Agenda item

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

Councillor Williams, M arrived during the officer’s presentation and did not participate in the debate or vote for this item.

 

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

 

·        she was speaking on behalf of herself, Councillor Rees, and consulted local residents;

·        need and demand were not the same, and the applicant had not demonstrated a demand for over 55s accommodation at this location;

·        Heavitree Ward already contained nine existing over 55s retirement housing sites, with some units currently empty and unsellable;

·        questioned the evidence for approving a further 36 units within a conservation area, particularly where need could potentially be met elsewhere;

·        the applicant’s had claimed that the scheme would save the NHS £3,500 per resident per year; however, the Devon Integrated Care Board comments indicated local GP surgeries lacked capacity for new patients and required funding;

·        the proposed permissive path was challenged as a public benefit, noting that the officer report confirmed that it could not be made step?free, was unable to accommodate segregated cycling, constrained by existing trees, and was gated and privately managed;

·        the path would exclude wheelchair users, mobility scooters and prams, and that RNIB guidance had not been followed, resulting in ineffective tactile paving and difficulties for guide dog users;

·        the development gave the appearance of inclusion rather than genuine accessibility;

·        Sport England had requested to be re?consulted once mitigation projects were confirmed, and enquired whether this consultation had occurred;

·        if consultation had not taken place, a national consultee had not signed off a material obligation;

·        if the committee were minded to approve, it was requested that the £95,000 sports pitch contribution be directed specifically to Heavitree Ward play and sports facilities;

·        the 10% Biodiversity Net Gain could not be achieved on the site, and required off?site provision;

·        the location of the off?site land, ownership and how long?term management would be secured was queried;

·        biodiversity net gain was statutory, and should carry significant weight in the planning balance;

·        the Principal Heritage Officer’s comments in the update was cited, noting: the previously undiscovered archaeological remains and recommendation for full archaeological investigation;

·        what due diligence had been undertaken before proposing permanent development on such land;

·        the Principal Heritage Officer was quoted in concluding the proposal failed to meet a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, identifying a legal failure rather than a design issue;

·        despite this, officers still recommended approval, and asked officers how public benefits could outweigh a statutory failure, and requested that this question and response be recorded in the minutes;

·        Historic England’s objection was also referenced, stating that the scheme failed to preserve or enhance the conservation area;

·        reference was made to the former headteacher of Bramdean School, stating that the associated playing field had not been sold off during earlier housing development and that residents understood she had wished for the space to remain open;

·        the role of Bramdean Field C.I.C was in seeking to honour this legacy;

·        the historic covenant on the land, which not being a matter for the Committee, supported the principle of protecting the green space;

·        in conclusion, the NHS had indicated capacity constraints, the path was not accessible, there was no demand for development at this site, and heritage and statutory duties were not met; and

·        the committee were requested to refuse the application.

 

In response to questions from Members, Councillor Haigh made the following comments:

 

·        she had been made aware that the covenant could not be provided or considered as it fell outside the Committee’s remit and the Bramdean Field CIC may be better placed to comment further on the matter;

·        she had not met the former headteacher personally and that her comments were based on long?standing correspondence and conversations with residents who had expressed concern about the potential development of the playing field; and

·        regarding ownership, she could only assume that the land may have formed part of her estate and been subject to probate, making the position more complex than a straightforward transfer to the community.

 

The Chair invited Charlotte Corden, to speak for five minutes. In speaking against the application, the following points were made:

 

·        she was a local resident of Heavitree, living opposite the field, and stated that both she and the local community strongly opposed the proposed development;

·        objections were raised on the grounds that the proposal overstated the demand for additional retirement accommodation, harm to the local community, planning policy conflicts and failure to reflect local views;

·        over 130 formal objections had been submitted from local residents;

·        the Bramdean Field Community Interest Company (CIC) had been formed, which she was a Director, and that an Asset of Community Value (ACV) application had been submitted to seek protection of the field for community use;

·        the site was within the Heavitree Conservation Area and was designated as a protected open space for sport;

·        development on the site contradicted the Exeter Local Plan, which sought to protect green infrastructure, recreational spaces and historic character;

·        the proposed three?storey building, would not be in keeping with the surrounding Georgian and Victorian townscape;

·        the development would rely on an existing drainage system, which was already at capacity, and causing issues at the site;

