Agenda item

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

In accordance with Section 10.5 of the Members’ Planning Code of Good Practice, Councillor Ketchin left the meeting at the start of the item as he was not present when the application was previously considered and deferred on 19 January 2026.

 

Councillor Williams, who had arrived late for the previous item, was present and took part in the consideration of this item.

 

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

 

·        concerns relating to heritage impact, massing and density, referring to the summary section of the officer’s report, highlighting that those concerns were widely shared by residents of St. David’s ward;

·        the amendments made to the scheme were acknowledged, however, the development remained over?massed and visually dominant for longer?range views, particularly from St. David’s Hill and the Iron Bridge approach;

·        the report concluded that key views of historic buildings, including the Cathedral, would not be impeded, the wider heritage setting and the proximity to the St. David’s Hill Conservation Area had not been given sufficient weight;

·        the enlarged structure would tower over nearby heritage assets, including Napier Terrace, Bartholomew Cemetery, the Grade II Synagogue and the Mecca Building, disrupting the established scale and character of the area, which was in-line with concerns expressed by Historic England;

·        the proposed sixth storey and rooftop plant, would increase the overall height and create an unduly dominant skyline feature, causing harm to the St. David’s Hill conservation area;

·        Historic England’s view was that a four?storey development would be more appropriate for the character of the area;

·        the impact on longer?range views was unacceptable, in which the report acknowledged the loss of views of St Michael’s on Mount Dinham and from Fore Street and the application had not included sufficient visual assessments of those views;

·        significant visual harm would arise from more distant viewpoints, including from Exwick and St. Thomas, affecting the wider landscape setting of the city;

·        the changes presented through developer briefings, had not adequately addressed wider visual harm, and even a reduction by one storey would still result in a large, uniform structure harming key city views;

·        concern was expressed about diminished views from St David’s Hill towards the Cathedral and city centre, which would erode the historic relationship between the valley and the city;

·        agreed defined views from this location did not appear in the submitted material;

·        the proposal failed to respect the surrounding scale and architectural context;

·        the building should not exceed the height of the existing multi?storey car park and should incorporate greater articulation to break up its massing;

·        had the outcome of the further Design Review Panel been published and, if so, where it could be accessed, or if not, why it was unavailable; and

·        in closing they objected to the application on their own behalf and on behalf of local residents, citing concerns over scale, massing and the resultant harm to heritage assets and their setting.

 

In responses to questions from Members, Councillor Read made the following further comments:

 

·        concerns regarding views from Exwick were based on on?site experience, and the view of St Michael’s Mount Dinham from Fore Street would be largely lost, as quoted directly from the report;

·        the scale and massing of the development was not considered necessary and that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a need for additional co?living accommodation in the city;

·        there was an existing co?living development in the city centre, which was described as having high levels of vacancy since opening, supporting the view that the proposed massing was driven by the co?living model rather than by wider community need;

·        reiterated that the massing was not considered justified and did not represent an appropriate asset for the city;

·        the proposed development would exceed the existing car park’s height, once the rooftop plant was included, and that the new building should not be higher than the existing structure.

 

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

 

·        Block A would be approximately 4.5 metres higher than the existing multi?storey car park;

·        although the development was described as being for long?term living with only 10% student occupation, the ratio of bedrooms to kitchen space remained poor, with insufficient storage and concerns over overall habitability;

·        the redesigned corner feature and stepped entrance was welcomed and would add a visual interest to the building;

·        expressed concern that the stepped entrance would not be wheelchair accessible, resulting in the main accessible entrance being located further up the street, potentially leaving the lower entrance as a redundant space susceptible to antisocial behaviour;

·        despite illustrations in the briefing materials, no pedestrian crossing was proposed at the bottom of North Street, and no improvements were planned for North Street or the Iron Bridge junction;

·        North Street had narrow pavements and a junction layout designed primarily for traffic, presenting challenges for pedestrians, cyclists and wheelchair users, and that local residents and businesses had expressed a desire for improvements;

