(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Planning Committee, 16/11/2020 17:30

PLANNING

Date: Monday 16 November 2020 Time: 5.30 pm Venue: Legislation has been passed that allows Council's to conduct Committee meetings remotely

Members are invited to attend the above meeting to consider the items of business.

If you have an enquiry regarding any items on this agenda, please contact Howard Bassett, Democratic Services Officer (Committees) on 01392 265107.

During the Corona Virus outbreak, meetings will be held by virtual means. The live stream can be viewed here at the meeting start time.

Membership - Councillors Morse (Chair), Williams (Deputy Chair), Bialyk, Branston, Foale, Ghusain, Hannaford, Harvey, Mrs Henson, Mitchell, M, Sparkes, Sutton and Wright

Agenda

Part I: Items suggested for discussion with the press and public present

1 Apologies

To receive apologies for absence from Committee members.

2 Minutes

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 12 October 2020. (Pages 5 - 36)

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillors are reminded of the need to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests that relate to business on the agenda and which have not already been included in the register of interests, before any discussion takes place on the item. Unless the interest is sensitive, you must also disclose the nature of the interest. In accordance with the Council's Code of Conduct, you must then leave the room and must not participate in any further discussion of the item. Councillors requiring clarification should seek the advice of the Monitoring Officer prior to the day of the meeting.

Office of Corporate Manager Democratic & Civic Support Civic Centre, Paris Street, Exeter, EX1 1JN Tel: 01392 277888 Fax: 01392 265593 www.exeter.gov.uk

4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985 EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

It is not considered that the Committee would be likely to exclude the press and public during the consideration of any of the items on this agenda but, if it should wish to do so, then the following resolution should be passed: -

RECOMMENDED that, under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for particular item(s) on the grounds that it (they) involve(s) the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the relevant paragraphs of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

Public Speaking

Public speaking on planning applications and tree preservation orders is permitted at this Committee. Only one speaker in support and one opposed to the application may speak and the request must be made by 10 am on the Thursday before the meeting (full details available on request from the Democratic Services Officer).

5 Planning Application No. 15/0641/OUT - Aldens Farm West Land Between Shillingford Road and Chudleigh Road, Alphington

To consider the report of the Director. (Pages 37 - 84)

6 Planning Application No. 20/0809/TEL - Land at Sidmouth Road, Exeter

To consider the report of the Director. (Pages 85 - 100) 7 Planning Application No. 19/1417/FUL - Ambulance Station, Gladstone Road, Exeter

To consider the report of the Director. (Pages 101 - 166) 8 List of Decisions Made and Withdrawn Applications

To consider the report of the Director. (Pages 167 - 190)

9 Appeals Report

To consider the report of the Director. (Pages 191 - 196) Date of Next Meeting

The next scheduled meeting of the Planning Committee will be held on Monday 14 December 2020 at 5.30 pm.

Find out more about Exeter City Council services by looking at our web site http://www.exeter.gov.uk. This will give you the dates of all future Committee meetings and tell you how you can ask a question at a Scrutiny Committee meeting. Alternatively, contact the Democratic Services Officer (Committees) on (01392) 265107 for further information.

Individual reports on this agenda can be produced in large print on request to Democratic Services (Committees) on 01392 265107.

Planning Acronyms used in the Planning Application Reports are set out below:-

The following list explains the acronyms used in Officers reports: AH Affordable Housing AIP Approval in Principle BCIS Building Cost Information Service CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan CIL Community Infrastructure Levy DCC Devon County Council DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government: the former name of the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government DfE Department for Education DfT Department for Transport dph Dwellings per hectare ECC Exeter City Council EIA Environment Impact Assessment EPS European Protected Species ESFA Education and Skills Funding Agency ha Hectares HMPE Highway Maintainable at Public Expense ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection MHCLG Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government NPPF National Planning Policy Framework QBAR The mean annual flood: the value of the average annual flood event recorded in a river SAM Scheduled Ancient Monument SANGS Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space SEDEMS South East Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy SPA Special Protection Area SPD Supplementary Planning Document SPR Standard Percentage Runoff TA Transport Assessment TEMPro Trip End Model Presentation Program TPO Tree Preservation Order TRO Traffic Regulation Order UE Urban Extension

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 2

PLANNING COMMITTEE (HELD AS A VIRTUAL MEETING)

Monday 12 October 2020

Present:-

Councillors Williams, Bialyk, Branston, Foale, Ghusain, Hannaford, Harvey, Mrs Henson, Mitchell, M, Morse, Sparkes, Sutton and Wright

Also Present

Director City Development, Housing & Supporting People, Principal Project Manager (Development) (MH), Principal Project Manager (DC), Democratic Services Officer (HB) and Democratic Services Officer (MD)

73 CHAIR

Councillor Ruth Williams, the Deputy Chair, chaired the meeting.

74 MINUTES

The minutes of the meetings held on 7 and 17 September 2020 were taken as read and approved as correct, for signing by the Chair at the earliest possible convenience.

75 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

No declarations of interest were made by Members.

76 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 20/0321/FUL - LAND AT BROOM PARK NURSERIES AND FIVE ACRES, EXETER ROAD, TOPSHAM

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MH) presented the application for the demolition of existing buildings and proposed residential development of 64 no. residential units, including affordable housing, plus open space, landscaping, car parking, cycle spaces, drainage, vehicular access, internal roads, provision of link road and all associated infrastructure and development.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) referred to the key issues of affordable housing, scale, design and impact on character and appearance, sustainable construction, economic benefits, flood risk, impact on local highways and parking, heritage assets, trees and biodiversity and CIL and Section 106 contributions. He highlighted:-

 the development was CIL liable and a Section 106 Agreement would be required to secure the affordable housing provision, open space including provision of equipped play area details, access and maintenance and a financial contribution towards enhanced GP facilities;  the Education Authority had highlighted the additional demand for early years, primary and secondary places arising from the development;  absence of a five year land supply;  paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) setting out

Page 5

that permission should be granted for sustainable development unless specific policies in the NPPF indicate otherwise;  proposal not considered to be of any significant harm to neighbouring residential amenity;  highway related Section 106 contributions as set out in the formal consultation response; and  the development was considered acceptable in terms of its design/amenity and transportation impacts, and sustainable in terms of its location.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) reported the receipt of two further letters of objection. One was from the Golf Club referring to the changing circumstances along the boundary in respect of an existing dwelling and bed and breakfast facility and stating that the reference to the siting of the golf driving range was not of relevance in relation to golf balls leaving. The other was the letter from the Topsham Society already circulated to Committee Members and which the Principal project Manager summarised.

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 notwithstanding the reference in correspondence from the Topsham Society to provide 100% affordable housing, if development was to be supported, Council policy was for 35% provision where possible;  the two parcels of open space provision fronting Exeter Road would have appropriate boundary treatment to provide a greater impression of greenage along the frontage, complimenting that of the neighbouring development;  20 out of the 61 homes would be affordable and slightly under the policy complaint level in order to achieve the open space referred to above;  staggered barriers would be provided within the cycleway/footway;  two affordable flat units would be wheelchair accessible, that is 5%, although wheelchair accessible provision was not normally a requirement for non- affordable homes;  further detail on the number of electric charging points would be obtained; and  open market provision was predominantly three and four bed properties.

Councillor Leadbetter, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on the item. He raised the following points:-

 speaking on behalf of the Topsham Society which has a remit to preserve the character of the town and improve its quality and that of the environment. The City Council consults the Society on developments in the town;  the site is located in the Topsham Gap which is protected by Policy LS1 which seeks to protect the setting of the town and to prevent the coalescence of Topsham with Exeter;  Exeter City Council Policy has always been to protect the Gap between Exeter and Topsham and Topsham has taken its fair share of housing;  the Society had objected to other housing developments which has further impinged on the Gap and an Inspector, in allowing an appeal for one development, stated that that particular development should not set a precedent for the erosion of the Gap. This development ignores that statement and effectively eradicates the Gap;  the access road leads through to the north of the site, even though there is no planning permission for the land to the north;  the proposal is of poor design with a mechanical layout and lacking in creativity;  Exeter Road has been characterised by a green corridor linking Countess Wear with Topsham and its loss is a further blight on the area;  Topsham suffers from a chronic shortage of affordable housing. If more

Page 6

housing occurs in the Gap there should be a strong emphasis on affordable housing; and  it is likely that the 61 individual objections may also have been included in the 300 representations from Topsham Society

Will Gannon spoke against the application. He raised the following points:-

 the Planning Committee has, in the past, supported the Club as a valued sporting facility in the City and, in respect of the Seabrook Orchards development, which is adjacent to the 11th and 12th holes, imposed a condition on the consent which puts the onus on the developer to mitigate the effects of the housing development on the golf course;  the Club requests that this same condition be applied and have offered the developer the opportunity to erect the safety netting recommended by the Club’s architect on its land at Topsham, to avoid the developer losing any dwellings;  the Topsham Golf Academy has operated for two years and, during that time, there has been close contact with neighbours, including the residents in the bungalows on the Broom Park Nurseries site with safety netting provided in two phases;  this application will totally change the use of a largely non-residential site, containing a single bungalow, to a residential development for 61 dwellings which will have a huge effect on the safety implications for the Academy; and  a deferral is suggested to encourage the applicant to engage in respect of the safety mitigation measures, or attach the condition previously imposed. An alternative would be to add a further clause to the Section 106 Agreement to provide safety mitigation measures on land owned by the Club

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 oppose the design of the development and the fact that it does not take into account health and safety issues regarding the relationship between the housing and the golf club and the need for appropriate safety measures. Do not object to the development in principle; and  Heritage Homes have undertaken to incorporate safety netting on the golf club land but there has been no confirmation of this.

David Lovell spoke in support of the application. He raised the following points:-

 Heritage Homes are a local house-building company with a track record for delivering high quality and energy efficient sustainable homes providing employment in Exeter for in excess of 200 local tradesmen and women;  aware of the sensitivities of this site to a limited number of people living in Topsham;  the development completed by Heritage Homes opposite at The Chase provides highly sustainable Zero Carbon homes and won the UK National Development of the Year Award from the Local Authority Building Control. This application will also be built to high energy efficiency and sustainability standards, but with added sustainability credentials such as a stand for 10 Electric Co-Bikes at the entrance plus parking for two electric Co-Cars, the first part of a proposed strategic cycleway to connect Exeter Road with Newcourt Road and beyond to the Clyst Road development area, as well as cabling in each home for an electric car and battery storage fed from solar panels;

 there has been careful discussions with officers to improve the proposals and provide extra open space at the front of the site to link up with open space in

Page 7

adjoining developments;  in order that other land to the north and along Newcourt Road does not become landlocked and can be brought forward in the future to provide more homes which would assist with the five year land supply, a section of land within this proposal has also been reserved for a future sustainable connection to Newcourt Road including a 3.5 metre. wide cycleway; and  the proposal offers a substantial number of Affordable Social Rented Homes as well as Shared Equity Homes and a large cash contribution towards the provision of additional primary school places and local GP Services.

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 speaking as the property developer and applicant;  majority of affordable homes are for social rent provided to housing associations who rent out to individuals on the Council’s housing list with a limited number of shared equity homes enabling young first time buyers to get on the housing ladder and can buy at 80% of the market price;  the escape of anything from one land to another is the responsibility of the landowner from where the particular item originates; and  the phasing plan shows the proposed netting on the golf club land on the boundary with Phase 4, the last part to be developed on this site and which is adjacent to the driving range. Golf balls are already escaping onto the land of residents and will not be a new problem created by this development. The line of fence has been agreed with the club when the development reaches Phase 4 but was not necessary for the first three phases. Heritage Homes are prepared to erect the nets with the matter of payment subject to further discussion.

Members expressed the following views:-

 note concerns of the Topsham Society but acknowledge that it is difficult to oppose on grounds of the Topsham Gap issue following a number of appeal decisions and to make the same arguments;  the education provision should be timetabled to dovetail with the housing development as it proceeds;  welcome provision of local facilities including the contribution to a GP surgery; and  there is a health and safety requirement to ensure that the necessary fencing is provided to the requisite standard as has been discussed by the applicant and the golf club in order to prevent damage to neighbouring houses and occupants with such a conclusion to be reached in consultation with the planning officers, subject to prior consultation with the Chair.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) stated that:-

 contributions towards local facilities included the GP’s but not a dentist or a veterinary surgery;  the application differed from the previous RNSD and Seabrook developments in the area, the land use for which were naval stores depot and agricultural land respectively, whereas Broom Park related to land already in residential occupation because of its occupation by a residential development and a bed and breakfast facility;

 the planning authority was prepared to discuss further with the applicant the issue of safety netting and that an additional condition in this respect would need to meet the relevant tests for the imposition of conditions on planning

Page 8

permissions.

The recommendation was for approval, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and the conditions as set out in the report.

Councillor Bialyk moved and Councillor Sparkes seconded an amendment to add a further condition to secure, on health and safety grounds, the provision of suitable netting on golf driving range land on the boundary of the housing development which was voted on and carried.

The recommendation, as amended, was moved and seconded and carried.

RESOLVED that:-

(1) subject to:-

(a) the completion of a Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure:-

 affordable housing;  open space provision including equipped children’s play area, maintenance and public access in perpetuity;  education contributions – Early Years £14,500, Primary £281,546 and Secondary £206,407;  contribution of £26,838 towards enhanced GP facilities/provision in the locality;  £500 per dwelling towards sustainable travel measures (Travel Planning);  up to £10,000 Traffic Regulation Order contributions relating to the proposed raised tables, car club and electric cycle parking spaces; and  all Section 106 contributions should be index linked from the date of resolution; and

(b) an additional condition to secure, on health and safety grounds, the provision of suitable netting on the golf driving range land on the boundary of the housing development, the Assistant Service Lead City Development being authorised to negotiate with both the applicant and the Golf Club to secure such provision, subject to prior consultation with the Chair of the Committee.

the Assistant Service Lead City Development be authorised to APPROVE planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and proposed residential development of 64 no. residential units, including affordable housing, plus open space, landscaping, car parking, cycle spaces, drainage, vehicular access, internal roads, provision of link road and all associated infrastructure and development, subject also to the following conditions:

1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

Reason: To ensure compliance with sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2) The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than

Page 9

in strict accordance with the submitted details received by the Local Planning Authority on 4th March, 27th, 28th and 29th July, and 15th September 2020 (including dwg. nos. 1415/P100 Rev G, BRM-010- Landscape Rev 5.2, BRM-010-Phasing Rev 5.2, 1415/P103 Rev C, 1415/P104 Rev D, 1415/P105 Rev D, 1415/P120 Rev C, 1415/P121 Rev C, SK008, 1415/Dn-3 Rev C, 1415/Dn-4 Rev C, 1415/T-1 Rev A, 1415/Ap-1 Rev C, 1415/Bm-1 Rev B, 1415/Ap-2 Rev C, 1415/But-3 Rev A, 1415/T-2 Rev A, 1415/But-4 Rev A, 1415/Bm-2 Rev B, 1415/Gr-1 Rev C, 1415/Gr-2 Rev B, 1415/Fl-1 Rev A, 1415/Gr-3 Rev B, 1415/Fl-2 Rev A, 1415/Hr-1 Rev A, 1415/Hc-2 Rev B, 1415/Hr-2 Rev A, 1415/Hc-1 Rev B, 1415/Kn-1 Rev C, 1415/Slt-1 Rev A, 1415/Pt-1 Rev C, 1415/Pt-2 Rev C, 1415/Slt-2 Rev A, 1415/Kn-2 Rev C, 1415/T5, and 1415/T6) as modified by other conditions of this consent. Reason: In order to ensure compliance with the approved drawings.

3) Pre commencement condition: No development shall take place on site until a full investigation of the site has taken place to determine the extent of, and risk posed by, any contamination of the land and the results, together with any remedial works necessary, have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The buildings shall not be occupied until the approved remedial works have been implemented and a remediation statement submitted to the Local Planning Authority detailing what contamination has been found and how it has been dealt with together with confirmation that no unacceptable risks remain. Reason for pre-commencement condition: In the interests of the amenity of the occupants of the buildings hereby approved. This information is required before development commences to ensure that any remedial works are properly considered and addressed at the appropriate stage.

4) Pre-commencement condition: - No development hereby permitted shall commence until the following information has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: (a) A detailed drainage design based upon the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (Ref.19030; Rev. A; dated 23rd July 2020). (b) Detailed proposals for the management of surface water and silt runoff from the site during construction of the development hereby permitted. (c) Proposals for the adoption and maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage system. (d) A plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed at the site. (e) A detailed assessment of the condition and capacity of any existing surface water drainage system/watercourse/culvert that will be affected by the proposals. The assessment should identify and commit to, any repair and/or improvement works to secure the proper function of the surface water drainage receptor. (f) Evidence there is agreement in principle from SWW/ landowner/DCC Highways to connect into their system (g) An assessment of the potential impacts of groundwater on the surface water drainage system, such as 'floatation'. The assessment should also include the construction of the features. No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until the works have been approved and implemented in accordance with the details under (a) - (g) above. Reason for pre-commencement condition: The above conditions are required to ensure the proposed surface water drainage system will operate effectively and will not cause an increase in flood risk either on the site,

Page 10

adjacent land or downstream in line with SuDS for Devon Guidance (2017) and national policies, including NPPF and PPG. The conditions should be pre-commencement since it is essential that the proposed surface water drainage system is shown to be feasible before works begin to avoid redesign / unnecessary delays during construction when site layout is fixed.

5) Pre-commencement condition: A Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development on site and adhered to during the construction period. This should include details of monitoring and mitigation measures to control the environmental impact of the development during the construction and demolition phases, including site traffic and traffic routing, the effects of piling and emissions of noise and dust. The CEMPs should contain a procedure for handling and investigating complaints as well as provision for regular meetings with appropriate representatives from the Local Authorities during the development works, in order to discuss forthcoming work and its environmental impact. Reason for pre-commencement condition: In the interest of the environment of the site and surrounding areas. This information is required before development commences to ensure that the impacts of the development works are properly considered and addressed at the earliest possible stage.

6) Pre-commencement condition: Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a Waste Audit Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This statement shall include all information outlined in the waste audit template provided in Devon County Council's Waste Management and Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved statement. Reason for pre-commencement condition: To minimise the amount of waste produced and promote sustainable methods of waste management in accordance with Policy W4 of the Devon Waste Plan and the Waste Management and Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document. These details are required pre-commencement as specified to ensure that building operations are carried out in a sustainable manner.

7) Pre-commencement condition: No materials shall be brought onto the site or any development commenced, until the developer has erected tree protective fencing around all trees or shrubs to be retained, in accordance with a plan that shall previously have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This plan shall be produced in accordance with BS 5837:2012 - Trees in Relation to Design, demolition and construction. The developer shall maintain such fences to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority until all development the subject of this permission is completed. The level of the land within the fenced areas shall not be altered without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. No materials shall be stored within the fenced area, nor shall trenches for service runs or any other excavations take place within the fenced area except by written permission of the Local Planning Authority. Where such permission is granted, soil shall be removed manually, without powered equipment. Reason for pre-commencement condition - To ensure the protection of the trees during the carrying out of the development. This information is required before development commences to protect trees during all stages of the construction process.

Page 11

8) Pre-commencement condition: Before commencement of construction of the development hereby permitted, the applicant shall submit a SAP calculation which demonstrates that a 19% reduction in CO2 emissions over that necessary to meet the requirements of the 2013 Building Regulations can be achieved. The measures necessary to achieve this CO2 saving shall thereafter be implemented on site and within 3 months of practical completion of any dwelling the developer will submit a report to the LPA from a suitably qualified consultant to demonstrate compliance with this condition. Reason for Pre-commencement condition: In the interests of sustainable development and to ensure that the development accords with Core Strategy Policy CP15.

9) Pre-commencement condition: Prior to the commencement of development a Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (BMEP) which demonstrates how the proposed development will be managed in perpetuity to enhance wildlife, together with a programme of implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The BMEP will be expected to include the provision of integral bat/bird bricks within the dwellings equivalent to a ratio of one/dwelling in line with the advice contained with the Council's adopted Residential Design SPD. The development shall thereafter be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved Plan and programme of implementation. Reason for pre-commencement condition - In the interests of protecting and improving existing, and creating new wildlife habitats in the area.

10) Pre commencement condition: No development related works shall take place within the site until a written scheme of archaeological work has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include on-site work, and off site work such as the analysis, publication, and archiving of the results, together with a timetable for completion of each element. All works shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the approved scheme, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason for pre commencement condition: To ensure the appropriate identification, recording and publication of archaeological and historic remains affected by the development. This information is required before development commences to ensure that historic remains are not damaged during the construction process.

11) Pre-commencement condition: - Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a construction programme detailing the order in which the phases identified on drawing no. BRM-010-Phasing Rev 5.2 will be constructed shall be submitted to, and be approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed construction programme. Reason for Pre-commencement condition:- To unsure that the implementation of the development, and hence relevant triggers referred to in the conditions attached to this consent and clearly understood and agreed.

12) Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby approved the relevant mitigation requirements outlined in Acoustic Associates SW Ltd's Environmental Noise Impact Assessment (project ref: 7363, date: 24/07/2020) shall be met and implemented in full, and be maintained

Page 12

thereafter at all times unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To ensure that an acceptable residential environment is created for future occupants of the properties.