·        the design and materials were described as being driven by cost efficiency rather than quality;

·        the noise assessment was optimistic, but did not account for potential tree loss through future applications, and underestimated the impact of generators, visitors and events;

·        there was no clear justification for additional retirement accommodation in Heavitree, with a substantial nearby provision citing at Pegasus Court, Mayor Court and Mowbray Court;

·        residents’ evidence indicated there were vacancy rates of up to 38% at some local schemes and there was no shortfall to justify the loss of protected green space;

·        Homefield Road was described as being effectively a single?track road, with parking on both sides with no through?route for vehicles;

·        the road was well?used for walking and acted as a cycling route. The proposal would increase risk to daily users of the road;

·        there would be an insufficient level of parking, leading to overspilling onto surrounding streets, increased congestion, reduced safety and a deterioration in living conditions;

·        there was existing covenant on the land, which the community was prepared to pursue legal avenues to uphold it if necessary;

·        no positive planning decision should be made before the ACV process was concluded;

·        the developer did not currently own the land, and if permission were refused and ACV status secured, the community was ready to advance a credible and funded alternative proposal;

·        Bramdean Field CIC were created to protect and enhance the field as a permanent green space, shaped by community input, with potential uses including sport, outdoor learning, community growing, allotments and play space;

·        the field was a valued green space with a 100?year educational history and the proposal was widely opposed; and

·        in concluding the committee were urged to refuse the application and allow a community?backed alternative that protected green space, heritage and long?term community well?being.

 

Charlotte Corden responded to questions from Members as follows:

 

·        there were soft pledges of community share capital, which the group believed would be sufficient to cover the initial purchase cost of the land at a fair market price, should the owner be willing to negotiate;

·        no discussions had taken place with the current landowner, however, contact had been intentionally delayed pending the outcome of the planning committee decision;

·        compulsory purchase powers had not been explored to date, but would be looked into going forward;

·        the Community Interest Company (Bramdean Field CIC) had received informal expert advice who considered that they met the criteria for designation as an Asset of Community Value (ACV);

·        the CIC was a formally constituted body and the application to nominate the land as an ACV had been submitted;

·        the community currently had no access to the land. It had been privately owned and was closed to the public since the school closure 2020;

·        the primary objective of the CIC was in preventing commercial development of the site and to secure it for community ownership;

·        the CIC, while opposed to commercial development, recognised the need for the land to be economically viable in the long term and would support appropriate, community led development to sustain it for future generations; and

·        the CIC was confident that sufficient funds were available to purchase the land if negotiations proceeded, however, the exact figures could not be disclosed due to confidentiality of pledges.

 

The Chair invited David Williams, to speak for five minutes. In speaking in support of the application, the following points were made:

 

·        the site was a private, inaccessible field within a conservation area, which was formerly part of the old Bramdean School, and had remained vacant since the school’s closure;

·        the site was in a highly sustainable location, which was suitable for older persons’ accommodation, with good access to local shops, public transport, and medical facilities;

·        the development would address an identified need for older persons’ housing provision, which was an alternative to family, student or starter homes, in line with the Exeter Local Housing Needs Assessment;

·        the proposal would also meet the critical housing need, as recognised in national policy, including the absence of a five?year housing land supply and reliance on local plan policies, with the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development applying;

·        both the pre?application and application process involved over 14 months of engagement with Council officers and stakeholders, including the design west panel, the Planning Member Working Group, and local residents, supported by a local exhibition;

·        the scheme had evolved in response to consultation feedback to achieve an optimum, sustainable form of development;

·        viability considerations associated with older persons’ housing had been supported by an independently reviewed viability appraisal, which demonstrated the delivery of over £1 million in affordable housing contributions;

·        those contributions could support additional housing delivery elsewhere in the city, with Morton Road cited as an example;

·        the proposal sought to retain and enhance the existing boundary tree belt, which had been identified as a key feature within the conservation area. The proposal was also supported by a detailed landscaping scheme for additional planting;

·        a permissive pedestrian route along the southern boundary was also being proposed, which would provide a new access point to the green space, which supported a pedestrian?focused, low?car development;

·        there would be provisions for 100% electric vehicle charging, mobility scooter storage, cycle storage, and a travel plan;

·        the building would be a sustainable design, incorporating a fabric?first approach, PV panels, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery, and air source heat pumps;

·        Devon Highways had supported the scheme, with parking levels described as appropriate for older persons’ accommodation, reflecting reduced car reliance among residents;

·        evidence showed that there would be more shared trips, community activity, and reduced car ownership over time in schemes of this nature;

·        highway impacts would be minimal, and supported by an upgraded pedestrian crossing with improved visibility, with strong access links to public transport and local services;

·        the Section 106 agreement would secure contributions toward affordable housing, off?site sports pitch provisions, health infrastructure, a travel plan, and recreational mitigation; and

·        the biodiversity net gain requirements would be met through a combination of on?site measures and off?site credits, subject to condition.