·        would the proposed Section 106 contributions be delivered as expected and in a timely manner;

·        the confirmation from the developer of a £151,000 Section 106 contribution towards public open spaces was welcomed, particularly the for the pressures on the cemetery, but early payment should be secured by a condition;

·        in reference to the engagement between the developer and the synagogue, appreciation was given for the additional drop?off and disabled access arrangements, however, it was requested that this be secured by condition as a formal, long?term arrangement, including provision of a dedicated parking space;

·        the Local Housing Needs Assessment, had not identified a role for co?living accommodation in Exeter and that the proposed scale of 297 units was disproportionate and unsupported by local evidence;

·        the applicant’s co?living demand evidence did not adequately reference local housing needs assessments and was therefore not policy compliant; and

·        raised concerns regarding reliance on the tilted balance, questioning the evidence around the Council’s five?year housing land supply and noting inconsistencies between previously reported figures and documents submitted to the Planning Inspector.

 

 

The Chair invited Mr Keith Lewis (Exeter Civic Society), to speak for five minutes. In speaking against the application, the following points were made:

 

·        while the Exeter Civic Society supported redevelopment of the site in principle, it would prefer provision of family housing to address the Council’s housing waiting list;

·        the application had been deferred in January 2026 to address concerns regarding scale and massing, design quality and the treatment of street?facing elevations, and the Civic Society was disappointed that, despite amendments, the revised proposals still comprised 297 rooms;

·        the retention of the same number of rooms, despite the removal of the top floor of Block B, had been achieved through a reduction in internal community amenity space, which the Civic Society had not expected;

·        the reduction in amenity space was not clearly acknowledged in the officer report and was considered to fall below the minimum standards set out in the London Plan guidance, which had previously been referenced by officers as an appropriate benchmark for co?living schemes;

·        the January 2026 report had concluded the quantum and arrangement of community spaces complied with relevant local plan policies, and queried why a significant reduction was now considered acceptable;

·        concerns were raised regarding inaccuracies and omissions in the report relating to the provision of community facilities, including the absence of spaces previously described, and a lack of correction in the update report;

·        a further objection was made to the suggestion in the report that the London Plan guidance should now be afforded minimal weight, which was described as inconsistent with previous assessments and other recent applications;

·        the amended scheme resulted in reduced building costs for the developer while retaining the same number of units and projected income, and that any approval should be conditioned to meet minimum amenity standards, including kitchen ratios, as set out in the London guidance;

·        expressed concern at the submission of further amended plans during the committee process, noting the volume and late timing of drawings, which he considered limited the ability of third parties and Members to review changes;

·        additional concerns included the lack of independent toilet facilities within community areas, facilities for staff, and appropriate hygiene provision, which was requested to be secured by a condition if the scheme was approved;

·        there were concerns about proposed gated routes between North Street and Mary Arches Street, with an inconsistency with previous approaches taken elsewhere on public safety and permeability;

·        the design judgement rested with the planning committee, but it was highlighted that Historic England continued to object to the appearance of Block A, which was a view shared by the Civic Society.

 

 

 

Mr Lewis responded to questions from Members as follows:

 

·        the reduction in height to Block B was welcomed, although Block A had not been reduced and Members had previously accepted as acceptable;

·        Members may not have anticipated that changes to the elevations would result in a reduction of internal community amenity space for future residents;

·        long?term residential living should be a key consideration, particularly given the absence of restrictions on length of occupation under current legislation;

·        the provision of adequate communal and amenity space was more important than reducing the overall scale of the building when the same number of units were being delivered;

·        the assessment on the design appearance was subjective, however, architectural advice received by the Civic Society considered the design changes to be insufficient, based on the plans available at the time; and

·        multiple late submissions of revised plans was concerning, giving an uncertainty about which version was under consideration and whether the officer report and update had been based on the most recent drawings.

