Agenda item

To consider the report of the Director City Development.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development Management) (CMB) presented the application for approval of reserved matters of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale in relation to outline permission 20/1684/OUT for student accommodation and ancillary amenity facilities, and external alterations and refurbishment of Birks Grange Village Blocks A-E, with associated infrastructure, demolition of existing buildings and landscaping. The application had been deferred at the previous meeting of this Committee on 25 May 2023 so that a site visit could be arranged.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development Management) (CMB) spoke to the presentation, highlighting the following matters:-

 

·         a site visit had been undertaken on 9 June 2023;

·         concerns from residents of the impact on residential amenity and the potential overbearing impact and loss of privacy to neighbouring dwellings arising from proposed Blocks CB, ST and GH;

·         the scheme was displayed via 3d models in the meeting;

·         the additional information sheet clarified planning considerations material to current Reserved Matters application compared with Outline consent already granted;

·         20/1684/OUT approved plans included a Site Location Plan, a Demolition Plan, Land Use Parameters Plan, a Movement and Access Parameter Plan, a Heights Parameter Plan and a Landscape and Biodiversity Parameter Plan;

·         reserved matters comprised layout, scale, appearance and access approved (subject to conditions) under the Outline consent. The appearance of the buildings had been assessed at the reserved matters stage and found acceptable subject to conditions regarding detail of materials. Access had been approved in terms of Highways safety and conditioned at Outline stage in terms of Highways safety and accessibility had been found acceptable at the reserved matters stage. The Landscaping Strategy had been approved and conditioned at Outline stage with further conditions at reserved matters stage;

·         condition 15 specifying maximum gross internal floor area of 49,821sqm;

·         parameter plans showing the limit and extent of development had been approved as follows:-

·         layout, scale, appearance and access approved condition 15 specifying maximum gross internal floor area of 49,821sqm;

 

·   Layout showing the maximum internal floor area of 49,821square metres in total, building footprints to not exceed areas defined in the Land Use Parameter Plan; the detailed layout of the proposed development falling within the approved parameters, the impact on residential amenity having been assessed in principle at the outline stage and therefore window control zones and height limits were set out on approved plans;

·   a more detailed assessment on residential amenity has been undertaken and found acceptable;

·   the maximum scale had been approved at outline stage with the maximum floor areas conditioned via Land Use Parameters Plan and maximum Gross Internal Area condition;

·   maximum heights were conditioned via the Heights Parameter Plan. As such, provided that the reserved matters scheme did not exceed the approved parameters, then the proposal must be considered acceptable in terms of scale.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development Management) (CMB) referred to

Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) regarding the loss of privacy and overbearing impact detailing how the development met the criteria set out in the document, in particular in respect of Elmbridge Gardens, Dunvegan Close and other properties. In terms of loss of privacy, a minimum back to back distance of 22 metres was required between habitable room windows and in terms of harm to outlook the distance between habitable room windows and an elevated
blank wall had to be a minimum of two times of the height of the wall plus the ground level difference. The plans met these criteria.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development Management) (CMB) provided the following concluding points:-

 

·         the University was of strategic importance to Exeter in terms of economy, education and vitality which provided substantial positive weight;

·         Core Strategy, Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance sought as much purpose built student housing on campus as possible to reduce housing pressures in city. The proposal would meet this need with nearly 1,500 net gain;

·         a rigorous assessment of the adverse impacts of the scheme in terms of visual and residential amenity had been undertaken, amendments and additional information secured and conditions recommended to overcome concerns;

·         on balance, the benefits of the scheme outweighed any adverse impacts and the reserved matters were considered acceptable overall;

·         it was considered that there were no policy grounds for refusal; and

·         the application should, therefore, be approved in line with NPPF paragraph 11 c).