13) Prior to commencement of construction of any part of the link road beyond plot 61 up to the northern boundary, as hatched in yellow on drawing no. BRM-010-Landscape Rev 5.2, details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority of its geometry and construction, together with details (including a timeframe for delivery) of a pedestrian/cycle connection from this road up to the boundary of the applicant's land ownership with the adjoining land to the east of the application site at a point to be agreed in writing as part of those details. Construction of this link road shall not be commenced until such details have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority, and thereafter this section of road, and the pedestrian/cycle connection, shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To provide a safe and suitable access in accordance with paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

14) Prior to the first occupation of any individual dwelling identified on drawing no. 1415/P104 Rev D as being provided with cycle storage provision within the rear garden of that property, the said cycle storage provision shall be provided and made available for use in accordance with details that shall previously have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To ensure that adequate provision for the storage of cycles is provided to serve these dwellings.

15) A 3m footway/cycleway link (together with staggered barriers) adjacent to Plot 54 to Exeter Road shall be delivered as part of Phase 1 or such other trigger point as shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority as indicated on Drawing Number BRM-010-LANDSCAPE Rev 5.2 Reason: To provide a safe and suitable access in accordance with phs 108 and 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework and ECC Core Strategy CP9.

16) A footway link to the east of plot 42 shall be delivered up to the boundary of the applicant's land ownership as part of Phase 4 or such other trigger point as shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority as indicated on Drawing Number BRM-010 LANDSCAPE Rev 5.2 Reason: To provide a safe and suitable access in accordance with paragraphs 108 and 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework and ECC Core Strategy CP9.

17) Prior to the first occupation of the 15th dwelling comprising part of the development hereby approved a 2m wide footway adjacent to Exeter Road, associated crossing point and relocated bus shelter as indicated on Drawing number BRM-010-LANDSCAPE Rev 5.2 shall be provided in accordance with details that shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To provide a safe and suitable access in accordance with paragraphs 108 and 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework and ECC Core Strategy CP9.

Page 13

18) Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby approved within Phase 2 or 3 as identified on drawing no. BRM-010-Phasing Rev 5.2 the space for a 10 bike Co bike docking station and Parking bay for a Car Club vehicle within the respective phase (together with electricity supply to each element) shall be provided and made available for use as indicated on Drawing number BRM-010-LANDSCAPE Rev 5.2 in accordance with details that shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To provide adequate facilities for sustainable transport and ECC Core Strategy CP9.

19) Prior to the first occupation of the 15th dwelling comprising part of the development hereby approved, the three raised tables on Exeter Road (together with crossing points) as indicated on Drawing Number 205368-A- 02 Rev C shall be provided in accordance with details that shall previously have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To provide a safe and suitable access in accordance with paragraphs 108 and 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework and ECC Core Strategy CP9.

20) A detailed scheme for landscaping, including the planting of trees and or shrubs, the use of surface materials and boundary screen walls and fences shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and no dwelling or building shall be occupied until the Local Planning Authority have approved a scheme; such scheme shall specify materials, species, tree and plant sizes, numbers and planting densities, and any earthworks required together with the timing of the implementation of the scheme. The landscaping shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme in accordance with the agreed programme. Reason: To safeguard the rights of control by the Local Planning Authority in these respects and in the interests of amenity.

21) In the event of failure of any trees or shrubs, planted in accordance with any scheme approved by the Local Planning Authority, to become established and to prosper for a period of five years from the date of the completion of implementation of that scheme, such trees or shrubs shall be replaced with such live specimens of such species of such size and in such number as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the rights of control by the Local Planning Authority in these respects and in the interests of amenity.

22) Samples of the materials it is intended to use externally in the construction of the development shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. No external finishing material shall be used until the Local Planning Authority has confirmed in writing that its use is acceptable. Thereafter the materials used in the construction of the development shall correspond with the approved samples in all respects. Reason: To ensure that the materials conform with the visual amenity requirements of the area.

23) Any trees, shrubs and/or hedges on or around the site shall not be felled, lopped or removed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the rights of control by the Local Planning Authority in these respects and in the interests of amenity.

Page 14

24) No site machinery or plant shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no demolition or construction related deliveries received or dispatched from the site except between the hours of 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday, 8am to 1pm Saturday and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenity of the locality, especially for people living and/or working nearby.

Informatives

1) In accordance with Chapters 1 and 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, this development has been screened in respect of the need for an Appropriate Assessment (AA). Given the nature of the development, it has been concluded that an AA is required in relation to potential impact on the relevant Special Protection Areas (SPA), the Exe Estuary and East Devon Pebblebed Heaths, which are designated European sites. This AA has been carried out and concludes that the development is such that it could have an impact primarily associated with recreational activity of future occupants of the development. This impact will be mitigated in line with the South East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy prepared by Footprint Ecology on behalf of East Devon and Teignbridge District Councils and Exeter City Council (with particular reference to Table 26), which is being funded through a proportion of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) collected in respect of the development being allocated to fund the mitigation strategy. Or, if the development is not liable to pay CIL, to pay the appropriate habitats mitigation contribution through another mechanism (this is likely to be either an undertaking in accordance with s111 of the Local Government Act 1972 or a Unilateral Undertaking).

2) In accordance with Paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive and pro-active way with the Applicant and has negotiated amendments to the application to enable the grant of planning permission.

3) The Local Planning Authority considers that this development will be CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) liable. Payment will become due following commencement of development. Accordingly your attention is drawn to the need to complete and submit an 'Assumption of Liability' notice to the Local Planning Authority as soon as possible. A copy is available on the Exeter City Council website. It is also drawn to your attention that where a chargeable development is commenced before the Local Authority has received a valid commencement notice (i.e. where pre-commencement conditions have not been discharged) the Local Authority may impose a surcharge, and the ability to claim any form of relief from the payment of the Levy will be foregone. You must apply for any relief and receive confirmation from the Council before commencing development. For further information please see www.exeter.gov.uk/cil.

4) A legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relates to this planning permission.

(2) the Assistant Service Lead City Development be authorised to REFUSE planning permission if the legal agreement under Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990(as amended) is not completed by 12 April 2021 or such extended time as agreed by the

Page 15

Service Lead City Development

 Affordable housing  Open space provision – play equipment, maintenance arrangements and public access in perpetuity  Education contributions  GP facilities contribution  Sustainable Travel Planning contribution  Traffic Regulation Order contributions

the proposal is contrary to Exeter Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2012 Objectives 3, 5, 6 and 10, policies CP7, CP9, CP10, and CP18, Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011 saved policies AP1, T1, T3 and DG5, and Exeter City Council Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2014.

77 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 19/1465/OUT - LAND ADJOINING EXETER ROAD, TOPSHAM, EXETER

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MH) presented the application for Outline planning application for the construction of up to 24 dwellings (Use Class C3) - Means of access to be determined only (All other matters reserved).

The Principal Project Manager (Development) referred to the key issues of design, layout and amenity standards, affordable housing, sustainable drainage and ecology construction, heritage, economic benefits, CIL/Section 106 contributions, transportation matters, access and impact on local highways. He highlighted the following:-

 absence of a five year land supply;  Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out that permission should be granted for sustainable development unless specific policies in the NPPF indicate otherwise;  the location is considered to be sustainable and the proposal is acceptable in its design and general visual impact;  the proposal is not considered to be of any significant harm to neighbouring residential amenity;  there are no material considerations which it is considered would warrant refusal of this application; and  the letter from the Topsham Society in respect of the Broom Park application (Min. No. 75 above refers) also referenced this Topsham Road application.

Will Gannon in his presentation to the Broom Park application (Min. No. 75 above) had stated that there was no reference in the report to the Club’s objection and to its request for a condition putting the onus on the developer to mitigate the effects of the housing development on the golf course. The Principal Project Manager (Development) advised that the comments from the Golf Club were listed in the representations received relating to the proximity to the golf driving range and potential implications to residents.

Page 16

The Principal Project Manager (Development) responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 notwithstanding an earlier suggested that the developer might not contribute to both education requirements and its affordable housing offer, the Section 106 Agreement would cover policy requirement provision of affordable housing of 35% and the required 70/30 split between social rent and other forms of intermediate social housing as well as the education contribution;  the recommendations therefore included the option to refuse permission if affordable housing and education was not provided; and  wheelchair provision would be secured within the standard conditions of the Section 106 Agreement.

Members expressed the following views:-

 educational requirements should not be at the expense of affordable housing which is the requirement of this Council; and  difficult to oppose on grounds of the Topsham Gap issue following a number of appeal decisions and to make the same arguments. The application offers affordable housing, education provision and a contribution to a GP surgery and is an acceptable proposal.

The recommendation was for approval, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and the conditions as set out in the report.

The recommendation was moved and seconded and carried.

RESOLVED that:-

 subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure:-

 affordable housing;  open space provision, maintenance and public access in perpetuity;  education contributions of Early Years £6,000, Primary £96,114 and Secondary £87,339; and  all Section 106 contributions to be index linked from the date of resolution.

the Assistant Service Lead City Development be authorised to APPROVE outline planning application for the construction of up to 24 dwellings (Use Class C3) - Means of access to be determined only (All other matters reserved), subject also to the following conditions:-.

1) Application for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission and the development hereby permitted must be begun not later than two years from the final approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. Reason: To comply with Section 92 rule 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

2) Pre-commencement condition: Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called the reserved matters) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as

Page 17

approved. Reason for pre-commencement condition: To safeguard the rights of the local planning authority in respect of the reserved matters. This information is required before development commences to ensure that the development is properly planned with appropriate regard to the reserved matters.

3) In respect of those matters not reserved for later approval the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the proposed access scheme shown on drawing no. 19.489/002 Rev F. No part of the development shall be occupied until the proposed raised table access crossing points on the shared use path between Newcourt Road and Exeter Road shown therein have been provided in accordance with further details that shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the means of access to the site are acceptable.

4) Pre-commencement condition: No materials shall be brought onto the site or any development commenced, until the developer has erected tree protective fencing around all trees or shrubs to be retained, in accordance with a plan that shall previously have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This plan shall be produced in accordance with BS 5837:2012 - Trees in Relation to Design, demolition and construction. The developer shall maintain such fences to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority until all development the subject of this permission is completed. The level of the land within the fenced areas shall not be altered without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. No materials shall be stored within the fenced area, nor shall trenches for service runs or any other excavations take place within the fenced area except by written permission of the Local Planning Authority. Where such permission is granted, soil shall be removed manually, without powered equipment. Reason for pre-commencement condition - To ensure the protection of the trees during the carrying out of the development. This information is required before development commences to protect trees during all stages of the construction process.

5) Pre-commencement condition: A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development on site and adhered to during the construction period. This should include details of monitoring and mitigation measures to control the environmental impact of the development during the construction and demolition phases, including site traffic and traffic routing, the effects of piling, and emissions of noise and dust. The CEMPs should contain a procedure for handling and investigating complaints as well as provision for regular meetings with appropriate representatives from the Local Authorities during the development works, in order to discuss forthcoming work and its environmental impact. No construction/demolition work shall take place outside the following times: 8am to 6pm (Mondays to Fridays) 8am to 1 pm (Saturdays) nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. Reason for pre-commencement condition: In the interest of the environment of the site and surrounding areas. This information is required before development commences to ensure that the impacts of the development works are properly considered and addressed at the earliest possible stage.

6) Pre-commencement condition: Prior to the commencement of

Page 18

development a Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (BMEP) which demonstrates how the proposed development will be managed in perpetuity to enhance wildlife, together with a programme of implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The BEMP will be expected to incorporate the measures set out in Section 4 of the submitted Ecological Impact Assessment dated October 2019 prepared by EAD Ecology. The development shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved Plan and programme of implementation. Reason for Pre-commencement condition: In the interests of protecting and improving existing, and creating new wildlife habitats in the area.

7) Pre commencement condition: No development shall take place on site until a full investigation of the site has taken place to determine the extent of, and risk posed by, any contamination of the land and the results, together with any remedial works necessary, have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The buildings shall not be occupied until the approved remedial works have been implemented and a remediation statement submitted to the Local Planning Authority detailing what contamination has been found and how it has been dealt with together with confirmation that no unacceptable risks remain. Reason for pre-commencement condition: In the interests of the amenity of the occupants of the buildings hereby approved. This information is required before development commences to ensure that any remedial works are properly considered and addressed at the appropriate stage.

8) Pre-commencement condition: Prior to commencement of the development the applicant shall submit for approval in writing by the LPA an Acoustic Design Statement. Any mitigation measures required shall be implemented in full prior to occupation of the development, and maintained thereafter. Reason for Pre-commencement condition: In the interests of the residential amenities of the potential occupants of the properties.

9) Pre-commencement condition - Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme for the mitigation/reduction of emissions to air from vehicular traffic generated by the proposed housing, based on an assessment of the quantum of those emissions, shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed mitigation measures and timescale. Reason for Pre-commencement condition: To ensure that the impact of vehicle emissions associated with the development is reduced is the interests of air quality.

Page 19

during the construction process.

11) Pre-commencement condition: The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) calculation which demonstrates that a 19% reduction in CO2 emissions over that necessary to meet the requirements of the 2013 Building Regulations can be achieved has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The measures necessary to achieve this CO2 saving shall thereafter be implemented on site and within 3 months of completion of any dwelling a report from a suitably qualified consultant to demonstrate compliance with this condition will be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason for Pre-commencement condition: In the interests of sustainable development and to ensure that the development accords with Core Strategy Policy CP15.

12) Pre-commencement condition: Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a Waste Audit Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This statement shall include all information outlined in the waste audit template provided in Devon County Council's Waste Management and Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved statement. Reason for Pre-commencement condition: To minimise the amount of waste produced and promote sustainable methods of waste management in accordance with Policy W4 of the Devon Waste Plan and the Waste Management and Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document. These details are required pre-commencement as specified to ensure that building operations are carried out in a sustainable manner.

13) Pre-commencement condition: Prior to or as part of the Reserved Matters, the following information shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: (a) Soakaway test results in the area proposed for permeable paving in accordance with BRE 365 and groundwater monitoring results in line with our DCC groundwater monitoring policy. (b) A detailed drainage design based upon the approved Surface Water Drainage Strategy Drawing Number 19.489/050 Rev C and the results of the information submitted in relation to (a) above (c) Detailed proposals for the management of surface water and silt run-off from the site during construction of the development hereby permitted. (d) Proposals for the adoption and maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage system. (e) A plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed at the site. (f) Evidence there is agreement in principle from the South West Water. No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until the works have been approved and implemented in accordance with the details under (a) - (f) above. Reason for pre-commencement condition: The above conditions are required to ensure the proposed surface water drainage system will operate effectively and will not cause an increase in flood risk either on the site, adjacent land or downstream in line with SuDS for Devon Guidance (2017) and national policies, including NPPF and PPG. The condition should be pre-commencement since it is essential that the proposed surface water drainage system is shown to be feasible before works begin to avoid redesign/unnecessary delays during construction when site layout is fixed.

Page 20

14) Any reserved matters application submitted pursuant to the outline consent hereby approved shall incorporate within the layout a pedestrian/cycle path to the boundary of the adjoining land to both the west and east of the application site at points to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority as part of the consideration of the reserved matters application. The said pedestrian/cycle connection points shall thereafter be constructed up to the boundary of the applicant's land ownership prior to the first occupation of any dwelling contained within the development in respect of the connection to the east, and prior to the 5th occupation in respect of the connection to the west, or such other trigger point as shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the opportunity to provide a pedestrian and cycle connection between the site and adjoining land is secured in the interests of permeability and facilitation of the use of sustainable modes of transport in accordance with policy CP9 of the Council's Adopted Core Strategy.

15) Any trees, shrubs and/or hedges on or around the site shall not be felled, lopped or removed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the rights of control by the Local Planning Authority in these respects and in the interests of amenity.

16) In the event of failure of any trees or shrubs, planted in accordance with any scheme approved by the Local Planning Authority, to become established and to prosper for a period of five years from the date of the completion of implementation of that scheme, such trees or shrubs shall be replaced with such live specimens of such species of such size and in such number as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the rights of control by the Local Planning Authority in these respects and in the interests of amenity.

17) Samples of the materials it is intended to use externally in the construction of the development shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. No external finishing material shall be used until the Local Planning Authority has confirmed in writing that its use is acceptable. Thereafter the materials used in the construction of the development shall correspond with the approved samples in all respects. Reason: To ensure that the materials conform with the visual amenity requirements of the area.

18) The dwellings hereby approved shall be designed and built to meet M4 2 of the Building Regulations Access to and Use of Building Approved Document M, 2015 edition. Reason: To increase choice, independence and longevity of tenure in accordance with Policy CP5 point three of the Exeter Core Strategy.

19) Prior to the first occupation or use of the development hereby permitted, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The content of the LEMP shall be prepared in accordance with the specifications in clause 11.1 of BS 42020:2013 (or any superseding British Standard) and shall include the following: a) Description and evaluation of features to be managed. b) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management. c) Aims and objectives of management.

Page 21

d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives. e) Prescriptions for management actions. f) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a five year period). g) Details of the body or organisation responsible for implementation of the plan. h) On-going monitoring and remedial measures for biodiversity features included in the LEMP. The LEMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(s) responsible for its delivery. All post-construction site management shall be undertaken in accordance with the LEMP. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and good design in accordance with Policy CP16 of the Core Strategy, Policies LS4 and DG1 of the Local Plan First Review and paragraphs 58, 109 and 118 of the NPPF.

20) No part of the development shall be occupied until a travel plan (including recommendations/arrangements for monitoring and review) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the recommendations of the travel plan shall be implemented, monitored and reviewed in accordance with the approved document, or any amended document subsequently approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority Reason: To ensure that the development promotes all travel modes to reduce reliance on the private car, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the NPPF.

Informatives

1) A legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relates to this planning permission.

2) The Local Planning Authority considers that this development will be CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) liable. Payment will become due following commencement of development. Accordingly your attention is drawn to the need to complete and submit an 'Assumption of Liability' notice to the Local Planning Authority as soon as possible. A copy is available on the Exeter City Council website. It is also drawn to your attention that where a chargeable development is commenced before the Local Authority has received a valid commencement notice (i.e. where pre-commencement conditions have not been discharged) the Local Authority may impose a surcharge, and the ability to claim any form of relief from the payment of the Levy will be foregone. You must apply for any relief and receive confirmation from the Council before commencing development. For further information please see www.exeter.gov.uk/cil.

3) In accordance with Paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive and pro-active way with the Applicant and has negotiated amendments to the application to enable the grant of planning permission.

4) In accordance with Chapters 1 and 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, this development has been screened in respect of the need for an Appropriate Assessment (AA). Given the nature of the development, it has been concluded that an AA is required in relation to

Page 22

potential impact on the relevant Special Protection Areas (SPA), the Exe Estuary and East Devon Pebblebed Heaths, which are designated European sites. This AA has been carried out and concludes that the development is such that it could have an impact primarily associated with recreational activity of future occupants of the development. This impact will be mitigated in line with the South East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy prepared by Footprint Ecology on behalf of East Devon and Teignbridge District Councils and Exeter City Council (with particular reference to Table 26), which is being funded through a proportion of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) collected in respect of the development being allocated to fund the mitigation strategy. Or, if the development is not liable to pay CIL, to pay the appropriate habitats mitigation contribution through another mechanism (this is likely to be either an undertaking in accordance with s111 of the Local Government Act 1972 or a Unilateral Undertaking).

5) The Professional Practice Guidance Note (ProPG): Planning and Noise for New Residential Development May 2017 (ANC, IoA and CIEH) describes the expected content and approach of an Acoustic Design Statement.

6) Your attention is drawn to the consultation response of South West Water in terms of protection of their assets and the presence of a public sewer within the site.

7) Drawing no. 9408-PL03C dated 14.10.2019 entitled 'Indicative Site Layout' is not hereby approved and has been treated as a feasibility plan only and therefore it should not be assumed that the layout depicted on this drawing would be considered acceptable at reserved matters stage without further negotiation.

 the Assistant Service Lead City Development be authorised to REFUSE planning permission if the legal agreement under Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990(as amended) is not completed by 12 April 2021 or such extended time as agreed by the Service Lead City Development

 Affordable Housing  Open space provision, maintenance and public access in perpetuity  Education contributions The proposal is contrary to Exeter Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2012 Objectives 3, 6 and 10, policies CP7, CP10, and CP18, Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011 saved policies AP1, and DG5, and Exeter City Council Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2014.