 

 

The Chair confirmed there were no public speakers registered to speak in support of the item.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development)presented the application for the demolition of the multi-storey car park, surface car parking and redevelopment to provide a co?living development, public realm works, landscaping, cycle and car parking, servicing, refuse and recycling provision and associated works.

 

Members received a presentation and received the following information:

 

·        the circulated update sheet included a further consultee response from the Council’s Landscape Officer, which resulted in a number of additional and amended planning conditions being proposed relating to design matters;

·        a further condition was recommended to approve a list of plans submitted prior to publication of the update sheet, comprising 43 drawings, which formed the full approved plan set for the application;

·        the application had been deferred by planning committee in January 2026 to allow further consideration of scale and massing, design quality, street?facing elevations, and the management of the pedestrian route through the site, and that the presentation focused on those matters;

·        since January, officers had reviewed the Committee’s earlier deliberations, and held an extensive debate at the Design Review Panel, in which comments had been added to the report, alongside previous pre?application advice;

·        further design meetings were held with the applicant, followed by submission of revised plans and supporting material in March 2026, including CGI images, which formed the basis of the substantive reassessment;

·        two further plan submissions were received, comprising minor and largely internal amendments;

·        Block B had been reduced from five storeys to four, with the roof terrace removed and the architectural approach to Block B had also been revised;

·        the east and west ends had been stepped forward to meet the street and to improve the street enclosure meeting issues relating to heritage;

·        there had been some internal reconfiguration undertaken to retain the approved number of residential units;

·        the overall building footprint had not changed significantly, aside from limited stepping forward at street edges;

·        a stepped entrance on North Street had been introduced for Block A, incorporating a co?working space beneath and providing a direct and legible route to the reception;

·        the building would be managed 24/7, with CCTV and officers did not consider antisocial behaviour to be a concern;

·        seven ground?floor rooms had been introduced, which did not have directly adjacent to kitchens. Officers considered their proximity to communal facilities to be acceptable for co?living use;

·        communal kitchens were retained on every floor, each meeting the relevant space and cooking station standards, supplemented by a larger shared kitchen facility;

·        external terraces, including a fourth?floor terrace and sunken ground?floor space, were retained and combined with internal provision, exceeded London Plan benchmarks for co?living amenity space;

·        the two ends of Block B had been brought forward to strengthen the building’s relationship with Mary Arches Street, while the central section remained set back to avoid residential accommodation directly abutting the footway;

·        the pedestrian route through the site had been realigned to function better;

·        proposed gates at the entrances would be managed and secured through conditions and the Section 106 agreement to ensure accessibility in accordance with the Committee’s previous resolution;

·        a larger reception and communal kitchen/dining space would be provided at ground floor level to serve shared resident use;

·        upper floors retained communal kitchens, each with two cook stations, and the building comprised of four floors in total;

·        landscaping, including hedging, was proposed to provide appropriate separation between ground?floor units and the street;

·        alterations had been made in the area opposite the synagogue, including the provision of three disabled parking spaces;

·        the seating area at the corner location had been removed and replaced with tree planting and landscaped space;

·        amendments made to elevations sought to break down the massing into distinct elements, with a variation in façade treatment and roof forms;

·        the removal of a storey on Block B led to a revised flat roof design, replacing the previous clipped roof form;

·        changes made to window designs, material treatment and roof elements were intended to improve the building’s appearance when viewed from Mary Arches Street and North Street;

·        active ground?floor uses, including a reception area and co?working spaces, had been retained to support street activity and natural surveillance;

·        while many archaeological artefacts found at the site would be removed for museum storage, it was hoped that some items of interest could be displayed on site, subject to further investigation and agreement; and

·        overall landscaping proposals included new planting and tree groups, with details to be secured by condition to ensure successful establishment.

