Agenda item

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

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

 

·        his company was a local family company who had been engaging with officers and consultees since validation in September 2020;

·        there had been numerous consultees, including EEA, RSPB, Highways Authority, Lead Local Flood Authority, Waste Planning Authority, South West Water, Police, and Ecologists;

·        the Local Plan team had confirmed that there was a lack of a five-year land supply;

·        infrastructure works would be delivered within the site boundary, avoiding disruption to Topsham Road;

·        the site was already allocated within the emerging local plan;

·        the scheme had been developed collaboratively with heritage development consultants and officers;

·        the reason for Members to consider approval was that there was no five-year housing land supply, was a sustainable location, acceptable design and visual impacts, would cause no significant harm to neighbouring amenities and there were no material considerations justifying refusal;

·        proposed benefits included: carbon-neutral homes, 19 affordable homes, of which 70% would be for social rent units, totalling at 35% overall contribution;

·        NHS contributions would be £16,990 for Foundation Trust and £35,032 for NHS Integrated Care Board;

·        the CIL contribution would be £1,177,000 for managing public open spaces, children’s play areas, biodiversity net gain, SUDS, and habitats mitigation; and

·        there would be a continuity of work for local trades and suppliers, supporting the local economy as part of the company’s values.

 

Mr Martinovic responded to Members’ questions as follows:

 

·        homes were being built to A+ rating under EPC standards, which was the highest energy-efficiency rating;

·        he lived locally and knew the area well and considered the site location to be sustainable;

·        the proposed road would extend to the site boundary, for a future link road to Newcourt Road with a cycleway. This was subject to adjoining land becoming available;

·        although the developer was willing to work with others, they could not control what other landowners or developers decided to do;

·        the scheme included 19 social homes, of which, 35% would be affordable housing;

·        access for vehicles, pedestrians and bikes was designed to reach the boundary, as requested by the Highways Authority;

·        there would be no direct connection beyond the boundary because the developer did not own the next field; and

·        biodiversity net gain was being handled by the consultants but the planning officer may provide the explanation.

 

The Principal Project Manager – Development Managementpresented the application for demolition of existing buildings/structures and proposed residential development of 54 residential units, including affordable housing, plus open space, landscaping, car parking, drainage, vehicular access, internal roads and all associated infrastructure and development which was recommended for approval.

 

Members received a presentation and the following information:

 

·        a key added obligation in the update sheet was on ensuring the road and cycle/pedestrian route extend to the site boundary to secure future connectivity;

·        aerial views showed the new development to the east; heritage site to the south and motorway to the west, which required noise mitigation;

·        access arrangements had been approved by Highways, in which applications needed to connect fully to the public highway;

·        the extended red-line boundary was explained in the site plan;

·        the site was low-lying and heavily concealed by hedges, making it difficult to view from surrounding areas and the landscape impact assessment was very limited;

·        over a 14-month period, negotiations and design changes had improved the scheme. Improvements included a redesigned and extended main access road, the provision of a large public open space and two internal access routes;

·        other improvements included: the provision for a future link road being incorporated into the scheme and road alignment being moved away from hedgerows with hedges being protected,

·        the site was conditioned for long-term improvements;

·        drainage constraints meant most water runoff and storage must be underground with open water storage features being unfeasible;

·        because the site was a greenfield, replacing existing habitat types was not possible, which required biodiversity credits;

·        the proposed changes had minimal impact on the landscape, with visibility from surrounding fields being low to negligible;

·        the planning principle was for residential use, which was already established through adjacent permissions and appeal decisions;

·        given there was no five-year land supply, the scheme qualified as a sustainable development;

·        the community asset policy (CP10) was not a reason for refusal, because the asset had been replaced elsewhere;

·        the emerging Exeter Plan provided the site with some support, though with limited weight;

·        the scheme provided 35% affordable housing, including 70% social rent, which fully met policy requirements;

·        the overall assessment: the proposal, despite having a very limited landscape impact, met policy expectations, and positively contributed to housing delivery; and

·        the recommendation was to delegate approval subject to completing the Section 106 agreement.