 

The Director City Development, the Principal Project Manager (Development Management) (CMB) and the Planning Solicitor, in response to Members’ queries, advised that:-

 

·        in terms of student safety in light of the increase in total numbers, the Highways Authority had confirmed that access arrangements were satisfactory and that the uplift in student numbers was not considered significant;

·         the Committee should consider the application before it and not suggest a change in direction of one of the student blocks, for example, from east to west to north to south;

·         there would be vehicular access around the whole of block ST, including for emergency vehicles;

·         the application was for student accommodation which could include summer school accommodation. It would be unreasonable to seek to impose a control on the nature of accommodation the University might wish to seek; 

·        a number of plans were approved at outline stage including height parameters and it was not possible to revisit issues agreed at outline stage in 2021; and

·         storey numbers are predicated on the differing site levels and in some cases the sites have been excavated to accommodate the number of storeys - there was therefore flexibility within the parameter plans and officers were satisfied that the maximum height in the plans had not been exceeded. The footprints were controlled under the land use parameters plan also agreed at outline.

 

Councillor Pearce, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on the item. He raised the following points:-

 

Issues raised on behalf of some of the residents:-

 

·         purpose it to correct errors raised by UPP contained within the outline and reserved planning applications to be corrected for the Committee to reach an informed decision which includes the last three years since the planning application started;

·         height of Block ST which was initially Bock B1 which has never been six storeys and reduced to four but was initially four storeys and reduced to a three storey on one small end portion with residents objecting to four storeys;

·         the number of beds had not been reduced from 182 to 134. The initial figure of 134 now increased to 155 beds;

·         separation distances between blocks and houses – ST to Elmbridge Gardens claimed to be 92 metres but is actually 89 metres from building to building and 39.5 metres on the resident’s property so actual distance is 49.6 metres which is important in terms of amenity. The figure is reduced further if road access is included with many vehicles visiting the block;

·         26 objections/feedback forms sent to the applicant in December 2022 but not summarised in the community statement by UPP or passed to the Council or considered as part of the planning process and are therefore not on public record;

·         traffic fatalities occurred over five years ago and therefore do not show on Highway Authority records;

·         the many extra deliveries for the planned 1,500 extra students will increase traffic;

·         ST will have 54 open windows on one side directly facing residents and 48 on another plus doors, outside areas and the bike store but window control zones were only put on one side of the building. On building CB there will be 41 windows plus doors in a large social area giving a total of 143 windows facing homes. Block ST will have 43 windows facing 63 Streatham Rise which added to Block CR will result in 111 windows facing their house and gardens;

·         images of ST and CB in the application have been hidden from residents at each stage of the application with residents expressing objections to the size and overbearing impact of the blocks on residential amenity at every possible consultation stage despite requests for pictures and models of what the buildings would look. These had not been forthcoming. All written requests for feedback were ignored until 6 February when ST was finally shown but marked QR;

·         policy states that buildings should not harm the character of buildings and not reduce the amenity of neighbouring properties or create an imbalance in the local community. Creating high quality buildings is fundamental and good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Effective engagement is also essential between all interested parties;

·         there has been no engagement with residents and if this continues residents and students will be poorly designed buildings and there will be constant conflict between residents and students; and

·         it is not too late for UPP to consult.

 

Comments of Councillor Pearce

 

·         outline permission has been granted but is contingent on reserved matters being agreed. Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 give planning authorities power to revoke or modify any existing permission if work has not stared. Work has not stared on this application;

·         it is in the gift of the Committee to refuse or support planning recommendations;

·         additional technical details should have come forward at an earlier date; and

·         a four storey building would be considered overbearing by a reasonable person so the residents of Elmbridge and Dunvegan understandably feel aggrieved.