 

 

The Principal Officer - Urban Design and Landscape advised that:

 

·        the reduction in scale of Block B had been welcomed, and noting had improved views of St. Michael and All Angels Church from Fore Street by allowing greater visibility of the church spire;

·        the revised design now functioned appropriately as a background building, whereas the previous version drew excessive attention;

·        the re-designed Block B was a suitable contemporary addition that helped repair the street frontage;

·        bringing the two end sections of the building forward to the back of the pavement was commended and highlighted as improving the sense of enclosure along Mary Arches Street;

·        setting back the central section was also considered appropriate to protect privacy for ground?floor accommodation on a busy street; and

·        appreciation  was given to the revised design of Block B, and the applicant’s willingness to make the changes.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) further advised that:

 

·        CGI views demonstrated townscape impacts and that, although the building remained taller than some surrounding structures, the overall massing was considered acceptable;

·        view analysis undertaken had identified public viewpoints, highlighting that some directions did not provide public views and that the Cathedral lay outside key sightlines from the affected streets;

·        CGI views published in March remained representative of the current application, with subsequent amendments being minor and largely internal;

·        reducing the building height by one storey had improved views of the Church, allowing partial visibility of the spire;

·        updated images showed improvements to street-level design, including revised steps, lowered planters, tree planting, and space for trees to mature at key junctions and entrances;

·        there was some continued heritage harm within the conservation area, but this had been significantly reduced through the revised design;

·        the scheme continued to secure the same Section 106 contributions, with updated wording to reflect the Committee’s previous resolution regarding the permissive route, and the enforceability of the legal agreement was confirmed;

·        the application was a vast improvement, particularly in relation to reduced massing on Mary Arches Street, design, and enhanced landscaping; and

·        the application was therefore recommended approval.

 

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development)responded to Member questions and clarification points as follows:

 

·        excluding residents from parking permits was a matter for Devon County Council, who had not thought that co?living schemes would be eligible;

·        Section 106 contributions could fund traffic order reviews and tighter parking controls, including disabled parking provisions;

·        the number of units had not changed from the previous report, and concerns about over concentration had already been considered;

·        the development was still regarded as being acceptable and appropriate for a city?centre location, bringing benefits through increased city?centre living;

·        high?density developments were  considered suitable for this city?centre area, which already accommodated a mix of student housing, co?living and flats;

·        Section 106 contributions normally had payment triggers, with open space payments usually due on commencement, to make funds available when residents moved in;

·        the revised design still met and exceeded the London Plan standards for room sizes and internal and external communal amenity spaces, despite there being some reductions from the previous scheme;

·        parking spaces on the site would be managed by the applicant and bollards also formed part of the privately managed parking spaces. Their operation and safety arrangements to be addressed through the site management plan;

·        Block B had been reduced by one storey, but Block A remained at the same height, with improvements made to the roof and improvements to the parapet detailing to reduce visual heaviness; and

·        because Block B had been reduced to four storeys throughout, it now had a single roof level and no longer allowed for a side access to a roof garden, while the rear height of the block remained unchanged.

The Chair confirmed that discussions between the synagogue and the applicant were ongoing and that any agreement on its use would be a private matter between those parties.

 

The Chair asked reminded that this was a deferred application, and that the principle of co?living had already been extensively debated previously and highlighted that debate should focus specifically on the changes made since deferral, resulting from officer work and cooperation from the developer.

 

During the debate, Members made the following points:-

 

·        improvements made to the street?facing design was welcomed, and a greater variation in frontages, particularly on Block A;

·        massing concerns were acknowledged,  and the greater resident amenity in the original proposal could carry more weight than the limited height reduction achieved;

·        the height reduction was commended as was setting Block B back;

·        the provision of disabled bays near the synagogue was welcomed;

·        the changes made demonstrated howe the developer had listened to concerns raised by the planning committee;

·        the remaining height of Block A was acceptable and massing issues had been sufficiently addressed to support the application;

