burden of traffic to and from a private development. Developers need to provide an access and slip road directly on to Topsham Road and take responsibility for vehicular movements and associated queues generated by their premises.”

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (HS) provided the following additional detail:-

 

·         the proposed single building block followed the form of the permitted Assisted Living Block, forming a u-shape open to the south away from Topsham Road and incorporated a private garden space with the centre of the building. The western leg of the building (fronting Weirfield Road) being three storey and maintaining a three storey height stepping down the slope to the south. The eastern leg would front a new open space within the wider ERADE site. The massing of the proposed building fronting Topsham Road stepped down in height from four storeys to three storeys towards Weirfield Road;

·         the main vehicular access would be from Weirfield Road, with a drop off/pick up pull-in on Topsham Road. The applicant’s Transport Note concluded that there would be fewer vehicle movements than for the consented Assisted Living Scheme. The proposal incorporated 28 parking car spaces with turning space provided on site to accommodate large vehicles;

·         the site would be developed at the highest density that can be achieved, whilst meeting criteria set out in policies H2 and DG4 of the Local Plan and Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy;

·         the proposed building design and architectural style closely re-created the approach of the permitted scheme the consent for which was extant. This would ensure it read as a cohesive whole with the other elements of the wider ERADE Site re-development;

·         the building would step down across the Topsham Road frontage towards Weirfield Road from four to three stories. The highest parts of the building at four and five storeys would face the internal courtyard and the open space to the east of the building and the wider ERADE re-development. The overall height of the building was reduced slightly from the permitted scheme. As such, the proposals were considered to reduce impacts;

·         the age restricted development provided landscaped setting to the building and an enclosed patio and garden area for residents. A larger public amenity space would be provided as part of the re-development of the wider site;

·         eight affordable housing units were proposed on site with a financial contribution towards off site provision of affordable housing;

·         the Sustainable Transport Plan would be reviewed every year and the amount of cycle provision was considered appropriate;

·         the design approach was considered to accord with development plan policies; and

·         amended wordings were provided in respect of conditions 3 and 15.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (HS) in conclusion stated that the site was considered to be a sustainably located brownfield site and was considered favourably in the search sequence set out in Exeter Local Plan Policy H1, and as such residential development was acceptable in principle. The design, scale, massing, access and parking arrangements, off-site affordable housing provision, and the impacts on amenity, ecology and heritage were considered acceptable and the proposal was considered to accord with the Development Plan as a whole, subject to the imposition of conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (HS) provided the following responses to Members’ queries:-

 

·         the illustrative designs showed a reduced impact on Weirfield Road with a lowering of the scheme from the previous proposal and altered balconies. Trees on part of the boundary also provided a barrier and the proposed building was set back from the highway;

·         the access off Topsham Road agreed as part of the previous consent, and a separate construction traffic only access had been provided from Topsham Road;

·         Devon County Council had confirmed that vehicle movements into the site would be lower than the previously consented scheme and that there were no highway safety issues along Weirfield Road;

·         elevations, building design and architectural style, façade and balconies and windows reflected the context of the wider re-development of the ERADE site;

·         the hierarchy of affordable housing delivery off-site was for either parallel development on site, purchase of appropriate dwellings or a commuted sum;

·         negotiations were to continue on the viability assessment which did not provide a full affordable housing contribution on site. If the details could not be agreed, the application would be refused as the alternative recommendation in the report;

·         the pull in off Topsham Road was for easy access as a drop off/pick up point, for example, for deliveries or taxis;

·         Topsham Road was part of the Air Quality Management Area with the goal of reducing pollution. The impact on air pollution for this scheme would be lower than the Assisted Living Scheme previously agreed and included electric charging points;

·         pedestrian access would be provided for the development onto Topsham Road and there would be a crossing point on the eastern side onto Weirfield Road and four residents’ parking spaces would be provided for Weirfield Road;

·         although submitted at Council on 19 April 2022, the petition had originated in January and there had therefore been sufficient time for officers to respond to the detail within the petition to include the necessary responses within the report; and

·         the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority had commented on the proposal and had no objections to the proposals but wished to continue to be consulted and fire and safety aspects would also be assessed under the Building Control regime.