 

Christopher Wakely, speaking against the application, raised the following points:-

 

·         thank you to those of you who were able to take part in the site visit to the Birks Grange/West Park development;

·         we all support the University’s decision to accommodate its students on the main campus but wish for an open dialogue to reduce the detrimental impact of planned building on the local residential community;

·         the impact of two buildings on the loss of privacy, noise and light pollution and general nuisance is significant;

·         visualisations show the true impact of the steep gradient but they only appeared on the planning website at the end of February after the final date for objections. The image shows how blocks CB and ST have an overbearing impact on residences in Elmbridge Gardens and Dunvegan Close;

·         the plan of Birks Grange/West Park Site show how the six-storey CB (41 windows) and four-storey ST (52 windows) look directly on to homes in Elmbridge Gardens and Dunvegan Close;

·         the 3D printed model shows a flat lawn between block ST and the homes in Elmbridge Gardens but cardiac hill is missing;

·         visualisations of block ST from Elmbridge Gardens and Dunvegan Close show how block ST is the equivalent of a 10-storey building from street level in Elmbridge Gardens which has an overbearing detrimental impact on privacy;

·         the re-orientation of block ST towards the north west is suggested so that it faces Birks Grange Village rather than homes which would be a simple mitigation;

·         re-siting the shop planned for the ground floor is suggested so that students from West Park do not contribute to the pedestrian traffic coming down the hill rather than towards the main campus;

·         block ST - this four-storey block is planned for a site not currently used for student accommodation and has an equivalent height of a 10-storey building from residential roads. It is surrounded on three sides by residential properties. It will have 155 bedrooms with 52 windows looking directly over Elmbridge Gardens and Dunvegan Close. It is considered overbearing and should be removed altogether or re-orientated towards the north-west so that it overlooks Birks Grange Village rather than homes .It could be reduced in height to two storeys;

·         there will be a detrimental impact from greatly increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic as the main access to the West Park site;

·         there has been a lack of openness in the consultation process with too many late changes;

·         the objectives of the Liveable Exeter vision should be upheld to strengthen neighbourhoods, create new communities and improve quality of life; and

·         Glenthorne Road is an example of a push for extra quantity and profit which has created an over-intensified student accommodation block that has obliterated the local resident community.

Responding to a Member’s query, he advised that the height of Block CB, a six-storey block would mean that it would look over the tree cover and directly into the homes in Elmbridge Gardens and Dunvegan Close and that the height should be reduced to four storeys.

Mike Shore-Nye, speaking in support of the application, raised the following points:-

 

·         the heights, massing and the amount of accommodation proposed were assessed by officers and determined to be acceptable at outline stage and these constraints are defined within the parameter plans approved at outline stage;

·         this Reserved Matters application is therefore predominantly concerned with the design of the proposed buildings, which has been subjected to significant public consultation, Design Review Panel scrutiny and detailed discussion with the Council’s Urban Design and Planning Officer;

·         there was a particular focus on the height of Block ST and its proximity to neighbouring properties at the Planning Committee on 25 May 2023. In terms of height, this building was reduced from six and four storeys to four and three storeys at outline stage following public consultation. The four-storey element of Block ST is 2.2 metres below the maximum height within the consented Parameter Plan;

·         regarding proximity to neighbouring properties, Block ST follows the guidelines set within Exeter City Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplemental Planning Document. The SPD calculation requires a minimum separation distance of 42.7 metres to the nearest property on Elmbridge Gardens, taking account of the level changes between the site and neighbours. The actual separation distance comfortably exceeds this at 92 metres. Block ST is fully compliant;

·         regarding passing across 26 consultation feedback forms to the planning authority, following usual practice, the comments within these forms were summarised within the Statement of Community Involvement;

·         concerns were expressed on the increased risk of traffic accidents on Cowley Bridge Road and New North Road due to the development - Highways Authority did not raise any concerns based upon the risk of accidents. Also, their own five year website data shows there have been no fatal accidents on this road within this time;

·         at outline stage, the Council specifically asked the applicant for a shop to be retained as part of the development in order to reduce student footfall outside of campus. If other students wish to use this shop, the quickest and most direct route is to use the nearby footpath, situated on university land;