 

The Principal Project Manager – Development Managementand the Assistant Service Lead – Development Management (Major Projects) responded to Member questions and clarification points as follows:

 

·        the road design had been reviewed and approved by Highways and included a dedicated pedestrian-side route;

·        safety concerns had been raised and appropriate fencing and protection for public open spaces and play areas would be secured through conditions;

·        NHS Integrated Care Board had provided the £35,232 GP contribution using a standard formula which was applied across the city;

·        the southern entrance was approved under a previous application and the current scheme completed the connection;

·        the north western hedgerow formed an existing natural boundary which would be retained and included in the Landscape & Environmental Management Plan;

·        that achieving full on-site biodiversity net gain on greenfield sites was generally impossible but required off-site credits;

·        no connection was proposed between this site and Plover Close and the hedgerow boundary would remain;

·        several previous appeals had already eroded the Topsham gap and the site was now enclosed by development, which was not visible from outside;

·        the gap carried very limited planning weight, especially given the city’s lack of a five-year housing land supply;

·        planning relied on expert consultees and if the NHS stated the contribution made the development acceptable, planning would accept that advice;

·        though it was possible for health bodies to recommend refusal due to capacity issues, this had not occurred for this application. Infrastructure bodies used formulae to justify contributions;

·        the 19 affordable homes were on the blue and pink squares on the site layout plan (as indicated on the presentation slide) and were located in small clusters;

·        the application was a full application, rather than a reserved matter; and

·        affordable homes needed to be grouped for management but were designed to avoid being visually distinct or inferior and were secured by conditions.

 

During debate, Members expressed the following views:

 

·        the comparison slide was commended and highlighted the applicant’s commitment to working collaboratively with officers and adapt plans based on expert input;

·        meaningful changes had been made to the layout in response to feedback;

·        there were visible green space and presence of wildlife-friendly areas indicated on the plans and based on the information presented, there were no reasons for refusal;

·        officers and developers were thanked for improvements made to the final plans, notably due to the wider situation in the Topsham gap;

·        the 19 affordable housing units, larger public green spaces and future-proofed road alignment were welcomed;

·        there were some concerns raised on fencing screening along green spaces adjacent to the road and a need to avoid unattractive barriers while ensuring safety for residents and children;

·        examples of where unfenced areas near roads in the local area were highlighted, which created safety risks for children;

·        resident concerns about the broader Topsham Gap were noted and concerns were raised on the pressures on local doctor services;

·        the comparison images provided were appreciated and service provision issues would continue to be sought;

·        there were no material planning reasons to refuse the application;

·        the revised plan was a strong template and officers were praised for significant improvements made;

·        traffic calming issues were raised with the nearby Newcourt area referenced as an example of where engineered speed-reducing measures had been effective;

·        the collaborative improvements made to the application and work undertaken between officers and the developer was commended;

·        the A-rated carbon-efficient homes with a cycle infrastructure  was welcomed, particularly for being near play areas, bus stops;

·        significant progress had been made to the design over the course of the application and plans highlighted a pedestrian-friendly area;

·        the relocation of affordable housing to more integrated positions near the road was welcomed; and

·        if a greenfield site needed to be developed, this approach was acceptable.

 

A Member enquired about including a condition relating to traffic calming, especially near the green spaces and enquired on what traffic calming measures had been proposed to date.

 

The Principal Project Manager – Development Managementadvised Members that specific highway conditions were already included and that Highways officers had reviewed and approved detailed highway drawings. Four highways related conditions had been included to allow further detailed discussions during implementation as part of those existing conditions.

 

Another Member noted that the Planning Committee may not be able to add a traffic calming condition but requested that the committee note that Members had raised the issue of traffic calming in this area and would like Devon County Council to follow up on traffic-calming measures.

 

The Chair agreed to note the committee concerns for issue of traffic calming in the minutes.

 

The Head of Service - City Development made the following concluding points:

 

·        Members had highlighted a number of key benefits, which included improved layout, provision of green space, delivering affordable housing and future-proofed site access;

·        fencing/screening concerns could be managed through existing conditions on materials and boundary treatments;

·        the site was already enclosed by development and did not contribute to wider openness and therefore there was no harm to strategic separation;

·        there had been no NHS objections and the S106 health contribution had been secured; and

·        the lack of health capacity were insufficient grounds for refusal;

·        the proposal complied with policy and S106 and conditions adequately mitigated concerns.

 

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

 

RESOLVED to delegate to the Head of City Development to GRANT permission subject to completion of a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure the following:

 

·        a Local Health Care contribution of £35,232 towards GP surgeries in the area;

·        35% affordable housings;

·        management of public open space;

·        children’s play (including LAP/LEAP);

·        biodiversity net gain (off-site units);

·        habitats mitigation for affordable housing;

·        SuDS management;

·        monitoring costs; and

·        Unencumbered vehicle and pedestrian/cycle access to existing north site boundary.

 

With the conditions outlined in the report and on the additional information update sheet.

 

RESOLVED to REFUSE permission in the event the S106 Agreement is not completed by 1 June 2026 or such extended time as agreed by the City Development Manager for the reasons set out in Part B of the recommendation on the additional information update sheet.