 

Councillor Sparling, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, attended the meeting and spoke on the item. She raised the following points:-

 

·         when planning permission was granted in 2018 the opposition to the siting of the access point for both the Care Home and the Assisted Living sites on Weirfield Road was ignored;

·         further unseen issues relating to Weirfield Road are likely in the future creating conflict with the existing community. The solution is to use Topsham Road as the access to both sites;

·         the original concerns remain relevant and will impact on the City for a long time especially with regard to shifts in ways of living and moving around the City;

·         Weirfield Road is a narrow cul-de-sac road with resident parking on both sides, predominantly single carriageway without passing bays plus a narrow pavement on one side only;

·         the road is a key active travel route and due to its semi-pedestrianised nature, is very popular with families, cyclists, joggers etc. By unnecessarily increasing traffic on Weirfield Road, this will be going directly against the aims of the Council by reducing the space available for active travel. The Transport Strategy for Exeter has a goal of making 50% of all journeys originating and ending in the City by foot or cycling and more safe space is needed, not less;

·         the car park will offer 28 spaces for the age restricted homes plus a further 27 spaces for the Care Home - potentially bringing 55 additional vehicles into regular use on Weirfield Road;

·         increased traffic could quickly cause blockages on this single carriageway, as vehicles try to join the busy Topsham Road, potentially also causing traffic to build up on Topsham Road, resulting in increased air pollution;

·         the proposed access point would also be used by mobility scooters. The pavement had been improved with two build out sections to allow a safer crossing for people accessing the pavement on the other side of the road, however, the pavement is not of sufficient width to allow buggies to travel up and down, with space to pass each other. There will be direct conflict with vehicles which is a serious safety concern;

·         there are mains power cables running along Weirfield Road and the road has been excavated on a number of occasions which, if recurring, would impact on waste collection and emergency vehicle access;

·         the proposed access point was the driveway to the headmaster’s residence, a driveway that gave no access to the further site and allowed space for one or two cars which is not comparable to a car park for approximately 55 vehicles;

·         access to the full ERADE site was from Topsham Road, which should set the precedent for access to this new site;

·         the developers’ briefing document admitted that the most common concern was “regarding the site vehicular access and car parking” but claiming to have relieved these concerns by adding a drop off point on Topsham Road. However, this does not address the vehicular access point and no improvement has been made from the original plan. Whilst the new proposal may slightly reduce the vehicular movements by the development’s change in nature, it does not mitigate the issues with using a quiet cul-de-sac for access;

·         there is already a precedent for later refusal of access routes onto Weirfield Road following the granting of planning permission for new residential developments. An access point was included at the end of Weirside Place when built, however, due to the strength of feeling from residents at the time, a gate was installed which is now kept locked at all times;

·         fully support the petition presented by Mrs Powell on behalf of the local community. It was not widely publicised with no media publicity to keep it truly local, which with 952 verified signatures, shows the strength of feeling of the local community. Of the 118 objections to this application, 116 of these referenced the access on Weirfield Road. Instead of a balanced approach, the current plans lay the impact unfairly on local residents;

·         the alternative is to create access to both sites via Topsham Road; and

·         request a deferral for the developer to reconsider the access point and redesign this with the local community and the future of Exeter’s residents in mind.

 

Helen Powell spoke against the application. She raised the following points:-

 

·         why should traffic which is ending up on Topsham Road be sent via a narrow cul-de-sac when it can go straight to Topsham Road from the site?

·         local residents are in favour of the Retirement Living Complex and think it will benefit the community, but with a modification;

·         I own a house on Weirfield Road which is 102 years old and is in one of Exeter’s oldest streets. It’s a steep, narrow, single lane cul-de-sac, very popular with cyclists, walkers, families, joggers and residents and is the main pedestrian access to and from the Quay and its river paths. It shares its entry to and from Topsham Road at the top with St. Leonard’s Church and its active community, St. Leonard’s Avenue parallel to Weirfield Road and Barnardo Road opposite. There is a thin pavement on one side, parking on both sides with no passing bays, and a medieval wall running along the boundary to the site;

·         the access into and out of Weirfield Road passed four years ago has always been seen by residents as ill-advised, as the Deaf Academy had several access points for traffic on Topsham Road which worked very well for decades. Limited visibility at the top makes it a challenging junction to negotiate and queue at, especially with the new Highway Code rules when cars, bikes and pedestrians are squeezed into a small space. Wheelchairs, mobility scooters, and motorised buggies are not practical in this road due to its gradient. Artist’s impressions are misleading as it is not flat;

·         the access point halfway down Weirfield Road was never a road, but a small driveway to the School House;

·         Churchill consulted 109 households in late December 2021 and 118 objections were raised by 16 January 2022, opposing the access road, and suggesting Topsham Road instead;

·         an ePetition was launched in mid-January on the Exeter City Council website and it closed with 952 local signatures, objecting only to the position of the access road;

·         on the plan a new road junction can be seen using the existing signal crossing on Topsham Road, to take traffic safely in and out of both the Retirement Living and the Care Home, with a more prominent and secure entrance point with surveillance on a main road for this high end development;

·         Western Power own a mains power line running down below this road, and under the river. Weirfield Road has been closed and dug up for utility repairs twice in the last three years and if this was to happen again, the residents would be totally without vehicle access; and

·         the Care Quality Commission states that steep roads are intimidating for older people.

