Agenda item

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

 

The meeting was briefly adjourned at 19:41 and resumed at 19:43.

 

The Chair invited Mr Pete Thomas, to speak for five minutes, against the application, who made the following points:

 

·        there were concerns about procedural validity, access arrangements and policy compliance of the proposal;

·        policy EJ6, designated this land for use for transformational employment allocation and the proposal to deliver 158 dwellings was a departure from emerging policy;

·        there were highway implications, especially on match days where congestion in this area was already difficult and additional traffic from 158 dwellings would significantly worsen existing congestion and impede emergency vehicle access;

·        the applicant's red line boundary on the location plan did not extend to the edge of the access roundabout, leaving a gap, which was land owned by the Exeter Rugby Group;

·        according to National Planning Policy Practice Guidance, the red line must include all land necessary for the development, including access and as the applicant did not own this land, the application was procedurally defective;

·        no ownership notice had been served on his clients;

·        he challenged the Highway Authority's suggestion that access could be secured through a Section 278 agreement, and advised that despite the road surface being the Highway Authority's responsibility, his client owned the adjoining grassed area and bank;

·        if the northern access were undeliverable, all traffic would be forced onto the southern route via New Court Way and Old Rydon Lane, which had not been assessed in the transport assessment;

·        officers had already determined that the southern access was unacceptable;

·        the proposal for 158 dwellings was a material departure from emerging policy in which no operating justification or demonstrable planning need had been provided; and

·        the Planning Committee were requested to uphold the officer's recommendation for refusal and also to refuse for procedural invalidity and the undeliverability of the northern access.

 

Mr Pete Thomas responded to questions from Members as follows:

 

·        the Exeter Rugby Group had checked their plan which advised that they owned the small sliver of land around the fence;

·        the redline should include access to the roundabout as an integral part of the application;

·        the Exeter Plan showed the direction, but was not at an advanced stage, so considerations were being highlighted;

·        the objection originated from the potential impact upon the roundabout, particularly on match days, and the larger concerns about traffic coming out of there, and the implications for the surrounding road; and

·        even with commercial land development, there would be additional vehicles to and from the site, so there were concerns about additional vehicles impacting access.

 

The Chair invited Mr James McMurdo, to speak for five minutes in support of the application, who made the following points:

 

• he was working for the applicant, who was also a landowner;
• the proposal was a significant opportunity for the city, which planned for 158 houses and 180,000 sq. ft of employment space, which would deliver 1,000 jobs;
• he enquired how such a development could be considered harmful, especially in the context of a 3,000-housing delivery backlog and employment issues;
• there were significant issues with the existing policy plan which had been superseded by the construction of the hotel;
• despite paying a pre-application fee, he claimed officers had refused to engage with them or respond to emails with the pre-application fee eventually being returned; and
• the Planning Committee were requested to defer making a decision on this application and to undertake a site visit to the hotel and assess the impacts in relation to the policy.

 

Mr James McMurdo responded to Members’ questions as follows:

 

·        ignoring economic development was not’ being proposed in favour of housing, the existing policy plan was being highlighted as being blank;

·        the emerging policy was for employment to the north, and residential to the south, but did not consider the impact of the hotel;

·        there was about eight hectares of land, which could deliver 158 dwellings, and met the residential density prescribed by the Council and would deliver 180,000 square feet of commercial space;

·        the hotel is 8 storeys high, and the reason the Planning Committee were being asked to visit the site was to consider moving the employment land to accommodate housing;

·        outline planning permission for housing and commercial space was sought;

·        it was within the gift of the Council to control the delivery and phasing of commercial space in line with the houses;

·        he was unsure if Exeter Rugby Club had asked his client whether they could develop the space;

·        a pre-application payment was made but officers had refused to engage with the clients and the application fee was ultimately returned; and

·        the application was seeking to deliver 1,000 jobs, with 158 houses to help the council meet its residential and commercial targets, and it was disheartening to see a recommendation of refusal.

 

The Assistant Service Lead – Development Management (Major Projects)presented the application for up to 158 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), and up to 17,567 sq. m of commercial floorspace (Use Classes E, F2, B2 and B8) with associated infrastructure at Sandy Park Farm, Old Rydon Lane.

 

Members received a presentation which included:

 

·        the site location plan;

·        aerial views showed the site was generally used for agricultural land with some residential and commercial use;

·        parameter plan showed a mix of commercial, residential and open space, with a central spine road connecting Sandy Park Way and Old Rydon Lane;

·        the indicative layout showed how the site could be developed for mixed use;

·        internal spine road through the middle of the site;

·        the northern access to Sandy Park Way;

·        the southern access to Old Rydon Lane;

·        the 2010 Newcourt Master Plan allocated the site for employment land only;

·        Core Strategy Policy CP19 policy required approximately 16 hectares of employment land for Newcourt area, and the current application only provided 2.29 hectares of employment land on an 8-hectare site;

·        meetings with the applicant had been held and the Council’s advice had been consistent since early last year, for the need for an overall masterplan to show how the required employment land and housing could be delivered across this site and the land in the same ownership to the south of Old Rydon Lane. The applicant did not provide this masterplan as requested;

·        several technical issues remain unresolved, including access and the proposed southern access onto Old Rydon Lane would require the removal of two trees which were worthy of retention;

·        the application was being brought to the committee now because an extension of time requested by the applicant expires at the end of the month; and

·        the officer recommendation was for refusal, due to the failure in providing the required amount of employment land.