 

David Williams responded to Members’ questions as follows:

 

·        staffing would include one permanent health manager on site during the daytime hours (9am–5pm);

·        additional visitors, including support workers and personal visitors, would use designated visitor parking spaces within the development, which would not be allocated spaces;

·        accessibility improvements to the permissive path had been assessed, but significant changes would require substantial engineering works due to level changes between the site and the road;

·        a full step?free route would have adverse impacts on boundary trees and the character of the conservation area, leading to a preference for retaining steps as a balanced solution;

·        the steps would be usable by most residents and local users, and alternative step?free access was available from the adjacent road;

·        the parking assessment assumed no reliance on on?street parking by residents;

·        the travel plan documentation clearly set out parking arrangements and restrictions for residents, staff and visitors;

·        the vehicular access point led onto Homefield Road and had been subject to extensive discussions with the highway authority to ensure adequate visibility and safety for both vehicles and pedestrians; and

·        Homefield Road could be narrow and heavily parked at times, but the highway authority had raised no objections and considered the highway and public safety impacts to be acceptable.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development)presented the application for the erection of a three-storey building for retirement living apartments with associated communal lounge, internal refuse and recycling store, electric buggy/bike store and house managers office; creation of enlarged vehicular access onto Homefield Road, car parking, electrical substation, internal paths, landscaped grounds and creation of a permissive path.

 

Members were advised that an additional information sheet had been circulated, which included written representations from the Heritage Officer, reference to representations received from ‘Bramdean Field CIC’ and that an Asset of Community Value (ACV) submission had been received after publication of the officer’s report.

 

The Team Lead – Property, Planning & Non-Contentious (hereafter referred to as the Planning Solicitor), in speaking to the legislative framework for Assets of Community Value, explained that:

 

·        an application had been received by the Council to nominate the land for listing as an Asset of Community Value (ACV);

·        the statutory regime for an ACV operated separately from the planning system and did not form part of the planning determination;

·        the ACV listing did not prevent or preclude development but did give the community a right to bid for the asset and introduced a pause period of up to six months to allow negotiations to take place;

·        decisions on ACV nominations were made by a different department within the City Council, not by City Development;

·        a statutory notification process needed to be followed to invite representations, and that the Council had eight weeks to determine whether the nomination met the ACV criteria;

·        the ACV application was only at the nomination stage and had not yet been determined. It could be treated as a material consideration but should only be afforded very limited weight in that it applied to recreational/community uses; and

·        should the land subsequently be listed as an Asset of Community Value, the listing itself could be a material consideration. However, it would be the underlying community usage associated with the listing, that would carry any material planning weight.

 

Members received a presentation and following information:

 

·        the site location, was outlined by a red line, positioned north of Heavitree around Homefield Road, Goldsmith Street, Barrack Grove and Park Place;

·        a part of Homefield Road which was adjacent to the site and Park Place lacked footways, were relatively narrow, and had mature trees surrounding the former pitch, many of which were protected by Tree Preservation Orders;

·        the site was adjacent to, and contributed positively to the Heavitree conservation area as a designated open space under planning policy;

·        the surrounding context included a locally listed former school building opposite the site and terrace housing to the south;

·        photographs illustrated the site’s relationship to the surrounding streets, changes in land levels, and the raised nature of the former sports pitch above road level;

·        the proposal was a three?storey development of 36 apartments, arranged in a series of blocks to break up massing;

·        vehicular access was being proposed through an existing field gate onto Homefield Road, with a slight widening, requiring the removal of three trees to achieve safe visibility;

·        the scheme would include 25 on?site car parking spaces, integrated scooter storage, and dedicated cycle parking within the site;