78 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 18/1625/FUL - LAND TO THE NORTH OF ARRAN GARDENS, HOLLOW LANE AND HIGHER FURLONG, MONKERTON, EXETER

Page 23

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (DC) presented the application for the construction of 44 dwellings; car parking including garages; landscaping; internal access roads and associated infrastructure and engineering works.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) set out a detailed description of the site area, the development plan status of the site and surrounding land and planning context of the site in relation to surrounding sites. The Principal Project Manager (Development) set out the proposal and referred to the key issues of affordable housing, scale, design and open space, impact on character and appearance, sustainable construction, economic benefits, Section 106 heads of terms, contribution towards education, flood risk and impact on local highways and parking, heritage assets and trees and biodiversity and highlighted:-

 the site is allocated for residential development in the Core Strategy;  the application site is in a sustainable location for residential development;  a positive contribution to the Council’s five year housing land supply with a provision of 35% affordable housing (15 on-site affordable dwellings);  good permeability for pedestrians and cyclists, with a link through the site to Hollow Lane, enhancing walking and cycling opportunities and reducing potential conflict with vehicular traffic;  £65,000 contribution for off-site access/recreation improvements;  contribution to enhance GP facilities in the locality  a passing place proposed on Hollow Lane beneficial for a Strategic Cycle Route;  the proposal is acceptable in its layout, design and general visual impact; and  the proposal will provide a good level of amenity for future occupiers and will not result in any significant harm to neighbouring residential amenity.

The Principal Project Manager advised that Devon County Council had withdrawn their request for contributions towards primary education and Early Years provision because of the opening of Monkerton Primary School. She referred to an additional letter of representation expressing concern about the proposed size of a passing place on Hollow Lane and whether or not it would be large enough to prevent conflict between motor vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. The Local Highway Authority was satisfied with the details.

It was noted that to the south east was land owned by Exeter City Council - the Ridgeline Park land - and that a financial contribution had been requested to improve the access and recreational value of this land. Measures would include creating east west pedestrian access points from Hollow Lane through the hedgerow and creating disability access and a path network. The contribution would also fund green gym items and habitat enhancement.

William Dale spoke in support of the application. He raised the following points:-

 the application is for 44 homes, 35% of which are affordable. Taylor Wimpey wish to deliver high quality residential development, as seen at Mayfield Gardens;  application is in accordance with the Monkerton and Hill Barton Masterplan Area which designates the site for residential development. The scheme has been designed to provide continuity with the wider consented schemes, whilst creating a landscape led development which responds to the site’s location along the Monkerton Ridge;  the development demonstrates a positive relationship with the surrounding landscape and existing settlement. This includes providing vehicular access

Page 24

from Mayfield Gardens, off the Cumberland Way roundabout and providing a pedestrian and cycle connection route through the scheme to Hollow Lane, to the south of the site.  Hollow Lane connects to the newly constructed strategic cycling highway and the E4 cycle route;  a vehicular passing place has been located along Hollow Lane which provides a more suitable road layout and passing place;  the application site is in a sustainable location for residential development;  the development would make a positive contribution to the Council’s five year housing land supply;  the proposal is compliant with the Council’s affordable housing policy requirements;  the proposal provides acceptable layout, design and general visual impact with a good level of amenity for future occupiers; and  the site is wholly deliverable, achievable and suitable for the development of 44 homes as proposed.

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 the scheme provides 44 homes, and the social housing provision comprises four, one bed flats, eight, two bed dwellings, one, three bed dwelling and two, four bed dwellings providing 35% affordable homes in line with planning policy;  these dwellings will be divided into 11 socially rented homes and 4 intermediate rented homes. One of the affordable homes will also be wheelchair accessible.

The Principal Project Manager (Development) responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 the suggestion of a western entrance to the school as suggested by the Exeter Cycling Campaign had been discussed with the County Council but it was considered that an additional access might give rise to safeguarding issues and that there was already good permeability through the site as provided by the north to south pedestrian/cycle link;  the pedestrian/cycle link was three metres in width and could therefore accommodate wheelchair access;  the layby to be provided as part of a Section 278 agreement under the Highways Act 1980 would achieve a suitable vehicular passing place and road layout along Hollow Lane. The applicant was willing to provide this in response to a request from Ellen Tinkham School and Devon County Highways;  the Section 106 Agreement was specific to the needs of the site and included the necessary traffic orders;  the landscaped area to the east of the application site, between the application site and Cumberland Way, was outside the red line of the application site. Recommended condition nine required tree and hedge provision prior to development commencing;  the Highway Authority considered the layout and design of the internal road network suitable for heavy vehicles including refuse vehicles; and  the Section 106 Agreement included the requirement to link to the District Heating system with condition six dealing with energy and CO2 emissions, this required a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions required to meet 2013 Building Regulations.

Members expressed the following views:-

Page 25

 concern regarding access arrangements to the school and the suitability of the proposed re-design of Hollow Lane; and  scheme is acceptable with 35% affordable housing and a good mix of dwellings overall in accordance with the Monkerton Master Plan, with a desired education contribution and no concerns raised by the highway authority

The recommendation was for approval, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, as amended and the conditions as set out in the report.

The recommendation was moved and seconded and carried.

RESOLVED that:-

(1) subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure:-

Affordable housing 15.4 dwellings to be provided as affordable housing, 11 social rent and 4 intermediate rent. A financial contribution will be made towards the remaining 0.4 affordable dwelling. One of the affordable dwellings to be wheelchair accessible. 50% of the affordable home units to be constructed and made available for occupation prior to the occupation of 50% of Open Market units. Remaining 50% of AH units to be constructed and made available for occupation prior to occupation of 80% of Open Market units. 5% of the affordable dwellings (1 dwelling) to be wheelchair accessible

Public open space Provisions to transfer the public open spaces to a management company with an agreed specification for the laying out and maintenance of these areas to mitigate and enhance biodiversity (i.e. LEMP).

Highways infrastructure Financial contributions required as follows: Traffic Regulation Order - £3000.00 (to be paid at Devon County Council’s request) Travel Plan - £500 per dwelling to be paid to Devon County Council

Off site Access/Recreation Improvements £65,000 contribution for off-site access/recreation improvements. 50% of the contribution to be paid prior to open market houses being occupied and remainder to be paid prior to 80% of units occupied.

District Heating Network Connection of the dwellings to the Eon district heating system in the area.

Education Contributions Secondary - £123,245 Education infrastructure contributions are based on March 2015 prices and any indexation applied to contributions requested are to be applied from this date.

GP Facilities/Provision £17,682 (£402 per dwelling) towards enhanced GP facilities/provision in the locality.

all Section 106 contributions to be index linked from the date of resolution.

Page 26

the Assistant Service Lead City Development be authorised to APPROVE planning application for the construction of 44 dwellings; car parking including garages; landscaping; internal access roads and associated infrastructure and engineering works; subject also to the following conditions:

1. Standard Time Limit – Full Planning Permission

The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted. Reason: To comply with Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2. Approved Plans and Documents

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and documents listed below, unless modified by the other conditions of this consent:

 Site Location Plan (Dwg. No. 18003-BAK-L01.01 Rev P4)  Elevational Treatment Plan (Dwg. No. 18003-BAK-L01.10 Rev P2)  Proposed Site Plan (Dwg. No. 18003-BAK-L02.01 Rev P11)  Illustrative Site Layout (Dwg. No. 18003-BAK- L02.02 Rev P7)  Typical Street Elevations (Dwg. No. 18003-BAK-L04.01 Rev F)  Illustrative Adoption Plan (Dwg. No. 18003-BAK-L05.01 Rev P7)  Boundary Treatment Plan (Dwg. No. 18003-BAK-L92.01 Rev P7)  Landscape and Boundary Details (Dwg. No. 18003-BAK-L92.02 Rev P3)  Hardworks Plan (Dwg. No. 18003-BAK-L93.01 Rev P8)  Softworks Plan (Dwg. No. 18003-BAK-L94.01 Rev P8)  Single Garage Plans & Elevations (Dwg. No. 18003 G01-02.00 Rev P4)  Attached Single Garages Plans & Elevations (Dwg. No. 18003 G02- 02.00 Rev P4)  H01 A – 2 Bed – (NA20) Floor Plans & Typical Section A-A (Dwg. No. 18003 H01 A-02.00 Rev P4)  H01 A – 2 Bed – (NA20) Elevations (Dwg. No. 18003 H01 A-04.00 Rev P3)  H02 A – 3 Bed – (NA30) Plans & Typical Section A-A (Dwg. No. 18003 H02 A-02.00 Rev P5)  H02 A – 3 Bed – (NA30) Elevations (Dwg. No. 18003 H02 A-04.00 Rev P4)  H04 A – 3 Bed – (NT31) Floor Plans & Typical Section A-A (Dwg. No. 18003 H04 A-02.00 Rev P4)  H04 A – 3 Bed – (NT31) Elevations 01 (Dwg. No. 18003 H04 A-04.00 Rev P3)  H06 A – 4 Bed – (NA42) Floor Plans & Typical Section A-A (Dwg. No. 18003 H06 A-02.00 Rev P4)  H06 A – 4 Bed – (NA42) Elevations (Dwg. No. 18003 H06 A-04.00 Rev P3)  H07 A – 4 Bed – (NA45) Floor Plans & Typical Section A-A (Dwg. No. 18003 H07 A-02.00 Rev P4)  H07 A – 4 Bed – (NA45) Elevations (Dwg. No. 18003 H07 A-04.00 Rev P3)

Page 27

 H08 A – 4 Bed – (NT41) Floor Plans & Typical Section A-A (Dwg. No. 18003 H08 A-02.00 Rev P4)  H08 A – 4 Bed – (NT41) Elevations (Dwg. No. 18003 H08 A-04.00 Rev P3)  H10 A – 4 Bed – (NT42) Floor Plans & Typical Section A-A (Dwg. No. 18003 H10 A-02.00 Rev P4)  H10 A – 4 Bed – (NT42) Elevations (Dwg. No. 18003 H10 A-04.00 Rev P3)  H13 A – 1 Bed Flats Floor Plans & Typical Section A-A (Dwg. No. 18003 H13 A-02.00 Rev P5)  H13 A – 1 Bed Flats Elevations (Dwg. No. 18003 H13 A-04.00 Rev P4)  Proposed Levels (Dwg. No. 41196/2018/141 Rev E)  Refuse Vehicle Tracking (Dwg. No. 41196/2018/111 Rev F)  General Arrangement (Dwg. No. 41196/2018/101 Rev F)  Drawing showing visibility splay for pedestrian/cycle path access to Hollow Lane and passing place on Hollow Lane (41196/2018/SK02)  Surface and Foul Water Drainage (41196/2014/500 Rev I)  Waste Audit Statement (Taylor Wimpey, October 2018).  Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Michael J Steed Natural Resource Consultant 20th September 2018)  Flood Risk Assessment REV G (Peter Brett Associates, 17 April 2020)  Ecological Impact Assessment (CSA Environmental, CSA/3592/02, August 2018)

Reason: To ensure the development is constructed in accordance with the approved plans and documents.

Pre-commencement Details

3. Surface Water Drainage Management System

No development hereby permitted shall commence until the following information has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority: (a) A detailed drainage design based upon the approved Baker Land, Monkerton, Flood Risk Assessment, Project Ref: 41196/4002 Rev G Date April 2020 which should include evidence that the downstream Monkerton network and basins have capacity to accept flows from this development, long term storage and calculations reflecting the runoff rate based on the impermeable area only. (b) Detailed proposals for the management of surface water and silt runoff from the site during construction of the development hereby permitted. (c) Proposals for the adoption and maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage system. (d) A plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed at the site. No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until the works have been approved and implemented in accordance with the details under (a) - (d) above. Reason: The above conditions are required to ensure the proposed surface water drainage system will operate effectively and will not cause an increase in flood risk either on the site, adjacent land or downstream in line with SuDS for Devon Guidance (2017) and national policies, including NPPF and PPG and Policy CP12 of the Core Strategy, Policy EN4 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review. The conditions should be pre-

Page 28

commencement since it is essential that the proposed surface water drainage system is shown to be feasible before works begin to avoid redesign / unnecessary delays during construction when site layout is fixed.

4. Contamination

No development shall take place on site until a full investigation of the site has taken place to determine the extent of, and risk posed by, any contamination of the land and the results, together with any remedial works necessary, have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The building(s) shall not be occupied until the approved remedial works have been implemented and a remediation statement submitted to the Local Planning Authority detailing what contamination has been found and how it has been dealt with together with confirmation that no unacceptable risks remain. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the occupants of the buildings hereby approved. This information is required before development commences to ensure that any remedial works are properly considered and addressed at the appropriate stage.

5. Construction Method Statement

No development (including ground works) or vegetation clearance works shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Statement shall provide for:

a) The site access point(s) of all vehicles to the site during the construction phase. b) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors. c) The areas for loading and unloading plant and materials. d) Storage areas of plant and materials used in constructing the development. e) The erection and maintenance of securing hoarding, if appropriate. f) Wheel washing facilities. g) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction. h) No burning on site during construction or site preparation works. i) Measures to minimise noise nuisance to neighbours from plant and machinery. j) Construction working hours and deliveries from 8:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays. k) No driven piling without prior consent from the Local Planning Authority.

The approved Statement shall be strictly adhered to throughout the construction period of the development. Reason: To ensure that the construction works are carried out in an appropriate manner to minimise the impact on the amenity of neighbouring uses and in the interests of the safety and convenience of highway users. These details are required pre-commencement as specified to ensure that building operations are carried out in an appropriate manner.

6. Energy & CO2 Emissions

Prior to the construction of the dwellings hereby permitted, including construction of the foundations of the dwellings but excluding other site works, the developer shall submit a SAP calculation for the dwellings which

Page 29

demonstrates that a 19% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from that required to meet the 2013 Building Regulations can be achieved. The measures necessary to achieve this carbon dioxide saving shall thereafter be implemented on site and within 3 months of practical completion of any dwelling the developer shall submit a report to the Local Planning Authority by a suitably qualified consultant to demonstrate compliance with this condition. Reason: To ensure that the proposal complies with Policy CP15 of Council's Adopted Core Strategy and in the interests of delivering sustainable development. These details are required pre-commencement as specified to ensure that a sustainable design is finalised before any irreversible element of the construction process takes place.

7. Ecological Surveys

Prior to the commencement of development, an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey shall be carried out and the results of the survey shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, unless the Ecological Impact Assessment (CSA Environmental, CSA/3592/02, August 2018) was dated in the preceding three years. The recommendations of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey shall be implemented in full, including any recommended further survey work in which case no development shall take place until the further survey work has been carried out and the results have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The recommendations of the further surveys shall be implemented in full. Reason: To ensure that the implications of the development on biodiversity are fully understood based on up-to-date survey and any measures necessary to mitigate the impact of the development on protected species are identified and carried out at the appropriate time in accordance with saved Policy LS4 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review and paragraph 175 of the NPPF. Natural England's Standing Advice states that Local Planning Authorities can ask for extra surveys to be done as a condition of planning permission for outline or multi-phased developments to make sure protected species aren't affected at each stage. These details are required pre-commencement as specified to ensure that protected species are not killed or otherwise harmed by building operations.

8. Biodiversity Mitigation Enhancement Plan

Prior to the commencement of development a Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (BMEP) which demonstrates how the proposed development has been designed to enhance the biodiversity value of the site and how it will be managed in perpetuity to enhance biodiversity, together with a programme of implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The BMEP shall take into account the mitigation and enhancement assessment of the submitted Ecological Impact Assessment (CSA Environmental, CSA/3592/02, August 2018) and the results of survey required by planning condition 7. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out and managed strictly in accordance with the approved measures and provisions of the Wildlife Plan. Reason for pre-commencement condition: In the interests of protecting and improving existing, and creating new wildlife habitats in the area.

Pre-specific Works

Page 30

9. Tree & Hedge Protection

No materials shall be brought onto the site or any development commenced, until the developer has erected tree protective fencing around all trees or shrubs to be retained, in accordance with the details specified in the Arboriculatural Impact Assessment Report prepared by Michael J Steed ref 00140 and accompanying Tree Protection Plan (Rev 3). The developer shall maintain such fences to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority until all development the subject of this permission is completed. The level of the land within the fenced areas shall not be altered without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. No materials shall be stored within the fenced area, nor shall trenches for service runs or any other excavations take place within the fenced area except by written permission of the Local Planning Authority. Where such permission is granted, soil shall be removed manually, without powered equipment. Reason for pre-commencement condition - To ensure the protection of the trees during the carrying out of the development. This information is required before development commences to protect trees during all stages of the construction process.

10. Bird Breeding Season

No tree works or felling, cutting or removal of hedgerows or other vegetation clearance works shall be carried out on the site during the bird breeding season from March to September, inclusive. If this period cannot be avoided, these works shall not be carried out unless they are overseen by a suitably qualified ecologist and the reasons why have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, including the date of the intended works and the name and contact details of the ecologist. If breeding birds are found or suspected during the works, the works shall cease until the ecologist is satisfied that breeding is complete. Reason: To protect breeding birds in accordance with Policy LS4 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review, and paragraphs 174 and 175 of the NPPF. These details are required pre-commencement as specified to ensure that breeding birds are not harmed by building operations or vegetation removal.

11. Materials

Prior to the construction of the external walls of any dwelling hereby permitted, samples and/or product specification sheets, including confirmation of colour, of the external facing materials and roof materials of all dwellings hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dwellings shall be constructed in accordance with the approved materials. Reason: In the interests of good design and the character of the area, in accordance with Policy CP17 of the Core Strategy, Policy DG1 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review and paragraph 127 of the NPPF.

12. Nesting and Roosting Boxes

Prior to the construction of the external walls of any dwelling hereby permitted, details of the provision for nesting birds and roosting bats in the built fabric of the dwellings hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented as part of the development and retained

Page 31

thereafter. Reason: To enhance biodiversity on the site in accordance with the Residential Design Guide SPD (Appendix 2) and paragraph 175 of the NPPF.

13. External Lighting

No external lighting shall be installed on the site unless details of the lighting have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (including location, type and specification). The details shall demonstrate how the lighting has been designed to minimise impacts on local amenity and wildlife (including isoline drawings of lighting levels and mitigation if necessary). The lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure lighting is well designed to protect the amenities of the area and wildlife.

Pre-occupation

14. District Heating Network

The buildings comprised in the development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the CIBSE Heat Networks Code of Practice so that their internal systems for space and water heating are capable of being connected to the local decentralised energy district heating network. Prior to occupation of the development, the necessary on site infrastructure (including pipework, plant and machinery) for connection of those systems to the network in a manner agreed in writing by the LPA shall be put in place. Reason: To ensure that the proposal complies with Policy CP13 of the Council's Adopted Core Strategy and paragraph 153 of the NPPF, and in the interests of delivering sustainable development.

15. Shared Use Pedestrian/Cycle Path

Prior to the occupation of the forty four dwellings hereby permitted, the shared use pedestrian/cycle path connecting the site to Hollow Lane shall be constructed in accordance with plans previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Local Highway Authority. Reason: To maximise the use of sustainable modes of transport in accordance with saved Policy T3 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review and paragraph 108 of the NPPF (February 2019).

16. Cycle Parking

Prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, cycle parking facilities for the dwelling shall be provided in accordance with plans previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Local Highway Authority. Thereafter the said cycle storage provision shall be retained for that purpose at all times. Reason: To promote cycling as a sustainable mode of travel and to accord with the Sustainable Transport SPD.

17. Bin Stores

Prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, bin storage for the

Page 32

dwelling shall be provided in accordance with plans previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that bin storage is provided for the dwellings in the interests of good design and residential amenity.

18. Detailed Landscaping Scheme

Prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, a Detailed Landscaping Scheme for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Scheme shall include details of hard and soft landscaping, including all boundary treatments and signage. The plan shall specify tree/plant species and methods of planting, including tree pit details. The hard landscaping shall be constructed as approved prior to the occupation of the dwellings. The soft landscaping shall be planted in the first planting season following the occupation of the dwellings or completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, or in earlier planting seasons wherever practicable, and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. Reason: In the interests of good design in accordance with saved Policy DG1 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review and paragraph 127 of the NPPF (February 2019).

19. Vehicular Access

Prior to occupation of any of the dwellings, details of the vehicular access point shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Local Highway Authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the vehicular access point has been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with Paragraph 108 of the NPPF.

20. Layby

Prior to occupation of any of the dwellings, details of the vehicular passing place on Hollow Lane shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Local Highway Authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the vehicular passing place has been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved plans and the passing place shall be retained for that purpose at all times. Reason: To provide a safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists on Hollow Lane in accordance with Paragraph 108 of the NPPF

21. Vehicular turning heads

Prior to occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, details of the vehicular turning heads shown on Drawing Number 18003-BAK-L02.01 Rev P11, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Local Highway Authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the vehicular turning heads have been provided in accordance with the approved details. These facilities shall be retained for that purpose at all times. Reason: To provide safe and suitable facilities for the traffic attracted to the site.

Page 33

Informatives

1) In accordance with Chapters 1 and 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, this development has been screened in respect of the need for an Appropriate Assessment (AA). Given the nature of the development, it has been concluded that an AA is required in relation to potential impact on the relevant Special Protection Areas (SPA), the Exe Estuary and East Devon Pebblebed Heaths, which are designated European sites. This AA has been carried out and concludes that the development is such that it could have an impact primarily associated with recreational activity of future occupants of the development. This impact will be mitigated in line with the South East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy prepared by Footprint Ecology on behalf of East Devon and Teignbridge District Councils and Exeter City Council, which is being funded through a proportion of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) collected in respect of the development being allocated to fund the mitigation strategy. Or, if the development is not liable to pay CIL, to pay the appropriate habitats mitigation contribution through another mechanism (this is likely to be either an undertaking in accordance with s111 of the Local Government Act 1972 or a Unilateral Undertaking).

