Agenda item

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

 

The Assistant Service Lead – (DM) City Development presented the application for Redevelopment of an existing boat repair and maintenance storage shed with accommodation above.

 

Members received a presentation which included:-

• site location and aerial view;
• constraints – designated heritage assets;
• view from steps of Grade II* listed St Margarets church;
• constraints – environmental/ecological;
• site photographs;
• earlier superseded scheme;
• revised/current scheme;
• proposed side elevation and ground floor plans;
• proposed river front elevation and first floor plans;
• proposed Ferry Road elevation and floor plans;
• sections;
• shadow study;
• building heights;
• visualisations;
• LVIA viewpoints;
• summary of objections and expressions of support;
• assessments from statutory consultees; and
• officer recommendation.

 

The Assistant Service Lead – (DM) City Development responded to questions from Members as follows:-

·         the balcony would be set back from the edge of the roof;

·         the planning officer has consulted ECC’s own archaeological expert about the proposal;

·         the proposal, if approved, would enable the accommodation of bigger boats for maintenance and repair;

·         there was a residential element to the scheme measuring 215sqm (on the upper floor);

·         mitigating measures would be put in place against flooding;

·         no objections had been received from the Environment Agency; and

·         no discussions have taken place as part of the planning process with the Harbour Master or the Marine Management Organisation.

 

Speaking under Standing Order 44, Councillor M Williams made the following points:-

·         the report faithfully represented both the aspirations of the applicant and the concerns of residents;

·         the applicant deserved credit with regard to the evolution of the application over many years;

·         if the proposal was approved, construction would likely start in spring or summer and would therefore have an impact on Topsham’s peak tourist season;

·         the narrow nature of Ferry Road had to be taken into account, specifically the risk of construction vehicles being stuck if attempting a sharp turn;

·         clarity was needed around construction hours;

·         concerns had been raised by residents about building materials;

·         there was a feeling among residents that the consultation period had been too short; and

·         in deliberating, Members would have to consider both the concerns raised by residents (particularly with regard to the nature of Topsham’s classic narrow streets and potential impact on residents and tourists alike) and the needs of a long-standing Topsham business and catering for activities linked to the “Port of Exeter”.

 

Mr Marc Millon, speaking against the application, made the following comments:-

·         he had lived at Quay Cottage for 43 years;

·         he was representing close neighbours as well as 64 objectors;

·         the original application was for two storeys;

·         the finishing materials had not yet been finalised;

·         the proposal did not enhance the conservation area;

·         if approved, the proposal would result in a loss of privacy as well as considerable loss of light;

·         more importance had been given in the officer report to wildlife than to human life;

·         there was a clear risk of subsidence if the proposal was approved;

·         the issue of loss of privacy had been unfairly dismissed in the officer report;

·         the proposed development was not in the interest of the community but in the interest of one family; and

·         there were too many uncertainties around the project.

 

Mr Millon responded to Members’ questions as follows:-

·         if the application was approved, he would welcome a condition around the ground level not being risen;

·         he was not opposed to the development of the site per se, only its size;

·         the applicant had at no point attempted to make contact with him; and

·         the area that both the boatyard and Quay Cottage were on was a piece of made-up land jutting out into the water and did not rest on anything. A survey would have to be made to ensure there would be no subsidence. 

 

Miss Holly Trout, speaking in favour of the application, made the following comments:-

·         the boatyard had been a family-run business for 123 years and currently employed nine people as well as apprentices;

·         her business was a one-stop shop for all things related to boats;

·         the business had managed Topsham Quay on behalf of Exeter City Council for 85 years;

·         the boatyard was currently restricted by head height, which explained why neighbours could see large boats outside their properties. Approving the proposal would result in a more pleasant experience for neighbours;

·         the proposal would improve safety;

·         the white barge would be removed upon completion of the scheme;

·         since the application was submitted, the applicant had made several amendments in response to feedback received; and

·         Topsham was built on the river as a port area and her family was the last remaining link to its shipbuilding heritage.

 

Miss Trout responded to Members’ questions as follows:-

·         it was her family’s intention to keep the land at the same level;

·         work on boats would take place in enclose spaces as much as possible;

·         approval of the scheme would increase her company’s environmental credentials;

·         the company had piled throughout the outside aspect of the yard around 2010 and were confident about how it would work with this project;

·         people often incorrectly thought of piling involving a violent jackhammer action when it was more similar to a drilling action;

·         piling could even stabilise the ground further if carried out the way she envisaged;

·         currently, the residential part of the site was rented out, usually to professionals;

·         the provision of the Topsham Quay tender was in two-year blocks, so it was necessary for her family to supplement their income should they lose the contract;

·         she did not have any information about any future tenancy;

·         the residential unit would be larger;

·         approval of the proposal would enable the company service boats they are currently unable to service and therefore to compete with e.g. Poole and Plymouth; and

·         the last big renovation of the boatyard had taken place around the 1960s or 1970s.

 

During debate, Members expressed the following views:-

·         while the concerns raised by residents were understandable, it was noted that the applicant was willing to carry out appropriate mitigations;

·         it was important to support fundamental, local specialist business – especially in a sustainably managed way;

·         the lack of dialogue between both parties was regrettable and the objector had legitimate reasons to fear the many uncertainties around the project;

·         Members should remember that Topsham was made for boats, not cars;

·         the narrowness of the pavements should be taken into consideration;

·         could dialogue between both parties be conditioned?; and

·         while mass and materials were legitimate concerns, materials could be conditioned and it should also be noted that the developer clearly listened to officers.

 

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

 

The Chair moved and Councillor Patrick seconded the recommendation, which was voted upon and CARRIED unanimously.

 

RESOLVED that the application for redevelopment of an existing boat repair and maintenance storage shed with accommodation above be approved subject to the conditions as set out in the report.