·         condition 25 of the outline consent requires the applicant to provide detailed proposals for the management of surface water and silt run-off from the site during construction. In response to this condition, a proposed Drainage Strategy has been submitted; and

·         since 2019, this development has evolved in response to officer, design review panel and public feedback. The result of this process is a compliant scheme. When completed, West Park will lead the education sector in low carbon, sustainable student accommodation. The project will also provide significant social value and local economic benefit to the city and wider community. West Park will help to meet current and expected future growth and build upon the University’s £1.6 billion of output to the local and UK economy, together with supporting 15,500 jobs.

 

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 

·        the suggestion for the re-positioning of the blocks would be costly in terms of finance and time and there is a commercial need to maximise the use of the site to ensure viability. The proposals meet the Council’s design guidance and simply reducing or removing blocks will have an adverse impact on the Business Plan which is part of the overall work in bringing forward the scheme;

·         the supplementary information provided by the applicant sets out the stages in public consultation and includes the reductions in heights put forward in response to consultations;

·         the University also wishes to live in harmony with its neighbours and takes its responsibilities to the community seriously. The provision of on-campus student accommodation helps meet the Council’s goal of reducing houses in multiple occupation; and

·         the management regime to control student behaviour will be robust and similar concerns regarding the East Park development did not materialise. It is believed that the scheme will have a positive impact on the city.

 

Members expressed the following views:-

 

·        whilst recognising the great value the University brings to the city in terms of education, culture, economy and diversity, to promote harmony with the community, consideration should be given to recalibrating some of the blocks so that students will look out onto students rather than neighbouring residential properties;

·         whilst no one is opposed to a form of development to accommodate students, the concerns raised before and after outline stage have not been adequately addressed and, given that the buildings will be in situ for many years, in the interests of residents and to ensure long term harmony, the plans should be revisited;

·         the County Council Highways officer has not provided sufficient information to back their statement that there are no highway concerns. Referencing data which only covers the last four years does not provide sufficient transparency or confidence that the road network is safe. There are a number of hotspots where traffic accidents can occur such as near the Buller statue and along New North Road and there have been fatal accidents in the area. The data provided is not sufficiently robust.

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 19:30 and re-convened at 19:35 enabling Members to view the 3D model.

 

The Director City Development and Planning Solicitor provided the following concluding advice:-

 

·        it is not possible to recalibrate or mitigate the matters which have already been granted planning permission at outline stage by another Planning Committee in 2021. These cannot be revisited when reserved matters are under consideration;

·         the Committee needs to consider the discharge of reserved matters within the application;

·         advice has been given on the difference between outline and reserved and the status of the approved plans in relation to layout, scale, access and highways. Information was also provided on residential amenity and highways and how it relates to guidance within Supplementary Planning Guidance. The reserved matters are well within those policy guidelines;

·         information has been provided on the community engagement undertaken by the University and also criticism of the level of that engagement. The issue of the applicant’s community engagement is not a planning consideration but is encouraged when developments come forward;

·         the issue of the proximity of Block ST to residents and the request to recalibrate cannot be considered at reserved stage as it falls within the footprint set out within the parameter plans agreed at outline stage;

·         likewise, details of heights and access and how movements can be achieved were also agreed at outline stage;

·         the details within the 3 dimension box can be considered; and

·         the current footprint of Block ST as shown on the parameters plan cannot be rotated as it would fall outside the land use parameters plan already approved which sets out scale and massing.

 

The Chair moved the recommendation for approval which was seconded, voted upon and CARRIED after his casting vote.

 

RESOLVED that the application for planning permission for reserved matters of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale in relation to outline permission 20/1684/OUT for student accommodation and ancillary amenity facilities, and external alterations and refurbishment of Birks Grange Village Blocks A-E, with associated infrastructure, demolition of existing buildings and landscaping be APPROVED subject to the conditions set out in the report.