2) The Local Planning Authority considers that this development will be CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) liable. Payment will become due following commencement of development. It is also drawn to your attention that where a chargeable development is commenced before the Local Authority has received a valid commencement notice (i.e. where pre-commencement conditions have not been discharged) the Local Authority may impose a surcharge, and the ability to claim any form of relief from the payment of the Levy will be foregone. You must apply for any relief and receive confirmation from the Council before commencing development.

3) A legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relates to this planning permission.

4) In accordance with Paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive and pro-active way and has imposed planning conditions to enable the grant of planning permission.

In the absence of a Section 106 legal agreement in terms that are satisfactory to the Local Planning Authority being completed within an appropriate timescale, and which makes provision for the following matters –  Affordable housing  Provisions to transfer the public open spaces to a management company  Traffic Regulation Order contributions  Sustainable Travel Planning contributions  Off-site access/recreation improvements  Connection to District Heating Network  Education contributions

Page 34

 GP facilities contributions The proposal is contrary to Exeter Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2012 Objectives 3, 5, 6 and 10, policies CP7, CP9, CP10, and CP18, Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011 saved policies AP1, T1, T3 and DG5, Exeter City Council Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2014, Exeter City Council Public Open Space Supplementary Planning Document 2005, Exeter City Council Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

79 LIST OF DECISIONS MADE AND WITHDRAWN APPLICATIONS

The report of the Director City Development, Housing and Supporting People was submitted.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

80 APPEALS REPORT

The schedule of appeal decisions and appeals lodged was submitted.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

(The meeting commenced at 5.30 pm and closed at 7.50 pm)

Chair

Page 35 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5

Planning Committee Report: 15/0641/OUT

1.0 Application Number: 15/0641/OUT Applicant name: Burrington Estates Proposal: Residential development including new access onto Shillingford Road and associated infrastructure (All matters reserved for future consideration). Site address: Aldens Farm West land between Shillingford and Chudleigh Road, Alphington. Registration Date: 05/06/2015 Link to application, drawings/plans: http://publicaccess.exeter.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ZZZU8AHBRW 466 Case Officer: Paul Jeffrey Ward Members: Cllr Foale, Cllr Warwick and Cllr Atkinson (Alphington Ward)

REASON APPLICATION IS GOING TO COMMITTEE – Major application with over 10 emails/correspondence of objection.

2.0 Summary of Recommendation: DELEGATE to GRANT permission subject to completion of a S106 Agreement relating to matters identified and subject to conditions as set out in report, but with secondary recommendation to REFUSE permission in the event the S106 Agreement is not completed within the requisite timeframe for the reason set out below.

3.0 Reason for the recommendation: as set out in Section 18 at end

 Site lies within the Alphington Strategic Residential Allocation as designated in the Core Strategy.  Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out that permission should be granted for sustainable development unless specific policies in the NPPF indicate otherwise.  The development would make a positive contribution to the Council’s 5 year housing land supply.  The scheme will provide 35 (30%) affordable houses.  Concerns raised by local residents in respect of highway matters can be suitably addressed through planning conditions or Section 106 Agreement.  The location is considered to be sustainable and the proposal is acceptable in its design and general visual impact.  The proposal is not considered to be of any significant harm to residential amenity of nearby residential properties.  There are no material considerations which it is considered would warrant refusal of this application

Page 37

4.0 Table of key planning issues

Issue Conclusion Principle of development Site lies within the South West Strategic Residential Allocation of the Core Strategy. Affordable Housing Following viability appraisal provision of 30% affordable housing forms part of the proposal and will be secured through a Section 106 Agreement. Access/Impact on Local Highways Subject to suitable conditions and meeting obligations within the Section 106 Agreement details regarding access and financial contributions meet the requirements of the County Highway officer. Scale, design, impact on character Submitted illustrative layout and and appearance Design & Access Statement indicate that the future development will be appropriate in context of the character of existing development in the locality. Alphington Development Brief Broadly complies with the requirements of the brief. Ecological Issues/Habitat Mitigation Limited impact. Scheme to incorporate appropriate mitigation and enhancement. District Heating To be secured by Section 106 Agreement. Sustainable Construction and Energy Appropriate standard to be secured Conservation through condition. Economic benefits Affordable housing and financial contribution towards highways/ education/GP provision, and jobs in construction related industries. CIL/S106 CIL generated and S106 to secure relevant benefits identified above.

5.0 Description of Site

The application proposes outline planning permission for development up to 116 on land between Chudleigh Road and Shillingford Road together with a new vehicular access to Shillingford Road with other all matters reserved matters. The site comprises an area of land of 4.1 hectares in total comprising of open fields to the south of existing residential properties located in Veitch Gardens and Royal Close. The boundaries of the individual fields are demarcated by existing

Page 38 hedgerows with some mature trees. The eastern boundary is delineated by an existing hedgerow towards but not alongside Chudleigh Road, as there exists land within separate ownership and not to be considered as part of this application. The western edge of the site adjacent to Shillingford Road contains existing hedgerows. The southern boundary of the site contains an existing hedgerow alongside Markham Lane with the land further to the south of the site designated for future housing development (Vistry Homes) located within the Teignbridge District Council’s administrative area.

The site is located adjacent to the built up urban area of Alphington and therefore there are a number of existing services and facilities within close proximity to the site. The site is served by the existing road network, a number of bus services and is located adjacent to an existing pedestrian and cycle path network.

6.0 Description of Development

This outline planning application for residential development is for up to 116 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access. The accompanying Design and Access Statement indicates that the future development would comprise of a mix of terraced, semi-detached and detached properties with all dwellings proposed to be either two or two and a half storeys in height. The scheme proposes a total of 30% affordable housing, which follows on from a viability appraisal for this site and the recent scheme for Redrow Homes on the opposite side of Chudleigh Road for up to 234 dwellings (appl ref 15/0640/OUT) which received a resolution of approve at Planning Committee in June 2020. This would result in approximately 35 affordable units being provided. The illustrative layout indicates that there would be a central main road running through the site with dwellings fronting onto Shillingford Road, to the west, Markham Lane to the south and the Local Equiped Area for Play (LEAP) to the north adjacent to Royal Close and Veitch Gardens. The plans indicate that the existing areas vegetation to the south fronting and Markham Lane, fronting Shillingford Road (except where access visibility splays are required) and the adjacent plot to the east will be retained.

The main vehicular access is shown in a central location on the western side of the site onto Shillingford Road. The amended access plan shows a 6 metre wide accessway with a 4.5m by 70 metre visibility splay. A 2 metre wide footway is shown along the entirely of Shillingford Road frontage and links into the existing public footways. The illustrative plan indicates that the access has been designed to accommodate a future bus link, which will eventually connect Shillingford Road and Chudleigh Road. However the internal road layout is not for consideration at this outline stage and the information submitted is to demonstrate that bus could potentially access the site. The through road onto Chudleigh Road will only be possible following the submission of future schemes for the development of the adjacent sites. In addition to the vehicular access potential locations of future

Page 39 pedestrian/cycle access points onto Markham Lane, Veitch Gardens and Shillingford Road are indicated.

7.0 Supporting information provided by applicant

The application is accompanied by the following supporting information –

The agent originally submitted the following reports with the application in 2015 Planning Design and Access Statement, Ecological Appraisal Review, Flood Risk Assessment, Landscape and Visual Assessment, Transport Assessment, Archaeological Report, Bat Survey Report, Dormouse Survey, Arboricultural Survey, Air Quality Assessment and Ground Investigation Report. Since these reports were submitted updated versions on behalf of Burrington Estates have been submitted namely:-.

 Planning Statement  Design & Access Statement  Illustrative Layout Plan  Transport Statement  Flood Risk and Drainage Strategy  Ecological Impact Assessment  Air Quality Assessment

8.0 Relevant Planning History

This application was deferred from Planning Committee on 3 December 2018. Members commented that whilst welcoming contributions to bus services, expressed concerns in respect of a number of issues which they felt should be further considered. They felt that, because of the scale of growth proposed in the South West Exeter urban extension, a coordinated, comprehensive approach was required to successfully create a sustainable community. They were concerned about the ability of the County Council to take on the delivery of infrastructure, as it would be dependent on sufficient developer contributions being collected. They felt that, because of the scale of the development, an updated Transport Assessment was necessary particularly regarding the uncertainty over Park and Ride provision and the rail halt at Marsh Barton. The comments on differing affordable housing provision associated with the proposed developments in the area were reiterated and it was felt that the policy requirement should be met.

Member requested that this application be reconsidered to assess the issues of concern raised including:- - the failure to adequately meet the requirements of the Alphington Brief; - the percentage of affordable housing proposed; - uncertainty about health/school provision - lack of sufficient community infrastructure;

Page 40 - the failure to bring forward a Park and Ride facility for this side of the City; - need for greater open space; - the stalled progress on the delivery of a Marsh Barton Rail Halt; and - an outdated Transport Plan for the area given both of these development and that proposed within the Teignbridge boundary.

At the Planning Committee in December 2018 a separate application for Aldens Farm East was also deferred. In June 2020 Members resolved to grant outline planning permission for up to 234 dwellings with accesses onto Chudleigh Road and Dawlish Road, associated landscaping, public open space, drainage and infrastructure with all matters reserved except for access (appln ref no. 15/0640/OUT) subject to a Section 106 Agreement and conditions. This application was resubmitted on behalf of Redrow Homes.

9.0 List of Constraints

Potential Contaminated Land Smoke Control Area

10.0 Consultations

All consultee responses can be viewed in full on the Council’s website.

Teignbridge District Council (June 2020) raise no objection to the application, although provide the following comments.

Whilst within the Exeter City Council boundary, the application should consider the South West Exeter Development Framework Plan, as well as the approved/proposed plans of the immediate development to the south.

Access – It is noted that there is potential pedestrian and cycle access to go through Markham Lane and consider that these proposals fall more in line with the proposals of Vistry Homes to the South. It was agreed in earlier discussions that the original proposed bus route that would have gone through Markham Lane, would now be moved to the far north west of the site on the Vistry land, in order that the character of Markham Lane did not change greatly and this is to be welcomed.

Playspace – Concerns are raised over the location of the LEAP to the far north of the site, and it is recommended that this be made more central to the site making it more accessible and overlooked.

In general, it is good to see that materials and landscaping are similar to that proposed in the Vistry scheme and will bring consistency to the overall development.

Page 41 NHS Devon Clinical Commissioning Group (16 September 2020) comment that the application has been reviewed from a primary care perspective and informed by the Devon Health Contributions Approach: GP Provision which was jointly prepared by NHS England and Devon County Council. In preparing this response, it is noted that the Exeter City Council Core Strategy Document 2012 under “Meeting the Communities Needs” states that: The objectives of the Sustainable Community Strategy and other strategies and programmes can be delivered, at least in part, through developer contributions sought for social and community infrastructure, including education/skills, health, culture, sports and leisure facilities. Examples of areas where developer contributions could facilitate change and enhancement include improving access to health and social care (Exeter Sustainable Community Strategy/ Exeter Primary Care Trust Estate Strategy/Royal Devon and Exeter (NHS) Trust Building Programme).

The CCG’s concern is that the GP surgeries, Ide, Topsham and St Thomas are already over capacity within their existing footprints therefore it follows that to have a sustainable development in human health terms the whole local healthcare provision will require review. The surgeries already have 58,632 patients registered between them and this new development will increase the local population by a further 790 to 800 persons. Aldens Farm West land between Shillingford Road and Chudleigh Road Alphington is in the catchment of the Ide, Topsham and surgeries which have a capacity of 38,374 patients with current patient list size of 58,632 and are already over capacity by 20,258 patients or at 153% of capability. To meet the necessary funding requirement for these surgeries a financial contribution of £384 per dwelling is requested which equates to £44,544 if the development were to deliver 116 dwellings.

County Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment (Highways) (9 October 2020) comment that the submitted application is an outline application, with all matters reserved except for access onto Shillingford Road, at Alden’s Farm West, Alphington. The proposed development site is part of the South West Exeter Masterplan Area. The submitted application is a refresh to the application that was submitted under 15/0641/OUT with some focus on highway matters.

Trip Generation/Impact - The trip generation and associated impacts were accepted with conditions/S106 contributions as outlined in its formal response dated 30/03/2016, however in order, to overcome the number of issues that were raised by Members, an amended Transport Assessment (TA) has been submitted.

For consistency, the vehicle trip rates proposed for the development correspond to those included in the DCC South West Exeter Transportation Access Strategy. This approach was accepted in relation to the earlier TA for the site. The TA states that 116 dwellings could be delivered on site, developing 58, 2-way AM/PM Peak trips. In order to update the analysis of the surrounding network, the applicant carried out traffic surveys in October 2019, providing a better

Page 42 baseline to the previous work carried out. To act in a consistent manner to the previous TA the applicant has applied TEMPro growth factors and assessed a 2025 future scenario.

The study area assessed considers the impact of the development at the following junctions: Site access point; Junction 1: Chudleigh Road / Shillingford Road / Chantry Meadow double mini roundabout and Junction 2: Church Road / Alphinbrook Road / Powlesland Road roundabout. The traffic impact assessment completed for the proposed site access junction together with Junctions 1 and 2, demonstrates that they are expected to operate within capacity in the worst-case scenario (2025 future + development traffic).

Whilst TEMPro is a useful tool for forecasting, it does not consider the direct impact from neighbouring development. It is noted that there is no assessment of the impacts at the Chudleigh Road / A379 junction. As highlighted in previous responses, based on previous assessments that have been undertaken, the Highway Authority considers that improvements will be required to the A379 / Chudleigh Road junction. Due to the safety concerns at the A379 / Chudleigh Road junction, it is proposed to realign the road to form a new signal junction on the A379. The Highway Authority are to deliver improvements for this junction, including the realignment of Chudleigh Road, subject to necessary contributions from the affected developments to cover the full cost of the works. Agreement to fund these works would allow development to come forward.

In addition to this, in order to achieve the trip rates previously agreed and the infrastructure required as set out in the South West Access Masterplan, a number of S106 items are required. These mitigation measures are required to meet the objectives set out in the masterplan and were agreed in previous submissions. These measures are all sustainable based encouraging walking/cycling not only into other parcels of the South West Masterplan, but also into the wider Exeter Network. A table setting out the transport contributions is given in a separate section of this response.

Access - Only one point of vehicular access is proposed; a priority junction onto Shillingford Road. Whilst the originally submitted plans indicated an access width of 5.5m wide this has been increased to 6m to allow for 2 buses to pass each other. Bus contributions are sought for this parcel (together with the rest of SWE) and buses form part of the strategic sustainable highway infrastructure for the site.

Although a reserve matters, the applicant has provided swept path analysis for an indicative site layout; this shows that buses will struggle to negotiate 90- degree bends and as such this will need to be given thought in any reserved matters submission.

Page 43 It is also noted that that there is no vehicular link to the boundary of Chudleigh Road. This connection forms part of the SWE strategy and therefore will need to be built up to the red line boundary. As this link has not been made, DCC (consistent with previous recommendations), there is ambiguity over how the site is served by sustainable transport modes required to meet the agreed residential trip rates. Therefore, without the full link between Shillingford Road and Chudleigh Road, the occupations of the development should be limited to 75 dwellings. Any reserved matters layout should consider bus suitability.

Pedestrian and Cycle access is critical for this application as this needs to tie into parcels coming forward into adjacent boundaries and into existing highway infrastructure.

It is disappointing to see is that there are no details as to how this site links into existing residential parcels to the north, nor does it provide any details to connect into SWE parcels in the Teignbridge parcel or indeed any forthcoming parcel to the east of the scheme. This does not provide confidence that links to adjacent parcels will be made by the applicant, something that is fundamental to the SWE Masterplan. Officers have pointed the applicant to the development brief for SW Alphington, where it is evident to see that connections to adjacent parcels are required. Within this document, it is also stated that “The developer will be required to fund the provision of a high-quality pedestrian and cycle route along the site’s southern boundary, including Markham Lane”. No proposals to improve Markham lane have put forward.

Internal Roads and layout - Well-designed residential streets are central to sustainable development and therefore the design of the internal road layout must accord with the principles of Manual for Streets and appropriate sustainable design guidance. The applicant is advised that car parking standards are set out in the Exeter City Residential Design Guide and that secure cycle parking facilities will need to be in accordance with chapter 5 of Exeter City Councils Sustainable Transport Supplementary Planning document.

As an outline application these details are reserved for approval at a later stage. However, to ensure a suitable layout it is recommended that the applicant liaises with the highway authority prior to any application for reserved matters approval. The applicant should provide appropriate footway/cycleway connection points and infrastructure through the site itself to then enable a coherent approach to adjacent estates.

Other Matters - A condition is recommended to ensure that appropriate facilities for all construction traffic are provided on site before the commencement of any part of the development hereby approved. This is a requirement as part of the proposal is to carry out works in close proximity to a school and neighbouring properties.

Page 44 Transport Contributions - As highlighted in the previous highway consultation response (dated 30/03/2016) a series of mitigation measures are required in order to make the application acceptable in highway terms. The below table give costings based on a 2016 base and therefore in the grant of any planning permission, these costs would have to be indexed linked back to 2016.

Per Dwelling Aldens Farm West (116 Dwellings) Pedestrian/Cycle Bridge £1,104 £128,064 Alphington Village Works £1,100 £127,600 Loram Way Cycle Link £375 £43,500 Bus Services £1,750 £203,000 Car Club £132 £15,312 Traffic Regulation Order £5,000 Travel Planning £500 £58,000 Chudleigh Road £3,798 £440,568 TOTAL £8,759 £1,021,044

The success of development at South West Exeter will be dependent on appropriate mitigation to help alleviate the impacts of the development. This has been identified and is set out in the South West Exeter Access Strategy.

In summary, it is considered that the updated TA underestimates the full impact of development, as the assessment applies TEMPro growth rather than considering the direct impact from the whole of the allocation, neither has it fully considered as the Chudleigh Road / A379 junction is not assessed. The Highway Authority considers that improvements are necessary here as per previous concerns that were raised in 2016. In order to mitigate the impact of the development at the Chudleigh Road / A379 junction, a contribution towards the works will be required.

3 November 2020 update

Since the last highway consultation response, the applicant has submitted revised drawings responding to the further information requested on the 9th October 2019.

Vehicular access point -The applicant has revised the vehicular access to 6m wide which is sufficient for two buses to pass, thereby safeguarding any bus route that may pass through the site. Comments regarding buses negotiating 90- degree bends still remain and will be for the applicant to consider during a reserved matter submission.

Pedestrian and Cycle Access - The applicant as confirmed a 2m footway alongside Shillingford Road and an associated crossing point. This should be

Page 45 secured via condition and through an appropriate highways act. Access to the east is shown through to the red line boundary which is acceptable in principle.

However, there is still ambiguity for pedestrian and cycling points to the north and south of the site. It is noted the submitted drawings indicate “potential”.  To the north, for example, there is a gap between their indicative connection point and Veitch Gardens itself; it is understood that the land is owned by ECC, but no details of how a link to Veitch Gardens (HMPE) can be made. There is also another “potential” pedestrian/cycling connection to the north west of the site to Shillingford Road. No details as to show these ties into Shillingford Road have been made.  To the South, only two connection points to Markham Lane are being made, but once again these are only indicative. Any connection point to the south should tie into the adjacent Teignbridge proposals but it is understood that these are only “draft”. Therefore, this does not stop the applicant in making multiple connection points to Markham Lane aiding North-South permeability – key for those who want to reach the A379 bridge and ultimately the school. Note any connection point to the Markham Lane will need the removal of some hedgerow to aid visibility.

As per the previous set of comments, improvements to Markham Lane were highlighted within the development brief for SW Alphington. These comments have not been taken into consideration and no further information has been provided; therefore, the same comments apply.

Much emphasis has been put on the accessibility of the site and its relation to other parcels of South West Exeter and it is believed that the site has not provided enough information on the pedestrian/cycling access points and infrastructure. In the absence of this information then the highway authority, at this time, would be minded to request for further information from the applicant to address these concern.

Devon and Cornwall Police Liaison Officer (May 2020) comments that it is accepted that the layout is illustrative at this stage and within their response provide detailed issues which will need to be addressed at the reserved matters stage.

Devon Fire Service comment comment that although there is insufficient information to make detailed observations and therefore would not object to a housing scheme at this stage. However further specific comments are made which will need to be considered at the reserved matters stage.

Devon County Education Authority has provided an education response in accordance with Devon County Council’s Education Infrastructure Plan 2016- 2033.

Page 46 A new school is planned at South West Exeter to meet the need for school places from the development and the wider area. This is planned as an all- through school, which includes both primary and secondary provision in one school. It will also have a nursery for pre-school age children.

The school will be run by Ted Wragg Multi Academy Trust. This was approved as part of the free school competition programme, run by central government. The free school competition programme allows for school providers to apply to run new schools. As the school has been secured through this process, it will be delivered by the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) and Devon County Council are working closely with the ESFA and Ted Wragg Multi Academy Trust on the delivery of the school. Work is progressing to enable the delivery of the school and it is expected that the school will be in place alongside the delivery of the development.