  

The Assistant Service Lead – Development Management (Major Projects), the Strategic Director for Place and the Devon County Council Highways Officer responded to Member questions and clarification points as follows:

 

·        this was an outline application, and although the housing type was not specified, the indicative layout suggested it would be a standard two-story type of houses;

·        housing delivery had been broadly in alignment with the masterplan but there had been some significant changes, notably the IKEA store and hotel, but there had been no employment land delivered to date;

·        Section 278 agreements could be made between the Highway authority and any individual, and Highway Maintainable at Public Expense (HMPE) covered both the carriageway and verges;

·        the newly identified strip of land owned by the applicant’s client may affect the boundary, but this was only received on the Friday preceding the meeting and as such, had not been fully investigated;

·        if third-party land were required for access, the Council could grant permission, but the development could not legally proceed without an agreement between the developer and the landowner, which would create a ransom situation;

·        55 dwellings per hectare was not considered to be high density, with lower density being around 20-30 dwellings per hectare;

·        the deferral request was for Members to view the hotel, which was on the land to the south, which was not being considered at the meeting;

·        an extension was granted to the applicant to the end of November and any deferral would allow a six-month appeal window and could lead to a non-determination appeal;

·        an application was submitted in 2014 for housing on the land to the south of Old Rydon Lane, which was approved subject to a Section 106 agreement; in 2015 a draft s106 agreement was sent to the applicant's solicitors, but no response had been received and subsequently the application was finally disposed of due to its age;

·        officers required a masterplan covering both parcels of land, in order to demonstrate that the required level of employment land and housing was deliverable before  accepting the redistribution of employment land to the south of Old Rydon Lane;

·        there was an opportunity for the applicant to appeal, either officer recommendation to refuse or option to defer which go beyond the current extension of time, but it would be for the applicant to decide;

·        the reason for refusal was on the loss of trees at the southern access, and the application's failure to demonstrate how the potential conflict with vehicles entering that access with the number of pedestrians on match days would be managed;

·        the southern access likely would need a re-design to ensure safety, but there had been no objections from National Highways or the Highways Authority;

·        if Members went against the officer recommendations and voted to approve the application, a comprehensive package of conditions and planning obligations would need to be agreed;

·        the adopted Core Strategy allocated for around 16 hectares of employment land in the Newcourt area, but none had been delivered to date; and

·        the emerging Exeter Plan policy (EJ6) allocated 7 hectares for employment at the site with the current proposal being approximately 2.2 hectares.

 

During the debate, Members expressed the following views:-

 

·        a Member considered there was a need to agree a further extension of time and approve a deferral to undertake a site visit and concern that any refusal would force the developer to appeal. A deferral would allow the Council to maintain a level of control on this situation;

·        a site visit was not considered necessary and that the developer had not been reasonable and needed to work with the Council;

·        there were unresolved issues with access, land ownership, and highway safety as reasons to refuse and the developer needed develop a masterplan;

·        a Member felt they did not have enough information to make a decision, and the point about retaining planning control was valid, but was reluctant to go against policy reasons for refusal; and

·        there was concern about the developer's history and the current proposal's failure to provide adequate employment land. The application needed a masterplan to provide more confidence in it.

 

The Chair saw no grounds to defer for a site visit and saw no grounds under the regulations to consider undertaking one. Members were familiar with the site and going to a different site to view the hotel was not relevant to this application. He considered there were problems with this application and supported the officers' recommendation for refusal.

 

The Strategic Director for Place made the following concluding points:

 

·        the key issue for refusal was that the proposal would not deliver enough employment land as required by policy and by approving this application the opportunity to provide the right amount of employment land in this area would be lost;

·        employment was a key issue for the Exeter Plan and no employment land had been delivered in the Newcourt area to date; and

·        there was relatively little land left, which had not been developed for housing or other uses.

 

The Chair moved, and Councillor Atkinson seconded the recommendations.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Mitchell and seconded by Councillor Banyard that the following amendment be made to the recommendations:-

 

• that subject to a further agreed extension of time, the Planning Committee defer this application to allow for further negotiations between the applicant and the City Council.

 

During the debate on the amendment, the following points were made:

 

·        concern was expressed that issuing a refusal could reduce the council’s control over the land, pushing the applicant toward an appeal process where the Council had limited influence;

·        the applicant appeared to be willing to cooperate with the Council, including agreeing to a site visit or a deferral;

·        Members now have a better understanding of the site’s issues following the debate;

·        the developer should be given a further opportunity to negotiate with the planning team to find a proposal which would be acceptable to the committee;

·        the applicant had already been given seven years, which was sufficient time to address the issues and planning applications should be resolved quickly;

·        deferring would send the wrong message that the proposal was fundamentally sound and only needed minor adjustment;

·        sending mixed messages to the developer would be unhelpful and they needed to understand the site’s incompatibility;

·        if the application were refused, the inspector would likely uphold the Council’s position because there were strong grounds and ample alternative housing provision in the area;

·        an extension would not change the fundamental issue of the employment land shortfall;

·        an extension would be a desirable outcome to test the applicants willingness to engage and enable the Council to maintain control of the situation; and

·        the Strategic Director for Plance had clearly explained that the refusal reasons related to the balance of land use and the applicant had not indicated any willingness to adjust that balance; and

·        granting more time or an extension would not change the core issue, in that, this specific parcel of land was allocated solely for employment use.

 

The amendment was put to the vote and was not carried (2 in favour, 7 against, and 1 abstention).

 

The Chair returned to the motion to follow the officer's recommendation for refusal, which was voted upon and CARRIED (8 in favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions).

 

RESOLVED that the planning application for up to 158 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), and up to 17,567 sq. m of commercial floorspace (Use Classes E, F2, B2 and B8) with associated infrastructure at Sandy Park Farm, Old Rydon Lane, be refused for the reasons listed in the report.