Agenda item

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

 

Councillor Hussain arrived during the item and did not participate in the debate or vote on this item.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Wright to speak under Standing Order No. 44, who made reference to:

 

·        as a St. Thomas ward Councillor, she strongly objected to the proposed development, and welcomed the detailed officer report recommending refusal;

·        there were a large number of resident objections who recognised the need for affordable and sustainable housing in Exeter;

·        resident objections were on the proposal’s scale and design, which were considered to be out of character with the area and conflicted with Exeter’s long-standing avoidance of building along the ridgeline area;

·        there were unresolved issues around infrastructure, public services, and transport, as well as significant environmental concerns, notably on increased flood risk, which was insufficiently addressed by the developer;

·        development in Exeter should enhance the city, rather than diminish it; and

·        the Planning Committee was urged to refuse the application, which would place undue pressure on the community, harm local environment, and lacked proper resident engagement.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Darling to speak under Standing Order No. 44, who made reference to:

 

·        their objection was focussed on active travel and transport issues;

·        despite the transport assessment deeming the risk acceptable, the development would  increase car use and congestion on Dunsford Road, as well as across the city;

·        residents had already reported heavy traffic in the area with buses currently struggling to access the area due to obstructions from parked cars;

·        walking and cycling access was unrealistic, given that the nearest railway station was a 20-minutes’ walk away and the site required walking up a steep hill;

·        walking routes to bus stops exceeded the 10-minute threshold, which would encourage further use of cars;

·        the proposed development would diminish the rural character of the Exeter Green Circle walking route;

·        cycling was considered to be unsafe and impractical due to fast traffic, lack of cycle lanes, steep gradients, and that the National Cycle Network route was only suitable for highly confident cyclists;

·        transport issues were beyond the control of the developer and geography was the main barrier to active travel in this area, making the site inherently unsuitable for sustainable transport; and

·        significant transport limitations and the wider aesthetic and environmental concerns justified refusing the application in line with officers’ and residents’ views.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Fullam to speak under Standing Order No. 44, who made reference to:

 

·        officers, Councillors and the 200 plus residents who unanimously opposed the proposal were thanked;

·        the urban context of St. Thomas was described as a dense area, with very limited green space and Barley Lane acting as a vital green escape from the urban environment;

·        the area offered countryside for local residents, walkers, and dog owners and developing the site would push the accessible green space much farther away, whilst further deepening the urban footprint;

·        the issue was not about resisting development, but about the principle of protecting the prominent ridgeline of the city. Building on the ridgeline would permanently damage Exeter’s character defined by its views and surrounding hills, trees, and fields;

·        the ridgeline needed to be protected and by allowing the proposal to proceed, it would set a precedent for further ridge-line development; and

·        the Planning Committee was urgently requested to uphold the officers’ recommendation for refusal.

 

The Chair invited Dr Keith Howe, to speak for five minutes, against the application, who made the following points:

 

·        he was speaking as a Barley Farm Road resident of 50 years and as an economist with environmental expertise;

·        he argued against the proposed development using a social cost–benefit perspective aligned with the National Planning Policy Framework and the Exeter Plan;

·        the development would incur significant costs, a loss of tranquillity and landscape quality, harm to biodiversity, increased flood risk, road safety issues, congestion, and poor access to transport and amenities. These concerns raised reflected the genuine lived experience shared by over 200 objectors;

·        in contrast, the benefits to the development were limited, with only 65 homes, the development would make only a marginal contribution to Exeter’s wider housing needs;

·        for existing residents, green circle walkers, and nature users, the development offered no benefits and would permanently destroy a valued green space; and

·        the loss of well-being to the community far outweighed any gains and therefore the Planning Committee was urged to reject the application.

 

The Principal Project Manager – Development Managementpresented the application for  an outline planning permission (with all matters reserved apart from access) for the phased development of up to 65 residential dwellings, two access points from Nadder Park Road, public open space and associated infrastructure (including land for biodiversity enhancements), which was recommended for refusal.