Noting that the school is to be located on the southern side of the A379, a pedestrian/Cycle Bridge is proposed across the A379 to provide access to the school. This is to be forward funded by the Housing Infrastructure Fund, with funding recovered from development as it comes forward. It is expected to be delivered to enable access for the school, initially providing access from the existing highway so that it is not dependent on wider development being delivered, although will provide access from other development parcels as these are delivered.

Regarding the above planning application, Devon County Council has identified that a development of 116 family type dwellings will generate an additional 29.00 primary pupils and 17.40 secondary pupils which would have a direct impact on the primary and secondary schools in Exeter. In order to make the development acceptable in planning terms, an education contribution to mitigate its impact will be requested. This is set out below:

When factoring in both approved but unimplemented housing developments as well as outstanding local plan allocations we have forecast that the local primary and secondary schools have not got capacity for the number of pupils likely to be generated by the proposed development. Therefore, Devon County Council will seek contribution towards additional education infrastructure to serve the address of the proposed development.

We have forecast that there is no spare capacity at existing primary schools within the area and therefore we will request primary education contributions against the 29.00 pupils expected to be generated from this development. The primary contribution sought would be £464,551 or the equivalent of £4,004.75 per family-type dwelling (based on the DfE new build rate of £16,019 per pupil). This contribution would be used towards new primary provision at South West Exeter.

Page 47 We have forecast that there is enough spare secondary capacity to accommodate 7.71 pupils at the local secondary schools and therefore we will request secondary education contributions against the remaining 9.69 pupils expected to be generated from this development. The secondary contribution sought would be £235,089 or the equivalent of £2,026.63 per family-type dwelling (based on the DfE new build rate of £24,261 per pupil). This contribution will be used towards new secondary provision at South West Exeter.

In addition, a contribution towards Early Years provision is needed to ensure delivery of provision for 2, 3 and 4 year olds. This is calculated as £29,000 (based on £250 per dwelling). This will be used to provide early years provision for pupils likely to be generated by the proposed development. This contribution will be used towards new early years places at South West Exeter.

All contributions will be subject to indexation using BCIS, it should be noted that education infrastructure contributions are based on March 2015 prices and any indexation applied to contributions requested should be applied from this date.

The amount requested is based on established educational formulae (which related to the number of primary and secondary age children that are likely to be living in this type of accommodation) and is considered that this is an appropriate methodology to ensure that the contribution is fairly and reasonably related in scale to the development proposed which complies with CIL Regulation 122.

In addition to the contribution figures quoted above, the County Council would wish to recover legal costs incurred as a result of the preparation and completion of the Agreement. Legal costs are not expected to exceed £500.00 where the agreement relates solely to the education contribution. However, if the agreement involves other issues or if the matter becomes protracted, the legal costs are likely to be in excess of this sum.

Devon County Council Flood and Coastal Risk Management Team (September 2020) comment that they have no in-principle objections to the above planning application at this stage, assuming that a pre-commencement planning condition is imposed. That following the previous consultation response the applicant has submitted additional information in relation to the surface water drainage aspects of the above planning application. The applicant has confirmed that further soakaway tests will be completed to inform the design of the surface water drainage system. Testing completed in April 2012 demonstrated infiltration to be viable in areas of the site, and at shallow depths. The further testing should be carried out at shallow depths to demonstrate the feasibility of permeable paving, but should also be carried out at deeper depths to demonstrate the feasibility of soakaways and infiltration basins. The applicant should assess the existing exceedance routes and design the site layout around these routes to ensure that any exceedance flows are safely managed.

Page 48 The applicant has confirmed that above-ground surface water features shall be assessed further before the detailed design is submitted. It is understood that South West Water will adopt some above-ground features and also allow them to drain into their existing surface water sewers. The applicant will need to provide correspondence from South West Water to confirm what features within this development site will be acceptable to South West Water. The previously submitted Flood Risk Assessment (September 2017) noted that South West Water had requested that surface water flows from the development site should be 'split' between the surface water sewer within Veitch Gardens and the surface water sewer within Chudleigh Road. The applicant will need to submit correspondence from South West Water to confirm that the location of the outfall, or the outfalls, are acceptable.

Devon County Waste Management comment that Policy W4 of the Devon Waste Plan December 2014 requires applications for major development to be accompanied by a waste audit statement that identifies the waste that will be generated during construction and operational phases and explains how it will be managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy. Since adoption of the Waste Plan, Devon County Council has published the Waste Management & Infrastructure SPD that provides guidance to applicants and district councils on preparation and consideration of waste audit statements. It is recommended to secure submission and implementation of a waste audit statement to ensure compliance with the development plan.

Devon Wildlife Trust originally objected to this planning application commenting that the ecological network running across and around the development site comprises the hedgerows and trees as well as the fields. These are likely to be important for the rare European Protected Species using the site. It is likely that, if these light sensitive bats are to continue using the site, the hedgerows and trees will need to be protected from adverse lighting impact by measures such as wide, vegetated set-backs and physical barriers. This will no doubt have a constraining effect on the amount of land that can actually be built on. There is a high probability that given the amount of development would not minimise impacts on biodiversity; would not provide net gains for biodiversity and would not establish a coherent ecological network that is resilient to future pressure. iii) The application does not satisfy the requirements of Exeter City Council's Residential Design: Supplementary Planning Document. Para. 4.4 of the above document, outlines five design principles of which the third relates to integrating biodiversity - (iii) integrated biodiversity "The design and layout of new residential development will protect and enhance biodiversity on site, and enhance connections between ecological features within and across the site. Existing areas and features of biodiversity value should be incorporated into the design and layout and wherever reasonably possible enhanced."

Page 49 RSBP (June 2020) comment on the need to install integral nest bricks as per the ecologist’s recommendation. It is assumed that more details will be provided at the next stage of the planning process. Further comments states that integral swift boxes are used by most species that nest/roost in buildings and we recommend that installing one per residential is unit is made a condition of the consent if granted, these should be shown on the site plan and working drawings.

Exeter Cycling Campaign comments on proposed access stating that the development comprising walking and cycle routes to the surrounding area. In respect of Shillingford Road it is noted that the Design and Access Statement shows a proposed footway but there is no mention in the planning application about how this will be funded or implemented. We also recommend that consideration be given to extending the existing 20mph zone past the development access. The proposed pedestrian/cycle links shown within the Design and Access Statement is welcomed.

ECC Environmental Health recommends conditions relating to a, unexpected contamination, noise, air quality mitigation and the need for a Construction and Environmental Management Plan.

ECC Heritage officer originally commented that the archaeological reports submitted with the applications provide sufficient information on the archaeological issues (impact on undesignated heritage assets as per the NPPF) to determine the applications and do not identify any buried remains of sufficient quality of survival that would affect the principle or layout/quantum of development. -The development site is very large and extensive, and in a type of location favoured for prehistoric settlement and burial sites. Some of these have already been identified by the survey work within the western area and also immediately to the south, where a group of prehistoric barrows are protected as a scheduled monument. -However, geophysical surveys are not infallible, and do not identify the less substantial remains such as those of timber buildings, burials or fire pits or example. These can only be identified by physical site investigations (trial trenches) and ground works. Although some trial trenching has been undertaken within this site, and are sufficient to determine this outline application, they are not extensive enough to be sure that no other less visible remains survive on the site. - The site therefore still have the potential to contain as yet unknown remains, particularly prehistoric (and possibly Roman) ones. - For this reason a further programme of archaeological site investigation is required as a condition of any planning permission in order to identify and to excavate and record any significant, but less substantial, remains that may be present, as well as the prehistoric remains already identified by the reports, on

Page 50 what is a large and extensive site - before enabling ground works and construction work commences and destroys such remains. A standard condition should be attached to ensure that this work is carried out and completed. Further archaeological trial trenching; further area excavation of any remains identified by the trenching, to be completed before construction ground works commence; analysis, reporting and archiving of the results and any finds; to be undertaken off site in parallel with construction works.

11.0 Representations

Alphington Village Forum originally objected to the application (and application ref 15/0640/OUT) for the following reasons:- i) The planning, design and access statement has not adequately explained or justified the development proposal for the site; ii) The planning, design and access statement has had insufficient regard to the Alphington Development Brief and consequently fails to meet its requirements; iii) Information submitted with the planning application is out of date; iv) No green infrastructure framework; v) Inadequate open space will be provided; vi) There will be a net loss of biodiversity; vii) Housing densities are unknown; viii) There is no provision of community facilities; ix) Cycle and walking routes will be inadequate; x) There is no proposal to provide an extended A bus route; xi) Air quality is likely to be worse; xii) There has not been a co-ordinated approach to planning of development on both sides of the Exeter/Teignbridge administrative boundary. -Further concern raised about the provision of a bus link across Markham Lane which is not included in the Alphington Development Brief. -The assumption that there will be a high uptake of sustainable transport modes is disputed given the existing A bus service time and the high Alphington population of elderly people.

43 objection letters raising issues pursuant to both applications (appln ref. 15/0640/OUT and 15/0641/OUT) Planning issues raised:- 1) Loss of existing countryside; 2) Already too many new houses being building in the area; 3) Creating urban sprawl; 4) Insufficient infrastructure available for new dwelling ie doctors, dentists, schools, sewage, bus service and community facilities; 5) Severe traffic congestion will result of new development within both the Exeter and Teignbridge administrative area; 6) Scale of development too large of site; 7) Construction will cause many years of disturbance, dust and traffic; 8) All through school proposed for the south of the A379 will not serve the new development in Alphington;

Page 51 9) Proposed small footbridge across A379 will be inadequate and lead to a divided community; 10) Insufficient community facilities; 11) Proposed ridgetop park will not serve the residents of Alphington – lack of SANGS (Suitable Alternative Natural Green Spaces) closer to new community; 12) Missed opportunity for community involvement; 13) Increased traffic will lead to the potential for increased risk of injury and death to road users and pedestrians; 14) Need to improve/upgrade the junction onto Alphington Road to cope with the higher volume of traffic; 15) Unacceptable shortcut will be created between the new development and existing residential roads leading to unreasonable intrusion for existing residents; 16) Proposed dwellings need to be in keeping with existing properties in the area; 17) Need for sufficient parking for the new development; 18) Lack of coordination between authorities; 19) Adverse impact on wildlife and loss habitat, trees and hedgerow; 20) Potential for fly-tipping along newly created roads; 21) Density too high for the area; 22) Inadequate green space/open space; 23) Traffic hazard from existing driveway onto main roads; 24) Lack of detail submitted with the application; 25) Reports/assessments submitted with the application out of date; 26) Alphington Village would be unable to cope with increased traffic generated; 27) Increased pressure on already dangerous roads; 28) Need to address air quality to ensure traffic pollution levels are not exceeded; 29) No travel plan submitted with the application; 30) Need for cooperative housing as part of affordable housing provision; 31) Need to achieve low/carbon objectives, if district heating scheme considered not viable; 32) Fails to comply with the Development Brief for the South West; 33) Does not achieve policy complaint affordable housing provision; 34) Insufficient public consultation; 35) Loss of privacy; 36) Lack of information regarding housing densities; 37) Development will lead to drainage problems in the area; 38) Loss of agricultural land; 39) Lack of Marsh Barton railway halt and park and ride provision which will impact on the development being sustainable.

Original Comment response specific to application 15/0641/FUL:- 1) Access route across the site and the surface water balancing pond submitted for illustrative purposes should be a more direct connection; 2) Ensure connection with adjacent development site to allow more comprehensive development of the area; 3) Historic significance in the home of the Veitch family needs to be considered.

Page 52 Further objections received since the submission in 2020 of additional information on behalf of Burrington Estates

Alphington Village Forum (June 2020) comments that this development is probably inevitable, but are extremely concerned that the outline plans only show only one access to the development as opposed to the two included in the original outline plans that were deferred by the planning committee. The Forum therefore objects to these plans as they stand at present for the following reasons:

1. The lack of an eastern access - The traffic on Shillingford Road is already excessive, as cars and farm vehicles from several outlying villages feed into this narrow and steep hill that joins the constantly busy Chudleigh Road at a double roundabout. These include Shillingford Abbot, Shillingford St George, Clapham and Dunchideock. Already there is considerable traffic back-up during the morning rush hour, sometimes nearly up to Markham Lane. To have the only access and exit from the Aldens Farm West development of 116 houses on to this already dangerous road is totally unreasonable, especially as hundreds of vehicles, including buses from the Teignbridge/Bovis development above, will also be exiting at the top of Markham Lane to add to the traffic chaos on the hill, which has non-existent or inadequate pavements that cannot be widened because the current houses have very steep drives opening onto the road.

2. The lack of a sensible bus route - DCC stated originally that this eastern access was essential in order to allow buses to cross over from Aldens Farm East into Aldens Farm West, so the Forum finds it extraordinary that no eastern access is shown on these plans. The transport reports are inaccurate as far as the bus route is concerned and the plans show it to finish at a hedge with no turning space! Actually it is meant to run from bottom to top or vice versa using two accesses with the potential to link with the road running through the TDC/Bovis development that will have access at Markham Lane onto Shillingford Road. No through bus route is possible until the eastern access onto Chudleigh Road and a highway through the adjacent land is secured. Until this is done the plans should not be approved by ECC.

3. The lack of green space and links - It is regrettable that these plans do not show a walk through from the LEAP to Markham Lane, which is designated to be a 'high-quality pedestrian and cycle route along the site's southern boundary...... via a Section 106 Agreement' in the Alphington Development Brief. There are no links to a safe cycle and walking route for schoolchildren to access the new school south of the A379. which should be via Markham Lane once it has been improved, as promised by ECC. This historic country lane should be a feature of the development. Compared to the Redrow development, these plans are disappointing as they do not make the most of the natural environment. For instance, the hedgerow retention is merely a token because it does not have sufficient green space either side for a path, unlike the lovely green walks and

Page 53 trim trails incorporating 'nature play' planned for Aldens Farm East, which link with the Bovis development to the south.

4. The lack of good layout - The Alphington Development Brief states that 'The new development must have its own sense of place, whilst integrating with existing development in the area'. It is not considerate to current residents to place the LEAP playground right next to the green at Royal Crescent, which at present is a peaceful area with beautiful trees at the top of Veitch Gardens. This may invite outsiders to park here in order to access the playground, whereas if it were in the centre or at the top of the development, it would create less annoyance to the residents in the surrounding bungalows and houses. In addition to the LEAP, there should be 10% green space, which is not presently obvious.

5. The lack of good design - When the adjacent area was developed, only bungalows were allowed, in order to protect the ridgeline. This restriction has been re-enforced by ECC in the Alphington Development Brief: 'No buildings on the site should exceed 2 storeys in height.' These plans reveal a number of houses that exceed this and that do not integrate with existing houses, whose views and privacy will be destroyed in some cases. For instance, what looks like a two-storey and high-density terrace is not appropriate on Shillingford Road, but should be placed in the middle of the development. See the Alphington Development Brief: 'Areas along the northern and southern boundaries of the site must be developed at around 20 dph. Higher densities will be appropriate towards the centre of the site.'

Conclusion - The Alphington Village Forum is not satisfied with the outline plans submitted by Burrington Estates and objects to them for the following two main reasons: The failure to include an access onto Chudleigh Road, which is absolutely essential for the bus route and in order to avoid utter chaos and huge danger on Shillingford Road, a steep and narrow hill. The plans do not seem to adhere to a number of important statements in the Alphington Development Brief regarding green space and links, bus and cycle routes, and the layout and design of houses. We trust these aspects will be improved at the Reserved Matters stage.

31 further of objections received following Burrington Estates submission. Principal issues raised:

1.Overdevelopment/too dense/too many dwellings; 2. Transport plan under-represents traffic flows in the area; 3. Will add to existing road congestion, Chudleigh Road, Church Road and Shillingford Road already at capacity; 4. Transport plan inaccurate in terms of journey time and air quality impact; 5. Insufficient parking spaces in the area; 6. Poor/dangerous vehicular access; 7. Need for two access points as originally submitted;

Page 54 8. Detrimental to the safety of pedestrians through increased traffic; 9. Poor drainage across the site; 10. Existing trees/hedges need retaining; 11. Adversely affect air quality in the area; 12. Pressure on existing schools and health facilities; 13. Impact on existing wildlife habitats; 14. Loss of privacy, proposed dwellings too close to existing properties; 15. Need to delay all development during the pandemic; 16. Footpath should be provide to link Royal Close open space to Markham Lane; 17. Need for bungalows rather than 2 storey house to be in character with the area; 18. Should show connection points through to adjacent development sites; 19. Need to ensure that there is 35% affordable housing; 20. Wildlife corridors must be created within the site; 21. More trees need to be planted within the site; 22. Existing green spaces should be extended; 23. Inappropriate location of open space; 24. Need to consult local landowners regarding access road location alongside adjacent sites; 25. Developer should provide allotments in accordance with the requirements of the Development Brief.

1 email of support – need for more houses in the area

12.0 Relevant Policies

The site forms part of a larger planned urban extension encompassing adjoining land within Teignbridge District. Policy SWE1 of the Teignbridge Local Plan proposes an area of approximately 170 ha adjoining Exeter to be developed for the provision of at least 2,000 new dwellings, employment, a country park and associated infrastructure. The South West Exeter Masterplan (2012), produced by consultants on behalf of Exeter City Council, Teignbridge District Council and Devon County Council, indicates how the urban extension might be delivered in a sustainable manner.

Government Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (February 2019) 2. Achieving sustainable design 3. Plan making 4. Decision-making 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes 8. Promoting healthy and safe communities 11. Making effective use of land 12. Achieving well-designed places

Page 55 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Core Strategy (Adopted 21 February 2012)

Core Strategy Objectives CP1 – Spatial Strategy CP3 – Housing CP4 – Density CP5 – Mixed Housing CP7 – Affordable Housing CP9 – Transport CP10 – Meeting Community Needs CP11 – Pollution CP12 – Flood Risk CP14 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy CP15 – Sustainable Construction CP16 – Green Infrastructure, Landscape and Biodiversity CP17 – Design and Local Distinctiveness CP18 – Infrastructure CP19 – Strategic Allocations

The area south of Alphington is proposed for around 500 dwellings and all associated infrastructure including:- -green infrastructure framework; -low and zero carbon infrastructure; -enhancements to transport infrastructure in particular the strategic road network; and -contributions towards other educational, social and community facilities.

The relevant Core Strategy text states that:- South of Alphington, between the urban area and the city boundary, there is capacity for around 500 dwellings. The area would deliver a compact urban extension with associated infrastructure. The area consists of a number of fields with mature boundary hedges that rise gently to the south to a ridge. This prominent ridge forms the city’s administrative boundary and proposals should respond sensitively to this feature. The development form would be expected to relate well to adjoining housing. Densities should be appropriate to the location and it will be important to ensure that the amenity of existing residents is protected. The development should follow the principles of good urban design to ensure that the resulting development is both attractive and locally distinctive. The development must have good permeability for pedestrians and cyclists throughout with links to surrounding areas. The development would also be expected to contribute to enhanced transport infrastructure within the area. Improvements to the Alphington Road corridor will be required, a proposed

Page 56 enhanced public transport service could link this development to the City Centre, and a new rail halt at Matford on the Exeter to Plymouth line is proposed. The development of 500 new dwellings would result in significant additional pressure on existing facilities. Contributions towards the improvement of existing educational, social and community facilities, will be sought where no facility is required on site. Whilst the capacity of the land within the city is for around 500 dwellings, the Regional Spatial Strategy Proposed Changes proposed an urban extension to the south west of the city of around 2,500 dwellings that would include the dwellings within the city and approximately 2,000 dwellings in Teignbridge. The prospect of a larger urban extension offers both challenges and potential opportunities. The larger urban extension could support its own centre, on-site community facilities, including a new secondary school, a new park and ride, significant green infrastructure and improvements in the movement network giving access to surrounding countryside. Teignbridge and Exeter will work closely together to ensure a comprehensive masterplan guides the area.

Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011 (Adopted 31 March 2005)

AP1 – Design and Location of Development AP2 – Sequential Approach H1 – Search Sequence H2 – Location Priorities H3 – Housing Sites H5 – Diversity of Housing H6 - Affordable Housing H7 – Housing for Disabled People T1 – Hierarchy of Modes T2 – Accessibility Criteria T3 – Encouraging Use of Sustainable Modes T5 – Cycle Route Network T10 – Car Parking Standards C5 – Archaeology LS4 – Nature Conservation EN2 – Contaminated Land EN3 – Air and Water Quality EN4 – Flood Risk EN5 – Noise EN6 – Renewable Energy DG1 – Objectives of Urban Design DG2 – Energy Conservation DG4 – Residential Layout and Amenity DG5 – Provision of Open Space and Children’s Play Areas DG6 – Vehicle Circulation and Car Parking in Residential Development DG7 – Crime Prevention and Safety

Page 57 Devon Waste Plan 2011 – 2031 (Adopted 11 December 2014) (Devon County Council)

W4 – Waste Prevention W21 – Making Provision for Waste Management

Development Delivery Development Plan Document (Publication Version, July 2015)

This document represents a material consideration but has not been adopted and does not form part of the Development Plan and therefore carries limited weight.