 

She responded as follows to Members’ queries.

 

·         the response from the developer have not allayed fears, particularly regarding the unsuitability of Weirfield Road for the access; and

·         there were three accesses to the former School which should have been replicated.

 

Stuart Goodwill spoke in support of the application. He raised the following points:-

 

·         speaking on behalf of the applicant, Churchill Retirement Living;

·         the wider scheme for the previous re-development had been approved in June 2018 with a further variation in February 2020. The consents approved an Assisted Living scheme on the Churchill parcel of the site and approved the highways access from Weirfield Road. The application seeks to replace the Assisted Living scheme with an Independent Retirement Living scheme;

·         the proposal sought to maintain all the highway arrangements as previously consented with the Weirfield access already being formed in part as part of the previous consent. The drop off zone to the front from Topsham Road was also proposed for deliveries, servicing and taxi drop off;

·         the scheme would result in a reduced level of vehicle movement from that previously approved. Only a lodge manager would be employed compared to significant care, kitchen and laundry staff required with the Assisted Living scheme;

·         highways have confirmed they have no objection to this scheme and acknowledged it would reduce vehicle movements;

·         the scheme had reduced the height and mass to that previously approved which will provide an improvement to the Weirfield Road residents;

·         the proposal would utilise the existing approved access arrangements, reduce vehicle movements from the previously approved scheme, would be within 700 metres of Magdalen Road shops and provide four residents’ parking spaces for Weirfield Road;

·         all Construction traffic would  be from Topsham Road;

·         the scheme would provide a CIL contribution to the Council of circa £860,000, whereas the previous scheme provided no CIL payment and discussions would continue on affordable housing;

·         the scheme would make a meaningful contribution to the Council’s five year housing land supply and would deliver a string of social and economic benefits;

·         Churchill specialise in delivering schemes on brownfield sites within half a mile of facilities and close to amenities. The average age of residents when they move in is 79 and most moves are following a life changing event, like the loss of a partner or downsizing. Most purchasers do not bring a car with them, but those that do, often give it up after 6-12 months;

·         retirement living schemes combat loneliness and deliver other benefits. There is clear evidence that demonstrates these schemes not only provide health  benefits and NHS savings but boost the local economy; and

·         the proposal is an improvement for the existing residents of Weirfield Road over what has been previously approved on site.

 

He responded as follows to Members’ queries.

 

·         it had not been possible to identify an alternative access as the Weirfield Road access had been agreed as part of the earlier scheme as the route to the open space and the Care Home. Similarly, the earlier scheme had been agreed without access off Topsham Road. Churchill had purchased the site from the previous owners and were limited to the previously approved access arrangements;

·         a £860,000 CIL contribution was proposed, whereas the previous scheme had no CIL Contribution;

·         the removal of the trees had been undertaken by the previous land owner;

·         Churchill were in the early stages of negotiations in respect of the viability assessment for affordable housing because of the unavailability of the consultant due to illness;

·         zero waste removal from the site was proposed; and

·         mobility scooters would be able to exit the site onto Topsham Road, those on the lower ground floor to access via a lift.

 

Members expressed the following views:-

 

·         further consideration of layout and access should be sought from the developer, together with information on progress on negotiations on the viability and  regarding affordable housing provision;

·         it is a concern that this application and the impact on residents has been affected by the earlier decision regarding the development of the wider site;

·         developers should be requested to engage with local residents to discuss their welfare and concerns;

·         the safety of Mobility scooter owners on Weirfield Road is a particular concern;

·         dismay regarding the loss of trees;

·         there are no local shops along Topsham Road as the nearest shopping centre would be Magdalen Road which is some distance away; and

·         the access arrangements, including the access to the Care Home and open space, together with the pull in point on Topsham Road have been supported by the Highways Authority and agreed as part of the existing consent for the wider site. All three elements of the wider scheme had been previously approved 

 

The recommendation was for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

Councillor Mrs Henson moved and Councillor Hannaford seconded deferral of the application. The motion was put to the vote and carried.

 

RESOLVED that the application for the re-development for retirement living accommodation (60 years old and/or partner over 55 years old) comprising 84 retirement apartments including communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping be DEFERRED for further consultation on the viability report on affordable home provision and on highway matters.