 

Members received a presentation and received the following information:

 

·        the applicant had recently submitted extra drainage information, in which the Lead Local Flood Authority was still to respond to, and therefore the recommended drainage-related refusal reason remained in place;

·        the application was for outline planning permission for up to 65 homes on a highly visible greenfield site on Exeter’s north-west ridge, within the landscape setting area and valley park, which adjoined Barley Valley Nature Reserve and the Exeter Green Circle route;

·        the application had attracted 214 public objections;

·        the parameter plan provided an indication of what the development would be like and the proposal included two new access points onto Nadder Park Road, both of which have been assessed as suitable for large vehicles, with the Highway Authority raising no objections;

·        access onto Nadder Park Road access was considered technically acceptable, and concerns about ecology and highways had been resolved, with a proposed £700-per-dwelling contribution to walking and cycling improvements;

·        a core issue was on the harm to the landscape, in which the development would protrude above existing rooflines and disrupt key ridgeline views;

·        officers had identified flaws in the applicant’s landscape assessment, including missing viewpoints and misleading photo locations;

·        officer photographs (presented during the presentation) showed the site was visible from multiple prominent locations across the city, including Ludwell Valley Park, Bartholomew Terrace, Colleton Terrace, the Quay, and Exe Bridges;

·        the scheme proposed 35% affordable housing and the Council currently lacked a five-year land supply, which triggered the tilted balance, however, it was officers view that the significant and demonstrable landscape harm outweighed the benefits of the development;

·        suitable drainage had also not been demonstrated, and planning obligations had not yet been secured;

·        the application as recommended for refusal on three grounds: landscape impact, unresolved drainage issues, and absence of completed planning obligations.

 

The Principal Project Manager – Development Managementresponded to Member questions and clarification points as follows:

 

·        the Barley Lane school was located just slightly beyond the edge of the aerial images shown in the presentation;

·        no reason was provided for why the developer was not in attendance at the meeting;

·        the proposed biodiversity space was on a slope but was suitable for biodiversity net gain and would be publicly accessible, not reserved for new residents;

·        no illustrations of house designs were provided as this was an outline application, but the indicative plans suggested the development would be mostly two-storey homes, unlike the nearby lower rooflines used to protect the ridgeline;

·        any building, including single-storey buildings would significantly harm the ridgeline and Valley Park landscape due to the site’s high visibility;

·        only two nearby schemes existed which set a precedent. One development at Barley Lane was refused and another at Redhills was allowed at appeal. There were no other similar large-scale developments in the immediate area, and a previous pre-application for this site had been discouraged;

·        extra drainage information was submitted late in the process and the Lead Local Flood Authority had not responded to being consulted on the information. Therefore, the view that there was inadequate drainage remained a reason for refusal;

·        no legal agreement had been signed, so its absence was listed as a reason for refusal, which was standard practice;

·        unlike other appeal sites, this development would protrude above the ridgeline, lacking tree cover, and obscure existing trees;

·        the applicant had not provided long-distance view assessments, which officers considered to be necessary to assess the full impact of the proposals;

·        all vehicle access would be from Nadder Park Road, and there would be no access from the north; and

·        a PIC was a Personal Injury Collision, which was a record of accidents involving injury.

During debate, Members expressed the following views:

 

·        the application did not consider specific transport needs for the nearby Barley Lane School, where pupils arrived by taxis and minibuses;

·        the development would increase congestion, creating safety risks for vulnerable children, and assumptions about peak-time impacts were considered to be inaccurate;

·        there were potential risks to community wellbeing, including flooding impacts on neighbouring homes and general safety concerns related to access;

·        the importance of protecting Exeter’s distinctive ridgeline was highlighted;

·        the development would cause significant visual harm, and would erode the city’s green edge, and negatively affect Exeter’s character and views from across the city;

·        the development was far from bus stops and the railway station, and would increase car dependency;

·        there was also inadequate options for sustainable transport, notably cycling provisions would require a hard uphill cycle which would not be sustainable to all residents;

·        the developer’s failure to attend the meeting or present a case, was noted should the matter be appealed;

·        the report had not provided any reason to go against the officer recommendation to refuse;

·        the application offered a benefit in developing affordable housing;

·        previous appeal decisions on different sites were not valid comparators because the proposal was higher and in a more sensitive landscape position; and

·        the traffic impacts were considered to underestimated, with additional road vehicles more likely, given the topography.

 

Councillor M. Mitchell moved, and Councillor Ketchin seconded the recommendation, which was voted upon and CARRIED unanimously.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission for outline planning permission for the phased development of up to 65 residential dwellings, two access points from Nadder Park Road, public open space and associated infrastructure (including land for biodiversity enhancements) be refused for the reasons listed in the committee report.