DD1 – Sustainable Development DD9 – Accessible, Adaptable and Wheelchair User Dwellings DD13 – Residential Amenity DD20 – Accessibility and Sustainable Movement DD21 – Parking DD22 – Open Space, Allotments, and Sport and Recreation Provision DD25 – Design Principles DD26 – Designing out Crime DD28 – Conserving and Managing Heritage Assets DD30 – Green Infrastructure DD31 – Biodiversity DD33 – Flood Risk DD34 – Pollution and Contaminated Land

Exeter City Council Supplementary Planning Documents Affordable Housing SPD (April 2014) Archaeology and Development SPD (Nov 2004) Sustainable Transport SPD (March 2013) Planning Obligations SPD (April 2014) Public Open Space SPD (Sept 2005) Residential Design Guide SPD (Sept 2010) Trees and Development SPD (Sept 2009)

Other documents Alphington Masterplan Study November 2010. Net-Zero Exeter 2030 Plan July 2020 to inform all policy documents, plans and corporate decision making in response to the Climate Emergency and in pursuance of the goal to make Exeter a carbon neutral city by 2030

Development Brief for South West Alphington Summary of Brief relevant to these outline applications. The development as a whole must deliver a mix of housing that is informed by context and the most up-to-date Strategic Housing Market Assessment for

Page 58 Exeter. Any development must include 35% affordable housing, subject to viability, to be provided on-site as an integrated part of the scheme. Co-operative housing may form part of the affordable housing mix. The City Council will accept the provision of an extra care facility as part of the development and as part of the affordable housing provision.

The site area must be developed for residential use, at a density, which represents an efficient use of land. An average net density of less than 30 dph is unlikely to be consistent with this. Recent developments on the edge of Exeter have achieved an average net density of around 35 dph. In order to respect the character and appearance of neighbouring residential areas, the topography of the site and its proximity to a Scheduled Ancient Monument, those areas along the northern and southern boundaries of the site must be developed at around 20 dph. Higher densities will be appropriate towards the centre of the site.

1.44 ha of the site must be provided as level public open space. The public open space must be an integral element of the site’s overall design and located so as to maximise the use of SUDs and contribute towards biodiversity conservation and enhancement. All new homes must be within easy walking distance of the public open space. The open space must include a LEAP on that part of the site to the west of Chudleigh Road. Management arrangements for the LEAP and NEAP must be included in any development proposals.

An Arboricultural Report must be prepared at the pre-application stage and agreed with the City Council. The Report must identify all existing trees and hedgerows to be retained. These must be incorporated into a landscape and green infrastructure framework for the new development, which must also include additional planting of trees and shrubs of species that are appropriate to the area. In particular, additional tree planting will be required along all road frontages and the southern / south-eastern boundaries of the site, in order to partly screen and buffer the development. Subject to the conclusions of the Arboricultural Report, trees within the site may be made the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.

Development must provide for a net gain in biodiversity at the site. An ecology survey must be carried out by the developers at the pre-application stage, in order to establish the current ecological value of the site. Development must avoid damage to features of ecological value, mitigate any direct impacts and finally offset any unavoidable residual impacts.

The site must be developed as a place which encourages residents to walk, cycle or use public transport or a car club as an alternative to the private car.

Development of the site will generate additional traffic. So that the existing highways network can accommodate this traffic, new residents must be encouraged to access jobs and facilities on foot, bicycle or public transport wherever possible. Accordingly:

Page 59

The developer must prepare a Travel Plan and an Air Quality Management Assessment (AQMA) at the pre-application stage. These must be agreed with the local planning authority. The AQMA must consider any increased loading on Exeter’s Air Quality Management Area.

The following three off-site projects Village Public Realm Enhancement Scheme, Loram Way Cycle Link and Upgrade of/Extension to the A Bus Service are necessary to the sustainable development of the site. The developer will be required to pay a financial contribution totalling £1,290,000 towards these three projects. The contribution will be secured by means of a Section 106 Agreement.

The developer will be required to pay a financial contribution towards establishing a Car Club at the site, to help minimise traffic generated by any development. The total financial contribution will depend on the number of dwellings proposed and will be calculated in accordance with the City Council’s Sustainable Transport SPD. The contribution will be secured by means of a S106 Agreement.

The developer will be required to fund the provision of a high quality pedestrian and cycle route along the site’s southern boundary, including Markham Lane, via a Section 106 Agreement. Any new homes built along the southern boundary must be oriented to face the route, so as to promote safety through natural surveillance.

All dwellings should include secure cycle parking in accordance with the City Council’s Sustainable Transport SPD. Developers are encouraged to include charging facilities for electric vehicles. As a minimum, ducting and the potential for easy connection to the electricity network should be provided in accordance with the SPD.

Motor vehicle access into/out of the site must only be taken from Shillingford Road, Chudleigh Road and Dawlish Road.

Any planning permission for development at the site will be conditioned to require the submission of a Construction Traffic Management Plan. The Plan must include appropriate routing of heavy vehicles to and from the site via the A379, together with the provision of temporary yellow signs advertising the appropriate routes.

Connected to the development of the site and wider urban extension, the City Council will also continue to explore, alongside Devon County Highways, the potential for the provision of a safe walking and cycle route along Chudleigh Road.

The site must be developed as a place which uses low and zero carbon energy and makes efficient use of natural and local resources.

Page 60

A Decentralised Energy Network providing low carbon heat to developments in this area (through a low temperature hot water district heating network) is viable and feasible. Therefore, development must be designed so that the internal systems for space and water heating are capable of being connected to such a network and the necessary on site infrastructure shall be put in place for connection of those systems to the network. If this is shown to be unviable or unfeasible for any individual development, then alternative solutions that would result in the same or better carbon emissions reduction must be implemented.

The development must make efficient use of natural resources, locally sourced and recycled wherever possible, and minimise construction waste and water use.

The development must achieve high standards of fabric energy efficiency, reduce energy demand, incorporate low carbon energy technologies and reduce carbon emissions from heat and power generation.

13.0 Human rights

Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property

The consideration of the application in accordance with Council procedures will ensure that views of all those interested are considered. All comments from interested parties have been considered and reported within this report in summary with full text accessible via the Council’s website.

It is acknowledged that there are certain individual properties where there may be some adverse impact and this will need to be mitigated as recommended through imposing conditions to ensure that there is no undue impact on the home and family life for occupiers. However, any interference with the right to a private and family life and home arising from the scheme as result of impact on residential amenity is considered necessary in a democratic society in the interests of the economic well-being of the city and wider area and is proportionate given the overall benefits of the scheme in the provision of homes, including affordable housing and economic benefits.

Any interference with property rights is in the public interest and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regime for controlling the development of land.

This Recommendation is based on consideration of the proposal against adopted Development Plan policies, the application of which does not prejudice the Human Rights of the applicant or any third party.

Page 61 14.0 Public Sector Equalities Duty

As set out in the Equalities Act 2010, all public bodies in discharging their functions must have “due regard” to the need to:

a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it; c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.

Whilst there is no absolute requirement to fully remove any disadvantage the Duty is to have “regard to” and remove OR minimise disadvantage and in considering the merits of this planning application the planning authority has had due regard to the matters set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

15.0 Financial benefits

The requirements to set out the financial benefits arising from a planning application is set out in s155 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. This requires that local planning authorities include financial benefits in each report which is:

a) made by an officer or agent of the authority for the purposes of a non- delegated determination of an application for planning permission; and

b) contains a recommendation as to how the authority should determine the application in accordance with section 70(2) (of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

The information on financial benefits must include a list of local financial considerations or benefits of a development which officers consider are likely to be obtained by the authority if the development is carried out including their value

Page 62 if known and should include whether the officer considers these to be material or not material.

Material considerations Affordable housing contribution of 30%; District heating connection; Pedestrian/cycle bridge contribution of £1,104 per dwelling; Chudleigh Road/A379 improvements works contribution of £3,798 per dwelling; Alphington Public Realm Works contribution of £1,100 per dwelling; Loram Way Cycle link contribution of £375 per dwelling; Bus Service upgrade/extension contribution of £1,750 per dwelling; Car Club contribution of £132 per dwelling; Travel planning contribution £500 per dwelling; Traffic Regulation Orders of £5,000 Markham Lane contribution GP contributions £384 per dwelling; Educational contribution

Non material considerations CIL contributions -The adopted CIL charging schedule applies a levy on proposals that create additional new floor space on a site. This proposal is CIL liable.

The rate at which CIL is charged for this development is £119.92 per sq. metre plus new index linking. Confirmation of the final CIL charge will be provided to the applicant in a CIL liability notice issued prior to the commencement of the development. All liability notices will be adjusted in accordance with the national All-in-Tender Price Index of construction costs published by the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors for the year when planning permission is granted for the development.

16.0 Planning Assessment

The key issues are: 1. Principle of the Proposed Development 2. Access and Transport Issues 3. Alphington Development Brief 4. Affordable Housing 5. Ecological Issues 6. Habitat Mitigation 7. Layout and Design 8. District Heating 9. Education 10. Need for an Environmental Impact Assessment 11. CIL/Section 106

Page 63 Principle of Development The application site for Alphin Farm West is contained within the Alphington strategic housing allocation identified in the Exeter Core Strategy 2012 as part of an urban extension to the south west of the city for around 2,500 dwellings, which would include the dwellings within the city boundary and approximately 2000 dwellings in the Teignbridge area. Policy CP19 of the Exeter City Core Strategy designates the site within its strategic residential site allocation as part of the intention to provide for around 500 dwellings. This application proposes up to 116 dwellings, which will form part of what in future will be South West Exeter urban extension. An application has also been approved subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement for the site known as Alden Farm East on behalf of Redrow Homes (15/0640/OUT) on part of the allocated strategic housing site between Chudleigh Road and Dawlish Road. Further confirmation of the site’s intended use for residential development is contained with South West Masterplan 2012 and the Development Brief for South West Alphington 2014. Consequently the site’s use for residential development is wholly appropriate and as stated within the National Planning Policy Framework ‘the presumption in favour of sustainable development paragraph 11 ‘...this means approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay…’.

Whilst the principle of residential development for the site is appropriate, the details contained within the submitted application require specific consideration in respect of the access arrangements, which are not a reserved matter and the proposal’s compliance with development plan policies and other material planning considerations. In particular, the South West Alphington Development Brief represents a material planning consideration which has been subject to public consultation and adoption. Accordingly this document carries significant weight and therefore is an important consideration in the assessment of these applications. The Alphington Forum has previously raised concern that the Brief had been given insufficient weight within the submitted planning application and have still highlighted areas of concerns which are stated in the representations section.

Access and Transport Issues Clearly the development of the Exeter sites for residential development cannot be considered in isolation from the major development being undertaken in the Teignbridge district. Consequently the Devon County Highway Authority has considered the highways and the associated infrastructure requirements in the context of this wider development allocation. The infrastructure planning approach adopted seeks to ensure that all development within the proposed Alphington allocation, and 2,000 dwellings in Teignbridge, contributes proportionally to the full package of infrastructure requirements necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The financial contributions secured from the Section 106 agreements will assist in ensuring that the necessary infrastructure can be delivered effectively. In particular, major highway

Page 64 improvements are required to the Chudleigh Road/A379 junction to accommodate the increased traffic for the South West area and a new pedestrian/cycleway bridge across the A379 to access the new school, local centre and open space. The Highway Authority has requested that a financial contribution is made from each dwelling built towards these highway improvements.

In addition to the major highway works to serve these developments further improvements are necessary to meet the sustainable objectives of the Alphington Development Brief which intends ‘… new residents to access jobs and facilities on foot, bicycle or public transport wherever possible…’. In particular the Brief requires financial contributions towards public realm enhancements to promote improved pedestrian and cycle access through the existing Alphington village; a Loram Way link to provide a cycle link between the sites and the Marsh Barton industrial estate; an upgrade/extension of bus services in the area, improvements to Markham Lane and a contribution towards establishing a car club. All these matters are addressed through a financial contribution per dwelling at rate which accords with the Alphington Brief and will be included in a Section 106 agreement

This outline application proposes all matters to be reserved except for access and therefore this needs specific attention. The Core Strategy’s allocation of these sites for housing means that at a strategic level they have been deemed appropriate to accommodate the additional transport movements residential development of this scale would generate. The submitted plans detail the position of the access, visibility splays and proposed footway in respect of Shillingford Road. Unlike the previous submission the internal road does not indicate a link from Shillingford Road to Chudleigh Road, which would complete road infrastructure considered important to create a bus route through all the strategic housing allocations within Exeter area. The submitted plan indicates the internal road terminating at the eastern boundary. The applicant has stated that the land to the east of the application site is not within their control and therefore unable to be delivered as part of this application. However it is important that the comprehensive development of the area identified in the Development Brief is achieved as the potential for improved bus services for the area is recognised in sustainable transport terms as an alternative to increased car travel. Consequently it is proposed that the applicant enters into Section 106 Agreement to ensure their obligation to safeguard a future vehicular route through the site suitable for buses to the eastern boundary of the site. Whilst the indicative layout shows where this may be located the exact position will be dependent on future discussions with the adjacent landowners to enable a coordinated approach to be taken.

It is important to note that the absence of a second vehicular access onto Chudleigh Road does not however preclude the site for housing development. Following the increased width of the access onto Shillingford Road the County

Page 65 Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposed vehicular access subject to the imposition of a conditions to ensure compliance with the details of the vehicular access, visibility splays and pedestrian footways being provided prior to occupation. However given the absence of a second access the highway officer has recommended the number of dwellings occupied be limited to 75 until the vehicular access linking Shillingford Road to Chudleigh Road suitable for two way bus flow has been completed. This has been accepted by the applicant and will ensure that they actively seek to engage with the adjacent landowners to provide the link and release the remaining up to 41 dwellings. This requirement will be imposed by a planning condition.

Both the Alphington Forum and Teignbridge District Council have highlighted concerns about pedestrian and cycle connections between the existing built up area of Alphington and the future new development to the south in the Teignbridge area. Members will recall that the original scheme indicated that the bus link was shown to cut through to Markham Lane and into the neighbouring site located with the Teignbridge area to the south. This vehicular route has been deleted from the plans for this application and as noted within the Teignbridge District Council response is to be welcomed. The illustrative plans indicate that the route pedestrian/cycle links will be provided onto Markham Lane and the exact location and amount of hedgerow to be removed agreed at the reserved matters stage. The initial location indicates that they would align with the future routes proposed within the draft layout by Vistry Homes on the Teignbridge side. In accordance with the Development Brief a financial contribution towards the funding of a high quality pedestrian and cycle route towards Markham Lane, proportionate with this development’s location adjacent to the lane, is required. In addition, pedestrian/cycle links are proposed to the north into Veitch Gardens and Royal Close, which will be confirmed at the reserved matters application stage. It is considered that coupled with the provision of a 2 metre wide footway along the length of the Shillingford Road bordering the application site and the link into the future development site to the east, this will provide an appropriate level of pedestrian/cycle accessibility for this site as anticipated by the Development Brief.

Members at the previous meeting requested an update on the County projects in respect of the railway halt and park and ride at Alphington. Since the last meeting in December 2018 these major project have not yet progressed, although it is understood that the County are currently seeking funding for the Marsh Barton railway halt, and it is understood that work may commence next year. The highway officer has previously advised that the proposed development is not dependent on these projects for the scheme to be acceptable in transport terms. However it is accepted that these schemes would help to improve the public transport options for existing residents living in Alphington and those within the development site and reduce the reliance on the private car travel. Given the highway advice and the various contribution, which are required in respect of this

Page 66 application in transport terms, it would be unreasonable to withhold consent for this development until progress on the railway halt has been made.

In summary, the County Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposed vehicular accesses at 6 metres in width and therefore is considered appropriate. It is considered that the imposition of a conditions to ensure compliance with the details of the vehicular access, visibility splays and pedestrian footway prior to occupation are required. In addition financial contributions are required towards sustainable forms of transport in the area.

Alphington Development Brief As previously stated the Development Brief for the South West Alphington represents a material consideration. This report has highlighted that the transport issues which seek to encourage residents to walk, cycle or use public transport and includes a car club, travel planning will meet the requirements as stated in the brief through financial contributions in the Section 106 agreement.

The Alphington Forum comments have raised concerns about two main aspects of the submission namely the lack of road link from Shillingford Road to Chudleigh Road suitable for buses and concerns that the layout does not address the requirementS of the Brief in terms of green space, location of the LEAP and height of buildings. The previous section addresses the issues regarding the through road and consequently it still remains a requirement of both this developer and future applicants on adjacent sites to deliver this through route to accommodate buses. In respect of the submitted layout this remains for illustrative purposes only and will not form part of the approved plans. However the layout as submitted would allow for a footpath connection alongside the central hedgerow to be achieved. In addition siting of the open space and LEAP adjacent to an area of existing open space does appear logical, although this would also be the subject of future consideration at the reserved matters stage. The Design and Access statement does indicate that the houses alongside Markham Lane, on the more elevated parts of the site are to be two storey, which is in line with the brief. Whilst the densities for the various sectors of the site is not specified, the overall total density across the site is approximately 28 dwellings per hectare, which is below the Brief’s requirement for 35dph. It is therefore considered that the layout provides the necessary reassurance that the resultant layout and design at the reserved matters stage could be achieved.

Whilst it is important to note that whilst the Alphington Development Brief represents a material planning consideration in the assessment of these applications, it needs to be balanced against other material considerations which will sometimes take precedence. However it is considered that the overall objectives of the Brief have been met through the conditions and requirements of the Section 106 Agreement, which will deliver significant financial contribution to public realm and sustainable transport improvement for Alphington.

Page 67 Affordable Housing Core Strategy Policy CP7 and the Affordable Housing SPD requires 35% of the total number of units on sites to be for affordable housing. Following the submission of a viability appraisal in 2017 for Aldens Farm East (now the Redrow development) and the subsequent report from the Council’s independent viability assessor it was accepted that this site would be viable to provide 30% affordable housing. Whilst this viability assessment did not directly report on Aldens Farm West, the Council’s independent assessor was aware of both sites submitted by the same applicant (Devon County Council) and therefore the potential for the findings to be used for both Aldens Farm East and West. Recent discussions with the viability assessor confirm that it would be justified in terms of consistency to use the same percentage of affordable housing for this site, as that recently approved for the Redrow site by Members in June 2020. For this application based on 116 dwellings 30% would equate to 34.8 units (for comparison 35% would result in a 40.6 affordable units). Whilst the number of dwellings is not fixed and will be subject to issues such as proposed layout, design and retention of landscape features it does provide an indication of the number of affordable units the site could generate. The reserved matters application would also have to include a 70/30 split in respect of social/intermediate housing, 5% wheelchair accessible units and a distribution of the affordable housing throughout the site to be secured within the Section 106 Agreement, which would align with that agreed for the Redrow scheme approved in June 2020.

Members raised concern at the previous Planning Committee meeting in December 2018 regarding the shortfall in the affordable units to achieve a policy compliant level. However since this meeting a revised application submitted by Redrow Homes at Aldens Farm East has received a resolution to approve subject to Section 106 Agreement requiring 30% affordable housing at Planning Committee in June 2020. In terms of consistency it is considered appropriate to apply the same tenancy split of 70/30 between social and intermediate as the Redrow and in line with the Affordable SPD. It is considered that ensuring the greater level of social rent units provides some compensation for the shortfall in the policy compliant level. The NPPF recognises that the submission of viability assessment is justified where the applicant wishes to demonstrate that they are not able to comply with the development plan policies. The viability assessment forms part of the planning balance for this case and is stated in the NPPF as being a matter for the decision maker.

Ecological Issues Given the proposed change of use for the land from grassland to residential development it is inevitable that the landscape and ecological character of the area will irreversibly change. As previously stated the site has been identified as strategic housing sites in the adopted Core Strategy and therefore this change to the landscape character has already been accepted. The application have been accompanied by an updated Ecological Impact Assessment (April 2020). The ecological assessment describes the site as semi-

Page 68 improved grassland field with encroaching scrub and hedgerows including mature trees. The site was found to have evidence of a range of protected and notable species, including breeding bird, dormice, reptiles and commuting/foraging bats as well as potential for hedgehogs and toads. As the application is for outline planning permission the exact relationship of any buildings or roads to existing landscape features is not fixed, however it is estimated that 90 metres of hedgerow with the site would be removed to facilitate the access and visibility splays. Consequently it is considered appropriate to impose a condition on the application for a Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plan to ensure that the important environmental features of the sites are safeguarded and enhanced. It is anticipated that the important trees and hedgerow along the boundaries of the site should be retained and supplemented where appropriate and would be looked at in more detail at the reserved matters stage.

The need for the protection of endangered species is the responsibility of the local planning authority under the Habitats Directive and the presence of a protected species represents a material consideration. In this respect the ecological appraisal specific surveys for dormice, reptile and bats including mitigation measures where appropriate have been undertaken. In addition, the report recommends that measure such as retention/maintenance of boundary hedgerows, provision of a wildflower meadow, buffers of long grass alongside hedgerows to provide wildlife habitats, dark areas corridors for bats, lighting strategy and integration of bat and bird boxes, insect bricks, dormouse boxes and habitat piles reptiles are provided. The ecologist’s report concludes that although the proposed development will result in the loss of some habitat, the overall result will be a net gain for wildlife due to the enhancement/restoration of hedgerows and the creation of habitat features for a range of species. It is considered that the imposition of a condition requiring the submission of a Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plan prior to commencement on site will address the requirements of this report in respect of protect species and habitat management.