·        the reductions and set?backs were acknowledged but it was noted that Historic England still considered the proposal excessively tall and bulky, with no height reduction to Block A;

·        the changes were only a partial response to committee concerns and, there were still unresolved massing issues affecting heritage interests;

·        the developer had taken on board many of the points raised at the January meeting and the revised scheme was a material improvement on the previous proposal;

·        additional engagement with the synagogue regarding parking was commended, despite not part of the previous deferral reasons;

·        the improved outlook at North Street and the reduction to Block B, particularly in views down Mary Arches we praised;

·        main concern resulting in deferral had been for Block B, which had now been satisfactorily addressed; and

·        Block A remained at the same height, but design changes had reduced its perceived massing and was considered acceptable.

 

The Strategic Director for Place made the following concluding points:

 

·        at the January meeting the Committee had been satisfied with the principle of the development and had deferred the decision to resolve two key matters: scale and massing, and design quality of the street?facing elevations;

·        the Committee’s primary concern at the January deferral was the height of Block B, which was considered one storey too high in relation to Mary Arches Street and its historic context;

·        officers had since undertaken detailed design workshops with the applicant, including a further Design Review Panel, resulting in significant submitted revisions and re?consulted on in March;

·        there had been a reduction to Block B from five to four storeys and enhanced articulation of the Mary Arches frontage, which was considered to have substantially reduced harm to heritage assets;

·        any remaining heritage harm was assessed as being less than substantial, allowing the Committee to weigh harm against the public benefits of the scheme, including regeneration and increased city?centre living;

·        improvements had also been made to Block A, creating a stronger architectural bookend to North Street and contributing positively to streetscape regeneration;

·        the landscaping and creation of new spaces would be  welcome enhancements, supporting wider city?centre regeneration;

·        revised plans had been fully consulted upon and refined through further architectural adjustments to achieve the best possible design outcome;

·        the existing building was considered to be harmful to the historic setting and was widely acknowledged as having a negative impact from all viewpoints;

·        officers had acted on the Committee’s earlier advice by working with the applicant to secure improvements; and

·        the scheme now represented a high?quality development, which would repair harm to the historic environment, and that there were no longer design grounds to refuse permission.

 

 

The Chair moved, and Councillor Rolstone seconded the recommendation, which was voted upon and CARRIED. (7 in favour, 2 against and 0 abstentions).

 

RESOLVED to delegate to the Head of Service (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:

 

·        20% of Co-living Units (60 units) as Affordable Private Rent, including 3 wheelchair M4 (3) units;

·        highways contributions totalling £139,050;

·        contribution of £10,000 for Traffic Orders;

·        car club contributions of £146,434.62 for vehicle provision, together with £7,269 for associated Traffic Regulation Orders and £7,269 for associated road markings;

·        provision of permissive path, to be kept open to the public at all times, unless closure is subsequently justified by demonstrable incidents of antisocial behaviour, or for maintenance, as identified through the management plan;

·        a Co-living Management Plan, including measures to discourage car ownership and use;

·        primary health care contribution £87,184 towards the expansion of GP surgery provision;

·        contribution of £457 per bedspace towards the provision and improvement of off-site public open spaces serving the development.

·        contribution of £278 per bedspace towards the provision or improvement of off-site playing fields city-wide;

·        Habitat Regulations mitigation (Exe Estuary affordable units only) of £1278.71;

·        provision of a 24/7 on-site management presence;

·        a financial contribution £93,035 to support public engagement of the archaeological investigation and its findings;

·        a restriction on full time student occupation limited to 10%;

·        a S106 Monitoring Fee;

·        a bio-diversity Net Gain Monitoring Fee; and

·        the conditions set out in the Planning Committee report and update sheet.

 

All S106 contributions should be index linked from the date of resolution; and

 

 

RESOLVED to REFUSE permission if the legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) is not completed within six months of the date of the meeting or such extended time as agreed in writing by the Head of Service (City Development).