·        the building would have a broadly symmetrical layout with a central entrance and apartments accessed by stair routes and design revisions had been made following review panel advice prior to submission;

·        landscaping proposals sought to retain the majority of existing trees, reinforce boundary planting, and minimise visual impact issues;

·        a permissive pedestrian route was proposed through the southern part of the site, including stepped access between trees. It was not possible for a step free or cycle accessible route at this location without significant engineering works and tree loss;

·        a publicly accessible green space and seating areas were also being proposed alongside the permissive path;

·        illustrative views showed the development as seen from Goldsmith Street, car parking areas, and other open spaces;

·        key planning issues were discussed and included the acceptability of the greenfield development being within a sustainable urban location;

·        heritage impacts had been acknowledged, with officers concluding that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the conservation area due to loss of openness and the building being located withing the tree belt;

·        the level of harm was weighed against public benefits, including housing delivery and was considered to be less than substantial;

·        the provision of 36 dwellings was identified as a significant benefit in the context of the Council’s shortfall in five?year housing land supply;

·        highway access and parking arrangements had been accepted by the highway authority, who had raised no objections;

·        there was no evidence of recent public use of the sports pitch following the school closure, and therefore was no demonstrable loss of public sports provision;

·        a package of negotiated planning obligations was outlined, including contributions towards sports facility enhancement, local GP surgery improvements, and off?site affordable housing;

·        the residual contribution towards affordable housing was estimated at being £1.07 million, for potential use in other deliverable sites;

·        potential heritage harm was acknowledged and assessed as being less than substantial, with no evidence of recent public access to the sports pitches being identified, with no significant loss of sporting opportunity; and

·        benefits included the provision of new housing and financial contributions towards off?site affordable housing delivery and a combination of on?site measures and off?site contributions were being proposed to achieve a minimum 10% biodiversity net gain.

 

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

 

·        future residents would be excluded from eligibility for residents’ parking permits;

·        the development would be visible from Homefield Road at closer range but that long?range views would be limited by trees and topography;

·        existing three?storey buildings along Goldsmith Street had been taken into account and that additional tree planting was proposed where gaps existed;

·        the police had been consulted on the seating area and that a management plan was in place showing CCTV, natural surveillance and the ability to close the area if necessary;

·        having a more direct accessible route was desirable but was not achievable due to impacts on trees and the site’s appearance;

·        access would be provided a tactile crossing over Homefield Road and a dropped kerb on the opposite pavement, allowing connection to the existing footway network;

·        the site was designated as open space but planning policy did not provide specific protection for small urban greenfield sites;

·        although brownfield sites were prioritised, greenfield development within urban areas was permitted where the benefits were judged to outweigh the harm;

·        the emerging local plan carried limited weight at this stage;

·        there was a six?month period for completion for the Section 106 legal agreement, after which the Council could refuse the application if it were not finalised;

·        cycle parking provision had been increased following consultation comments, including internal storage with charging points and additional secure cycle parking;

·        concerns about density were addressed by confirming that the scheme proposed 36 dwellings on approximately half a hectare and that officers considered this acceptable given the three?storey form and landscaped setting;

·        the development included a mix of one? and two?bed apartments; and

·        similar retirement housing schemes elsewhere had comparable or higher densities, and that the proposed scale and units were typical for this type of development.

 

The Principal Officer - Urban Design and Landscape advised that:

 

·        views of the building would be filtered through existing trees on the street and new landscaping around the site;

·        the design intentionally responded differently to Homefield Road and Goldsmith Street, reflecting their differing street characters;

·        the Homefield Road elevation was described as being articulated with screening at ground level, adding visual interest;

·        the building’s appearance would be softened by sunlight and shadow across the elevation modelling and the scale of the development was considered acceptable, with cross?sections showing the building set below the ridge line of the existing development in Homefield Road;

·        the building was stepped back approximately 12 metres from the Goldsmith Street frontage, with additional new landscaping and street trees proposed; and

·        the scheme would make an acceptable contribution to the townscape, aside from the loss of currently inaccessible open space.

 

During the debate, Councillor Asvachin referred to the earlier representation from the member of the local community regarding the potential for the site being taken into community ownership. She expressed concern that granting planning permission at this stage could result in the loss of a green space that the community may be able to secure and manage.

 

It was therefore proposed by Councillor Asvachin and seconded by Councillor Mitchell that the following amendment be made:-

 

·        to defer the determination of the application to allow time for the Asset of Community Value (ACV) process to be determined.