Habitat Mitigation The Council has undertaken an Appropriate Assessment for the site which concludes that, whilst the development has the potential to have a significant effect on the European Sites, and an adverse impact on the achievement of the conservation objectives for the sites, the impacts of the development can be mitigated through receipts from Community Infrastructure Levy to contribute towards the implementation of measure in the South East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy, which are designed to avoid and mitigate the adverse impacts of increased visitor pressure brought about through population growth.

At the March 2017 meeting, the South East Devon Habitats Regulations Executive Committee agreed on the provision of four strategic Suitable Alternative Natural Green Spaces (SANGS). Natural England confirmed that the

Page 69 SANGS options as proposed would be delivering the Mitigation Strategy. One of the four SANGS will be delivered at South West Exeter. These SANGS will mitigate the impacts of development within the City, including at Aldens Farm. Habitats mitigation partner authorities are currently progressing implementation of this SANGS. Some of the CIL receipts from the Aldens Farm development (and other developments across the City) will contribute to funding the SANGS provision. There is consequently no requirement for onsite SANGS at Aldens Farm. It is reasonable to assume that the SANGS at South West Exeter will be ‘user ready’/delivered ahead of the occupation of dwellings at Aldens Farm

Layout and Design The submitted illustrative layout and Design and Access statement provides an indication of how the 116 dwellings could be accommodated on the site. The layout proposes dwellings fronting both Shillingford Road and Markham Lane, which is considered appropriate. The general approach is to create a series of blocks located off the main road, which runs through the centre of the site. Although it is unlikely that the bend in this main road is suitable for bus use the general approach is considered logical. The illustrative layout submitted indicates that sufficient space can be made available for open spaces, landscape/wildlife buffers as specified by the ecological assessment and to ensure that suitable distance is retained from adjacent existing residential properties. Comment has been made that a footpath link could be created between the connections into the Markham Lane to the open space alongside the existing hedgerow. However this matter of detailed layout can be agreed at the reserved matters stage. In addition, the exact location of the pedestrian/cycle points into Markham Lane can be agreed at this detailed stage, although as previously stated the indicative position contained with the illustrative plans aligns with the draft layout for the Vistry Homes development site in Teignbridge. The Design and Access Statement does highlight the need for properties alongside Markham Lane should not exceed 2 storeys to protect the ridgeline and these matters can also be picked up at the reserved matters stage.

District Heating Core Strategy Policy CP13, which is supported by NPPF paragraph 153a, requires that major developments will be required to connect to any existing or proposed Decentralised Energy Network in the locality to bring forward low or zero carbon energy distribution. Core Strategy Policy CP19 designates this area as a Strategic Allocation and identifies infrastructure to support it including low and zero carbon infrastructure. The creation of Heat Network is a central plank of the current UK Government Heat Strategy. The Energy from Waste (EfW) plant at Marsh Barton was constructed with the ability to supply heat to buildings in this area. It is currently operational but only exporting electricity. Technical and economic feasibility by WSP Parson Brinkerhoff has detailed the means by which heat can be supplied to the application sites on. Exeter CC, Devon CC and Teignbridge DC are engaged with developers interests at SW Exeter and a consortium of commercial partners interested in delivering and operating such a

Page 70 network. This commercial interest is on the basis of the dwellings which are the subject of this application being connected to that network.

The connection of this development to a District Heating Network, even if it powered by a gas burning combined heat and power engine producing heat and electricity, would mean that the dwellings meet the carbon emissions rate abatements required by Core Strategy Policy CP15. By connecting that network to the EfW plant very significant carbon emissions rate abatement would be achieved. This because using heat energy from the EfW plant means that greater efficiency of that plant is achieved, as the EfW plant is 5 times more efficient in generating heat energy than electrical energy.

It is therefore recommended that conditions and clauses within the S106 are attached to this consent to require connection to the District Heating network unless it can be shown, prior to the commencement of construction of any phase of the development, that to do so would not be viable or feasible or would unreasonably delay construction of that phase

Education Devon County as the education authority has commented that a new school is planned at South West Exeter to meet the need for school places from the development and the wider area. This is planned as an all-through school, which includes both primary and secondary provision in one school. It will also have a nursery for pre-school age children. The school will be run by Ted Wragg Multi Academy Trust. This was approved as part of the free school competition programme, run by central government. The free school competition programme allows for school providers to apply to run new schools. As the school has been secured through this process, it will be delivered by the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) and Devon County Council are working closely with the ESFA and Ted Wragg Multi Academy Trust on the delivery of the school. Work is progressing to enable the delivery of the school and it is expected that the school will be in place alongside the delivery of the development. Devon County Council as the educational authority has requested a financial contribution towards meet the increased demands on educational institutions as a result of this development. A total of £728,640 has been requested incorporating £464,551 (primary); £235,089 (secondary) and £29,000 (early years) based on the total 116 units being built. This is to be secured via the Section 106 Agreement.

Need for an Environmental Impact Assessment Some residents originally expressed concern that the application was not accompanied by an Environment Statement in accordance with Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations. The local planning authority has provided a screening opinion that concludes that an EIA in this instance is not required. Whilst the proposal requires significant supporting documentation, which has

Page 71 been provided, to make an appropriate assessment in the context of this planning application, it is important to note that the site has been identified for development in the Exeter Core Strategy. In addition, Members are advised that the Planning Practice Guidance 'Environmental Impact Assessment' states that 'only a very small proportion of Schedule 2 development (which this development falls within) will require an assessment…'. The Guidance goes onto state that it is for the local planning authority to consider whether a proposed development requires an Environmental Impact Assessment

CIL/S106 The development is CIL liable and a S106 agreement will be required to secure the affordable housing provision, highway contributions, education, GP provision and agreement of future management of the open space/LEAP.

Community Infrastructure Levy - The residential development at the site will be liable for the payment of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The current rate for 2020 is £119.29 per square metre (gross internal floorspace) and is applicable to all market housing within the development.

Section 106 Agreement – a detailed breakdown of the Head of Terms is contained within section 18 of this report.

In their consultation response as Education Authority DCC have highlighted the additional demand for early years, primary and secondary places arising from the development. They have also identified a lack of capacity within the system to meet this additional demand generated by the new housing proposed. Consequently they have requested education contributions be secured through S106 contributions as set out under the consultations section of this report in line with their published methodology.

The applicant’s agent has sought Counsel’s opinion on this matter and contests the basis of the County’s request for such S106 contributions, and its compliance with the relevant legal tests appertaining to S106 contributions. This matter has been passed to the County for their consideration but in the absence of any further consultation response from them revising their position it remains the case that the relevant contributions identified by the Education Authority as a consultee to the City Council on the proposal are required to be secured through S106 contributions to mitigate the impacts arising from the development and make it acceptable in this respect. The proposed heads of terms for the S106 thus reflect DCC education contributions request. The proposed heads of terms for the S106 thus reflect DCC education contributions request.

17.0 Conclusion

The site is designated in the Core Strategy as being appropriate for residential development. In time the site will form part of the South West Exeter urban

Page 72 expansion totalling 2,500 dwelling between Exeter and the Teignbridge district. This revised application has been accompanied by detailed specialist reports which address the fundamental issues relating to these sites such transport impact, air quality and ecology. Consequently it is considered that suitable conditions will be appropriate to address matters of details, which will inform the future detailed residential layout, green space and landscape enhancement particularly around the perimeters of the site. In addition, these conditions will ensure that the objectives of the Alphington Development Brief are largely addressed and as stated above will deliver significant financial contributions to the public realm, sustainable transport objectives for Alphington and district heating to serve the new development. Whilst it is unfortunate that the 35% development plan compliant level of affordable housing is not being proposed, the development will still potentially result in up to 35 additional affordable units and up to 116 dwellings in total to help meet the Council’s 5 year housing supply.

The Section 106 agreement will ensure the highway infrastructure namely the improvements to the Chudleigh Road/A379 junction and pedestrian/cycle footbridge is provided which are considered necessary for the South West Alphington development both with Exeter and Teignbridge. In addition, the agreement will ensure a 30% affordable housing provision and the district heating for the development site. Whilst the reserved matters application will require careful attention to ensure an appropriate layout and design for this area, it is considered that the combination of the proposed conditions and Section 106 agreement will ultimately result in a sympathetic development for this allocated housing site.

18.0 RECOMMENDATION Dual Recommendation as set out below with B) only applying in the event of the failure to complete the S106 Agreement within the prescribed timeframe: -

A) DELEGATE TO CITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER TO GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETION OF A LEGAL AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED) TO SECURE THE FOLLOWING:

Section 106 Agreement – Heads of Terms

Affordable housing 30% contribution (70% of the affordable units are to be social rent and the remainder to be intermediate affordable housing) - 5% of the affordable units to be wheelchair accessible 50% of AH units to be constructed and made available for occupation prior to the occupation of 60% of Open Market units. Remaining 50% of AH units to be constructed and made available for occupation prior to occupation of 90% of Open Market units.

Page 73 Transport Contributions required as follows: -Pedestrian/cycle bridge contribution of £1,104 per dwelling -Chudleigh Road/A379 improvements works contribution of £3,798 per dwelling -Alphington Public Realm Works contribution of £1,100 per dwelling -Loram Way Cycle link contribution of £375 per dwelling -Bus Service upgrade/extension contribution of £1,750 per dwelling -Car Club contribution of £132 per dwelling -Travel planning contribution £500 per dwelling - Markham Lane contribution (to be agreed) In the case of the highway contributions all figures to be indexed linked from 2016.

For simplicity, the applicant has suggested the above is combined into one payment of £8,759 per dwelling (plus the Markham Lane contribution), payable as follows: -First 25% prior to occupation of 25% of Open Market Units -Further 25% upon occupation of 50% of Open Market Units -Remaining 50% upon occupation of 75% of Open Market units. Prior to commencement: -Enter into S278 agreement -One Traffic Regulation Order of £5,000.

Education Contribution to primary education of £4,004.75 per family-type dwelling (based on the DfE new build rate of £16,019 per pupil). This contribution would be used towards new primary provision in South West Exeter. One bedroom dwellings are excluded. Contribution to secondary education of £2,026.83 per family-type dwelling (based on the DfE new build rate of £24,261 per pupil). This contribution will be used towards new secondary provision in South West Exeter. One bedroom dwellings are excluded. Contribution of £250 per dwelling for Early Years provision. This will be used to provide early years provision for pupils likely to be generated by the proposed development. This contribution will be used towards new early years places in South West Exeter. One bedroom dwellings are excluded. Payments to be provided as follows: -First 25% prior to occupation of 25% of Open Market Units -Further 25% upon occupation of 50% of Open Market Units -Remaining 50% upon occupation of 75% of Open Market units.

GP Facilities/Provision £384 per dwelling towards enhanced GP facilities in the locality

Page 74 Open Space / Landscaping No more than 75% of dwellings shall be occupied until the POS has been laid out in accordance with the approved plans. Prior to completion of POS/LEAP areas, details of management company to be provided.

District heating connection.

Safeguard access/bus link to eastern boundary

All S106 contributions (with the exception of the highway works) to be index linked from the date of resolution.

And the following conditions:

1. Approval of the details of the layout, scale, appearance of the buildings and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: To safeguard the rights of control by the Local Planning Authority in respect of the reserved matters.

2. Application for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of the permission and the development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of the permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of the approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved whichever is the later. Reason: To ensure compliance with section 91 - 93 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3. In respect of those matters not reserved for later approval the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the proposed access scheme shown on drawing no.14807-HYD-XX-XX-DR-TP-0201 rev P02. Reason: To ensure that an appropriate vehicular access is provided to serve the development.

4. No part of the development shall be occupied until pedestrian/cycle links onto Shillingford Road, Veitch Gardens and Markham Lane to existing highways have been completed with details that shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority Reason: To ensure that a safe and suitable access to the site is provided for all users, in accordance with Paragraph 108 of the NPPF.

5. No part of the development shall be occupied until a 2m footpath adjacent to Shllingford Road as indicated on Drawing Number 14807-HYD-XX-XX-DR-TP-

Page 75 0201 Rev P02 have been completed with details that shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and with the Local Highway Authority Reason: To ensure that a safe and suitable access to the site is provided for all users, in accordance with Paragraphs 108 and 110 of the NPPF

6. No more than 75 dwellings shall be occupied until a vehicular route from Shillingford Road to Chudleigh Road capable of accommodating two-way bus flow through the site have been provided to a specification agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and with the Local Highway Authority Reason: To ensure the site is served by sustainable transport modes required to meet the agreed residential trip rates and to ensure that a safe and suitable access to the site is provided for all users, in accordance with Paragraph 108 of the NPPF.

7. If, during demolition/ development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then the Local Authority shall be notified as soon as practicable and no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), shall be carried out until the developer has submitted an investigation and risk assessment, and where necessary a remediation strategy and verification plan, detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. Prior to occupation of any part of the development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the occupants of the buildings hereby approved.

8. Pre-commencement condition: No development related works shall take place within the site until a written scheme of archaeological work has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include on-site work, and off-site work such as the analysis, publication, and archiving of the results, together with a timetable for completion of each element. All works shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the approved scheme, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the appropriate identification, recording and publication of archaeological and historic remains affected by the development.

9. Pre-commencement condition: No development shall take place until a Waste Audit Statement for waste arising from the development has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall include: a) methods to reduce the amount of waste material b) methods to re-use the waste within the development c) methods for the reprocessing and/or final disposal of excavated materials, including locations (which should hold appropriate planning permission,

Page 76 Environment Agency licences and exemptions) where such activities will take place d) estimated quantities of excavated/demolition materials arising from the site e) evidence that all alternative methods of waste disposal have been considered f) evidence that the distance travelled when transporting waste material to its final disposal point has been kept to a minimum. Reason: The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved statement.

10. Pre-commencement condition: Prior to the commencement of development a Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plan which demonstrates how the proposed development will be managed in perpetuity to enhance wildlife, together with a programme of implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved Plan and programme of implementation. Reason – In the interests of securing a comprehensive approach to the preservation and enhancement of the landscape and ecological interest of the site.

11. Pre-commencement condition: No development (including ground works) or vegetation clearance work shall take place until a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority including: (a) the timetable of the works; (b) daily hours of construction; (c) any road closure; (d) hours during which delivery and construction traffic will travel to and from the site, with such vehicular movements being restricted to between 8:00am and 6pm Mondays to Fridays inclusive: 9.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays, and no such vehicular movements taking place on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays unless agreed by the planning Authority in advance; (e) the number and sizes of vehicles visiting the site in connection with the development and the frequency of their visits; (f) the compound/location where all building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste will be stored during the demolition and construction phases; (g) areas on-site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will load or unload building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery vehicles will park on the County highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by the Local Planning Authority; (h) hours during which no construction traffic will be present at the site;

Page 77 (i) the means of enclosure of the site during construction works; and (j) details of proposals to promote car sharing amongst construction staff in order to limit construction staff vehicles parking off-site (k) details of wheel washing facilities and obligations (l) the proposed route of all construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes. (m)details of the amount and location of construction worker parking. (n) photographic evidence of the condition of adjacent public highway prior to commencement of any work.

Reason: To minimise the environmental impacts of the construction process for local residents and in the interests of amenity.

12. Pre-commencement condition: No development shall take place until a noise quality assessment has been carried out in accordance with a programme and methodology to be agreed in writing by the local planning authority and the results, together with any mitigation measures necessary, have been agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall not be occupied until the approved mitigation measures have implemented. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

13. Prior to or as part of the Reserved Matters, the following information shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: (a) Soakaway test results in accordance with BRE 365 and groundwater monitoring results in line with our DCC groundwater monitoring policy. (b) A detailed drainage design based upon the approved Flood Risk Assessment and the results of the information submitted in relation to (a) above (c) Detailed proposals for the management of surface water and silt run-off from the site during construction of the development hereby permitted. (d) Proposals for the adoption and maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage system. (e) A plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed at the site. (f) Evidence there is agreement in principle from the landowner/DCC highways/SWW (g) A detailed assessment of the condition and capacity of any existing surface water drainage system/watercourse/culvert that will be affected by the proposals. The assessment should identify and commit to, any repair and/or improvement works to secure the proper function of the surface water drainage receptor. No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until the works have been approved and implemented in accordance with the details under (a) - (g) above. Reason: The above conditions are required to ensure the proposed surface water drainage system will operate effectively and will not cause an increase in flood risk either on the site, adjacent land or downstream in line with SuDS for Devon Guidance (2017) and national policies, including NPPF and PPG. The conditions should be pre-commencement since it is essential that the proposed surface water drainage system is shown to be feasible before works begin to

Page 78 avoid redesign / unnecessary delays during construction when site layout is fixed.

14. Pre-commencement condition: No development shall take place until an air quality report has been submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority of how good design principles and best practice measures, as outlined in Chapter 5 of the IAQM/EPUK guidance Land-Use Planning & Development Control: Planning For Air Quality, will be incorporated to ensure that emissions are fully minimised. The development shall not be occupied until the agreed measures have implemented. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

15. Pre-commencement condition: No development shall commence until details of the open space provision (to be not less than 10% of the total site area and excluding hedgerow and associated buffer area) and children’s play equipment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and thereafter installed to an agreed timescale and maintained in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

16. With the exception of the approved removal of the accesses for the site any trees and hedges on or around the site shall not be felled, lopped, or removed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the rights of control by the Local Planning Authority in these respects and in the interests of amenity.

17. The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree shall be undertaken in accordance with the tree protection plans submitted as part of a arboricultural Survey before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the protection of the trees during the carrying out of the development. This information is required before development commences to protect trees during all stages of the construction process.

18. Unless it is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement that it is not viable or feasible to do so , or would unreasonably delay construction the habitable buildings comprised in the development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the CIBSE Heat Networks Code of Practice so that their internal systems for space and water heating are capable of being connected to the proposed low temperature hot water decentralised energy district heating network. Space shall be provided for the

Page 79 necessary on-site infrastructure (including pipework, plant and machinery) for connection of those systems to the network at points at the application site boundary, as agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the proposal complies with Policy CP13 of Councils Adopted Core Strategy and paragraph 153 of the NPPF and in the interests of delivering sustainable development.

19. The development shall achieve a 19% reduction in CO2 emissions over than necessary to meet the requirements of the 2013 Building Regulations. Reason - In the interests of sustainable development and in accordance with Exeter Core Strategy Policy CP15.

INFORMATIVES

1) In accordance with Chapters 1 and 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, this development has been screened in respect of the need for an Appropriate Assessment (AA). Given the nature of the development, it has been concluded that an AA is required in relation to potential impact on the relevant Special Protection Areas (SPA), the Exe Estuary and East Devon Pebblebed Heaths, which are designated European sites. This AA has been carried out and concludes that the development is such that it could have an impact primarily associated with recreational activity of future occupants of the development. This impact will be mitigated in line with the South East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy prepared by Footprint Ecology on behalf of East Devon and Teignbridge District Councils and Exeter City Council, which is being funded through a proportion of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) collected in respect of the development being allocated to fund the mitigation strategy. Or, if the development is not liable to pay CIL, to pay the appropriate habitats mitigation contribution through another mechanism (this is likely to be either an undertaking in accordance with s111 of the Local Government Act 1972 or a Unilateral Undertaking).

2) The Local Planning Authority considers that this development will be CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) liable. Payment will become due following commencement of development. It is also drawn to your attention that where a chargeable development is commenced before the Local Authority has received a valid commencement notice (i.e. where pre-commencement conditions have not been discharged) the Local Authority may impose a surcharge, and the ability to claim any form of relief from the payment of the Levy will be foregone. You must apply for any relief and receive confirmation from the Council before commencing development.

3) A legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relates to this planning permission.

Page 80 4) In accordance with Paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive and pro-active way and has imposed planning conditions to enable the grant of planning permission.

B) REFUSE PERMISSION FOR THE REASONS SET OUT BELOW IF THE LEGAL AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED) IS NOT COMPLETED BY 7 MARCH 2021 OR SUCH EXTENDED TIME AS AGREED BY THE CITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER

In the absence of a planning obligation in terms that are satisfactory to the Local Planning Authority being completed within an appropriate timescale, and which makes provision for the following matters –

Affordable Housing Education contribution GP contribution Highway infrastructure contributions Travel Planning contribution Traffic Regulation Order contribution

The proposal is contrary to Exeter Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2012 Objectives 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10, and policies CP4, CP5. CP7, CP9, CP10, CP13, CP16 and CP17, Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995- 2011 saved policies H6, T3, DG1 and DG4 Exeter City Council Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2014, Exeter City Council Sustainable Transport Supplementary Planning Document 2013.