 

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

 

·        while deferring the application may appear positive from a public perception perspective, legal advice indicated that the outcome of the Asset of Community Value (ACV) process would not be materially affected by whether planning permission was granted or deferred;

·        the ACV process was separate and would proceed and be determined on its own merits regardless of the planning decision;

·        there were concerns on planning grounds including the scale and massing of the development, the proposed access from Homefield Road, and site accessibility;

·        the amendment to defer would enable the ACV process to proceed and was supported;

·        deferring would support inner urban greenfield land and allowing sufficient time for community initiatives to be properly developed;

·        concerns were about design and similar developments could be accommodated elsewhere in the city without the loss of this site; and

·        clarification was sought on the legal timescales available to the Council and the community, and whether a deferral could be achieved lawfully to allow the ACV process to conclude.

 

The Chair clarified that the amendment under debate related solely to deferring the application to allow the ACV process to be determined, and not to broader planning concerns or design changes. It was emphasised that the ACV process would take approximately eight weeks and that, if deferred, the application would return to committee in its current form.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) in responding to questions raised from Members advised that:

 

·        the application was already beyond the statutory determination period and that an agreed extension of time had been in place and was due to expire at the current committee meeting;

·        if no decision were made, the applicant would have the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds of non?determination, in addition to any appeal against a decision made by the Council;

·        an appeal for non?determination could be submitted by the applicant immediately, as the agreed extension of time expired at the current committee meeting;

·        any appeal process would take time to progress through the Planning

·        Inspectorate; and

·        the Asset of Community Value (ACV) application had an eight?week statutory determination period and therefore by the time a non?determination appeal was likely to be considered, the Planning Inspectorate would likely have the outcome of the ACV application available and could treat it as a material consideration.

 

Returning to the debate on the amendment, the further following points were made:

 

·        there was a need to make a decision but the community had made significant efforts to reach the stage of submitting an Asset of Community Value application and potentially raising funds;

·        an eight?week deferral was reasonable to allow the community the opportunity to progress the work and fulfil the Council’s role in representing residents’ interests;

·        given the representations from the community and the timing constraints, it would also be in the developer’s interests to use any deferral period constructively to engage further with the community and planning officers; and

·        Asset of Community Value applications, processes often attract strong local interest and required time for communities to organise effectively.

 

The Chair concluded the debate by highlighting that officers had advised that a successful ACV listing would carry additional weight, albeit still as one of several material considerations, when the application returned for determination. He also noted that the matter would return for full debate should the amendment to defer be agreed.

 

The Strategic Director for Place made the following concluding points:

 

·        the officers’ report had set out the relevant planning balance and the weight to be attached to each factor, with the final weighting being was a matter for the planning committee to decide;

·        although the planning committee was currently the decision?maker, this could change, should an appeal be lodged, making the Planning Inspector the decision maker;

·        officers had approached the planning balance in a manner consistent with how a Planning Inspector would be likely to assess it;

·        any change to the planning balance would require a material change in circumstances, and both officers and a Planning Inspector would be required to reconsider the balance if such changes arose;

·        the Asset of Community Value (ACV) nomination carried very limited weight, being at nomination stage. Should it be successful the weight attributed to it could increase, but would be limited to its recreational value;

·        the current weight was minimal due to the lack of public access, and that any realistic prospect of future public access could justify revisiting its weight;

·        whether any increased weight would be sufficient to outweigh other planning considerations remained a matter for the decision?maker or the Planning Inspector;

·        deferral to allow reconsideration of the planning balance was possible, but that the scope for change was limited; and

·        reconsideration could take place either by the Committee at a future meeting or by the Planning Inspector, with likely timescales extending to a later date, potentially around July or following any appeal hearing.

 

Following the debate, the Chair moved the matter to a vote on the motion to defer the application to allow the Asset of Community Value (ACV) process to be determined. Members voted unanimously in favour of deferral.

 

The Planning Committee noted that the application would return to committee for determination regardless of whether an appeal was submitted, in order to provide officers with material considerations for any appeal process.

 

RESOLVED that the Committee DEFER determination of the application, to allow time for the Asset of Community Value (ACV) process to be determined.

 

 

The meeting was briefly adjourned at 19:01 and resumed at 19:08.