Page 81 This page is intentionally left blank  

   





 



    FAX:



 

     

   Other Office locations can be found on our website     TEL:

Head Office:   EMAIL:

 



  



  





  

 

  



     

                     Property Design and Management Services        



    















 



  



 

  



 

    

   

  



   

    

 



 

 





 







   







        





  

  

  

   

 

 

  

 

   



 

 



  

 



 

   

 

 

 

  



 

 

 



     

  

  





 

  

 

 



  







  

 

 





 

 

  



   

 









 



  



 



 

 



  

 

 

 







 

 

 

 



 



 

  







 



  

 

 

 



  



 



 











  





 



   

Page 83  This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6

Planning Committee Report: 20/0809/TEL

1.0 Application Number: 20/0809/TEL Applicant name: Hutchison 3G UK Ltd Proposal: Installation of 18m high 5G telecommunication monopole with cabinet at base and associated ancillary works. Site address: Land at Sidmouth Road, Exeter, EX2 7HL Registration Date: 1st July 2020 Link to application, drawings/plans: http://publicaccess.exeter.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=QCSPPZHBIDJ00 Case Officer: Göran Molin Ward Member(s) Cllr Yolanda Henson, Cllr David Henson and Cllr Peter Holland (St Loyes Ward)

REASON APPLICATION IS GOING TO COMMITTEE – Telecommunication application of public interest with 138 objections.

2.0 Summary of Recommendation: DELEGATE subject to receipt and consideration of outstanding consultation responses and any representations received, prior approval is required and is granted, subject to the following condition.

1. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The statement should include details of access arrangements and timings and management of arrivals and departures of vehicles. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity

3.0 Reason for the recommendation: as set out in Section 18 at end  While the health risks raised by opponents of this type of development are noted, they are not grounds for refusal based on national guidance.  The proposal provides significant public benefit that outweighs any slight visual harm in this location.

Page 85 4.0 Table of key planning issues

Issue Conclusion Principle of development As this is a prior approval application, the principle of the development is already accepted. Scale, design, impact on character and The mast height and design are appearance appropriate in the context of the character of the street and adjacent trees. Whilst the proposal would result in some minor visual harm, this would not amount to a serious adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area. Impact on amenity The location is well chosen to minimise any visual impact on the residential area that the development will serve. Impact on area or site of historic, None conservation, archaeological, landscape or biodiversity importance Economic benefits None Other benefits Paragraph 112 of the NPPF encourages the provision of 5G infrastructure in order to support economic growth and social well-being. Alternative sites and locations The applicant has submitted a justification for the choice of site and reasons for ruling out other sites.

5.0 Description of Site The application site is located on the shared cycle and pedestrian path, alongside the vegetation to the east of Sidmouth Road. The proposal’s location is close to a bus stop, and near to the Devon Cornwall Police Middlemoor HQ, Exeter Arms Hotel and Toby Carvery. Adjacent to the site is the grounds for the new Exeter Police HQ.

A number of street lights and a group of trees (approximately 10m tall) are in the vicinity, although there are some species that are around 15-20 metres high. The site is approximately 65 metres from the nearest residential dwelling south of the development, and about 200 metres to St Peters Church of England School.

The area has no specific allocation in the Local Plan as it is part of the existing cycle and pedestrian path along Sidmouth Road.

Page 86 6.0 Description of Development The application is for prior notification, considering siting and appearance, for the installation of 18m high 5G telecommunication monopole with cabinet at base and associated ancillary works. The application was submitted for the installation of 20m high 5G telecommunication monopole but was negotiated down to 18 metres after the public consultation.

The monopole is proposed to be around 1 metre south-east of the original location. The reason for the revised location is the proximity to gas pipes which was brought up in the consultation reply from Wales and West Utilities. The applicant subsequently carried out a survey regarding the location of these gas pipes and proposed the revised location to avoid interference with them.

7.0 Supporting information provided by applicant Technical information including safety certification.

Supporting statement outlining the justification of the site and reasons for ruling out other sites which contains the following information in summary:

The proposal is required due to acute capacity issues and will facilitate significantly improved 5G in areas that have started to gain this service and newly introduce it to the areas that have not gained this level of connectivity yet.

As with all 5G cells this is an extremely constrained cell search area, with a typical cell radius of approximately 250m, meaning that it would not be feasible to site the column outside of this locale. Options are extremely limited and the only viable solution that minimises amenity issues has been put forward.

Discounted locations include:  By the headquarters of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, which was discounted as it is located on private land.

 Opt. 2 and Opt. 3 located north of the site adjacent to the round-about was discounted as the location is exposed and the proposed option benefits from significantly superior shielding.

 Locations to the south of the proposed location towards Bathern Road were discounted due to the dense residential nature of the area. The area north of Opt. 3 was also discounted under the same rationale.

8.0 Relevant Planning History No recent planning history for the site.

Page 87 9.0 List of Constraints Aerodrome Safeguarding Area

10.0 Consultations All consultee responses can be viewed in full on the Council’s website.

Exeter International Airport has no safeguarding objections to this development provided there are no changes made to current application.

Network Rail has no objection in principle to the proposal. Although due the development being next to Network Rail land and their infrastructure they want to ensure that no part of the development adversely impact the safety, operation and integrity of the operational railway they have included asset protection comments which the applicant is strongly recommended to action should the proposal be granted planning permission.

The applicant must follow NR standard NR/L2/TEL/30066 for 3rd party transmitters to confirm no interference with signalling and telecoms infrastructure, the applicant is to liaise with named engineer to provide evidence in the matter.

Devon & Cornwall Police raise concerns given the risk posed to 5G masts, their security and reducing the risk of such crimes needs to be considered and incorporated into the its design. After confirmation from the applicant regarding the design with regard to the security of the mast Devon & Cornwall Police are satisfied that appropriate measures have been taken and considered in order to reduce the likelihood of crime.

West and Wales Utilities has no objection in principle, however their apparatus may be at risk during construction works. They have enclosed with their comment records of the area covered by the proposal together with a list of General Conditions for guidance for work in proximity of their gas pipes. Their submitted plan only show the approximate location of pipes own by Wales & West Utilities in its role as Licensed Gas Transporter (GT). Gas pipes owned by other GT’s and also privately owned pipes may be present in the area.

Wales & West Utilities require to be contacted should the application be approved by the promoter of the proposed works.

The Highway Development Management Officer (Exeter) at Devon County Council, has no objections to the development. The officer is satisfied that after development the adjacent shared use path is still 3.5m wide at the pinch point.

Page 88

11.0 Representations Total 142 representations. 138 objections received, with 69 being received from Exeter residents raising the following concerns:-  Health and Safety, including the proximity of housing and a school  Siting and Appearance  Impact on Biodiversity and Wildlife  Impact on the adjacent Pedestrian and Cycle Route

12.0 Relevant Policies NPPF Paragraph 112 supports the provision of 5G infrastructure in order to support economic growth and social well-being through the increased connectivity that 5G will provide. Central Government is also supportive of the provision of 5G network infrastructure.

NPPF Paragraph 113 - Where new sites are required (such as for new 5G networks), equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate.

NPPF Paragraph 116 - Local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only. They should not seek to prevent competition between different operators, question the need for an electronic communications system, or set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure.

Development Plan Core Strategy (adopted 21 February 2012) CP7 – Design and Local Distinctiveness

Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011 (adopted 31 March 2005) EN7 – Telecommunications DG1 – Objectives of urban design

Other material considerations Exeter City Council Development Delivery DPD 2015 DD6 – Communication Networks DD25 – Design Principles

Page 89 13.0 Human rights Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property

The consideration of the prior approval application in accordance with Council procedures will ensure that views of all those interested are considered. All comments from interested parties have been considered and reported within this report in summary with full text available via the Council’s website.

Issues has been raised by the public that goes beyond the remit of the Local Planning Authority in this prior approval application. The only considerations in the determination of this prior approval application relate to the siting and appearance of the proposed development.

Any interference with property rights is in the public interest and in accordance with the Town and Country planning Act 1990 regime for controlling the development of land. This recommendation is based on the consideration of the proposal against adopted Development Plan policies, the application of which does not prejudice the Human Rights of the applicant or any third party.

14.0 Public Sector Equalities Duty As set out in the Equalities Act 2010, all public bodies, in discharging their functions must have “due regard” to the need to: a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act; b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and person who do not share it involves having due regard in particular to the need to:

a) removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of other persons who do not share it c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.

Page 90

15.0 Financial Issues The requirements to set out the financial benefits arising from a planning application is set out in s155 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. This requires that local planning authorities include financial benefits in each report which is:-

a) made by an officer or agent of the authority for the purposes of a non- delegated determination of an application for planning permission; and b) contains a recommendation as to how the authority should determine the application in accordance with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The information or financial benefits must include a list of local financial considerations or benefits of a development which officers consider are likely to be obtained by the authority if the development is carried out including their value if known and should include whether the officer considers these to be material or not material.

Material or non material considerations None

16.0 Planning Assessment Local Plan Policy EN7 states that development of telecommunications equipment will be permitted, provided that: a) the siting and design of apparatus and antenna will minimise their visual impact and their impact on amenity; and b) there are no practicable alternatives such as re-siting or mast sharing.

DD6 states telecommunications development will be permitted provided that: a) the siting and design of the equipment will minimise visual impact and impact on amenity; b) the development does not have any unacceptable adverse impact on any area or site of historic, conservation, archaeological, landscape or biodiversity importance; and, c) the operator has investigated the availability, benefits and impacts of alternative sites and developments, including mast or site sharing, and has demonstrated that there are no practicable alternatives.

This is not a planning application. The development is permitted by The Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order. The only considerations in

Page 91 the determination of this prior approval application relate to the siting and appearance of the proposed development.

The decision options are:  Prior Approval of siting and appearance is not required;  Prior Approval of siting and appearance is required and is granted;  Prior Approval of siting and appearance is required and is refused (with clear reasons for refusal relating only to siting and appearance); or,  Deemed consent if a decision is not made within the time limit of 56 days. This prior approval application will be granted deemed consent if a decision is not made before 8th July 2020.

Legal advice The introduction of 5G is a controversial topic throughout the country, with many campaigners claiming the technology is unproven and potentially hazardous to health. The government of the United Kingdom and Public Health England have provided reports and guidance to state that 5G is safe and that there are no public health grounds for 5G installation to be refused.

Legislation for the installation of 5G apparatus The installation of a mobile phone mast would count as development and would normally require a full application for planning permission. However, designated mobile network operators have certain permitted development rights, which means that they can build prescribed infrastructure without having to apply for planning permission from the local planning authority. “Prior approval” from the local planning authority regarding the siting and appearance of the development is required in certain circumstances; for example, all new ground-based masts require prior approval.

Determination of Prior Approval Applications A mobile network operator may submit an application for prior approval under the General Permitted Development Order (Part 16 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO 2016). The Order grants approval of the principle of the development as permitted development but requires operators to obtain the prior approval from the LPA to the siting and appearance of the items to be installed, in addition to providing the ‘necessary evidence’ set out in NPPF Chapter 10 Section 115, including a statement that self-certifies that, when operational, International Commission guidelines will be met. The factors which can be considered in relation to appearance as part of the prior approval process include:

 design, form, shape and dimensions  colour and materials  whether there are more suitable sites for the proposed works.

Page 92 The factors which can be considered concerning siting include:

 height of the site in relation to surrounding ground  existing topographical features and natural vegetation  the effect on the skyline or horizon  the site when observed from any side  the site in relation to areas designated for scenic value  the site in relation to existing masts  the site in relation to residential properties

It is therefore clear that the considerations to be taken into account in the determination of Prior Approval applications are prescribed and are very limited and do not include issues of public health.

Health impacts of 5G The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection is a charitable body of independent scientific experts established by the International Radiation Protection Association whose principal aim is to disseminate information and advice on the potential health hazard of exposure to non-ionising radiation including electromagnetic fields. This organisation has produced guidelines for emissions from masts that are now used to determine the acceptability of emissions from such equipment.

In addition, the Health and Safety Executive has adopted policies on phone masts in particular, and radio wave safety in general, which are guided by organisations such as the World Health Organisation, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and the Health Protection Agency. A great deal of research has been, and continues to be undertaken on the health implications of masts. The weight of international evidence reviewed by these expert organisations indicates that there is no evidence of a direct link of harm or ill health from working or living close to phone masts. In 2000 the UK Government commissioned the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) chaired by Professor Sir William Stewart, to conduct a review of the possible health effects from the use of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters. It concluded that: “The balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of international guidelines”. The rollout of 5G has again raised concerns regarding public health associated with telecommunication equipment and the implementation of electromagnetic fields. These concerns from the public resulted in a Parliament and Government petition calling for an independent inquiry into the health risks of 5G. Public Health England (PHE) updated its advice as a result. This states that international and UK expert

Page 93 groups have examined the evidence and “it is possible that there may be a small increase in overall exposure to radio waves when 5G is added to an existing network or in a new area. However, the overall exposure is expected to remain low relative to guidelines and, as such, there should be no consequences for public health.” PHE continues it’s monitoring of health related evidence on radio waves, and will update its advice as required.

The Glastonbury Town Council Report The 5G Advisory Committee, formed by Glastonbury Town Council (GTC), has concluded a report with supplementary materials, both dated April 2020. Its recommendations refer to: writing to identified MPs (requesting that they establish a Select Committee or Committee Inquiry into the safety or otherwise of 5G technology); writing to Public Health England and the UK Government (requesting inter alia an independent scientific study); and lobbying ICNIRP (to take into account the non-thermal effects of radiofrequency EMFs in their Guidelines on Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields).

The GTC Report’s recommendations do not include the refusal of applications for planning permission or prior approval based on its findings to date. They are aimed instead at securing further research and consideration with a view to changing government policy. It is important that the significance and limitations of the GTC Report should be understood. It is also important to note that GTC is not a local planning authority.

The Precautionary Principle The GTC Report makes reference to the Precautionary Principle, which is defined on the European Parliament website and states:

‘The precautionary principle enables decision-makers to adopt precautionary measures when scientific evidence about an environmental or human health hazard is uncertain and the stakes are high’

Whilst the Precautionary Principle is an overarching principle relating to health concerns, it has no place in the consideration of this matter since the issues for determination are clearly set out by the legislative framework and in particular the Order. The health considerations relating to this type of development have been considered by the Government in developing permitted development rights which is reflected in the requirement for a certificate to accompany the application certifying that Radio Frequency public exposure guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation protection has been met. Such a certificate has been submitted with this application.

Page 94 Latest Government Advice 22nd July 2020

The government has published the outcome of a consultation exercise last year on proposed reforms to permitted development rights to support the deployment of 5G and extend mobile coverage. The following paragraphs are relevant to this application.

Concerns raised on grounds relating to potential impacts on public health The scope of the consultation was on the principle of proposed planning reforms to support the deployment of 5G and extend mobile coverage. However, concerns were raised that did not relate to the specific proposed planning changes that views were sought on. These concerns, expressed by the majority of personal respondents, were in relation to in-principle opposition to the deployment of 5G infrastructure. In particular, on grounds relating to public health concerns, and the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) radiation on the environment, including on wildlife populations.

Public Health England’s (PHE) Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (CRCE) takes the lead on public health matters associated with radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, or radio waves, used in telecommunications.

PHE is familiar with the evidence submitted to the consultation about possible risks to public health and considers that its advice, as set out below, remains unchanged.

PHE updated its guidance, published in October 2019, in respect of 5G in ‘5G technologies: radio waves and health’. PHE summarised its guidance as: “It is possible that there may be a small increase in overall exposure to radio waves when 5G is added to an existing network or in a new area. However, the overall exposure is expected to remain low relative to guidelines and, as such, there should be no consequences for public health.”

Some 5G technology will use similar frequencies to existing communications systems. Other 5G technology will work at higher frequencies, where the main change would be less penetration of radio waves through materials.

Central to PHE advice is that exposure to radio waves should comply with the guidelines published by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). In compliance with PHE advice, mobile network operators have committed to follow the ICNIRP guidelines.

ICNIRP is an independent organisation which is formally recognised by the World Health Organization. It issues guidelines on human exposure to EMF, based upon the consensus view of a large amount of research carried out over many years. This includes the frequencies used by 5G and all other mobile / wireless technologies.

Page 95 Over the last two decades there have been over 100 expert reports on EMF and health published internationally with well over 3,000 studies informing these reviews and the existing scientific exposure guidelines.

Ofcom will carry out audits of mobile base stations on an ongoing basis to ensure that ICNIRP guidelines are not exceeded and publish the results of these audits on its website. Mobile operators are responsible for ensuring that all sites remain compliant. PHE have also published guidance in respect of ‘Mobile phone base stations: radio waves and health’.

Ofcom is also proposing new licence conditions for spectrum licensees using equipment that can transmit at power levels above 10 Watts. Under these proposals licensees would be required to operate within the ICNIRP guidelines as a condition of their Ofcom licence – including keeping data and records of any testing to demonstrate their compliance.

PHE is committed to monitoring the evidence applicable to this and other radio technologies, and to revising its advice, should that be necessary.

Concerns raised on grounds relating to potential impacts on wildlife populations Respondents also raised concerns about the effects of artificial EMF radiation on the environment, particularly on wildlife populations.

EMF radiation has the potential to impact the movement of insects and some species of animals. However, there is currently no evidence that human-made EMF radiation at realistic field levels has population level impacts on either animals or plants. There is therefore no threat to wildlife occupying trees near to the proposed development.

Design, siting and appearance The proposed mast was negotiated down to 18 metres after the public consultation. The proposed mast is therefore slightly lower than the standard size for a 5G mast at 20m in height. However the height is still taller than 4G masts, which are typically between 12.5 and 15m throughout the city. A recent change in legislation has increased the height of some masts that do not require consent to 20m, therefore while this is taller than many of those currently in the city, a height of 20m will become more typical. The mast and cabinet would be grey in colour, but other options are available.

The application site is located on the shared cycle and pedestrian path along Sidmouth Road. The proposed site has been selected to minimise the number of residential properties in the direct vicinity, although serving the wider residential area. The residential properties closest to the site do not directly overlook where the Monopole and associated cabinets would stand. The proposal benefits from the

Page 96 proximity of mature trees on both side of Sidmouth Road whilst existing street furniture (street lights) will help the development blend into the surrounding area.

While there are ample examples of street furniture in the area, including 10m high street lights along Sidmouth Road, the development of an 18m high pole will be clearly visible from along the road. The mast would be a prominent addition to the area that would be visible in both short and longer views. However, the existing trees will help to mitigate the visual impact and lowering the pole to 18 metres increase the mitigating impact from the trees. The immediate area is dominated by busy Sidmouth Road and surrounding trees. The location is well chosen to minimise any visual impact on the residential area that the development will serve, with a distance of around 65 metres between the site and nearest dwelling and around 200 metres to the nearest school.

Highway issues The Devon County Council as the Local Highway Authority has no objection. The Highway Officer is satisfied with that, after development, the adjacent shared use path is still 3.5m wide at the pinch point. The revised location allows for the same width for the shared path as the originally proposed location.

Benefits Paragraph 112 of the NPPF encourages the provision of 5G infrastructure in order to support economic growth and social well-being through the increased connectivity that 5G will provide, including home working, connected transport and smart city applications. Central Government is also supportive of the provision of 5G network infrastructure. It is therefore considered that, whilst the proposal would result in some minor visual harm, this would not amount to a serious adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area. On balance, the visual impact is considered to be outweighed by the substantial public benefit arising from the provision of 5G services and therefore does not warrant the refusal of the application.

Health risk/perception of health risk The health concerns raised by opponents of developments of this type are acknowledged. The applicant has submitted a certificate stating that the proposal will meet the International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines as required by legislation. If the local planning authority were to refuse the application on health grounds this would be an impossible position to sustain at appeal.

Some opponents cite perceptions of risk, causing anxiety and stress, and the potential for people to avoid the area. The application has addressed the need for the mast in the area. The supporting information also confirms the mast can only be located in a small area for technical reasons. Moving the mast to another site nearby would not address perceptions of health risk. It is also considered that perception of health risk would not be grounds to refuse a prior approval application which only

Page 97 considers siting and appearance, and considering NPPF paragraph 116 which states local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only. They should not set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure.

There may be concerns that the negotiated reduction in height of the proposed mast from 20m to 18m for visual impact reasons will increase risks to human health by bringing radiation emissions closer to ground level. There is no evidence that this is the case; studies have shown that even at 2m distance from the source of the emissions, the levels are substantially below the Government’s exposure safety guidelines.

17.0 Conclusion While the health risks raised by opponents of this type of development are noted, they are not considered grounds for refusal based on national guidance. The proposal provides significant public benefit that outweighs any slight visual harm in this location.

18.0 RECOMMENDATION Subject to receipt and consideration of outstanding consultation responses and any representations received, prior approval is required and is granted, subject to the following condition.

2. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The statement should include details of access arrangements and timings and management of arrivals and departures of vehicles. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity

Page 98 V 1.8

NOTES:

1. ALL DIMENSIONS IN MM UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

DIRECTIONS TO SITE: SITE LOCATION Head south on M5. At junction 30, take the A379/A376 exit to Dawlish/Exeter/Sidmouth/Exmouth/Servises. At the roundabout, take the 4th exit onto Sidmouth Rd. At the roundabout, take the 1st exit and stay on

00 00 Sidmouth Rd. Follow Sidmouth Rd and site location is on the right hand side. 957 958 2 2

Site Provider's Property Boundary: Access Route To Site: > > > Access Route:

SIDMOUTH ROAD

Shelter Pond

0 920 00

Master: MBNL / EE / H3G: Project: Purpose of Issue: Issue: >

M002 MBNL H3G 5G UNILATERAL Planning B > Date: 28/07/2020 Revision / Upgrade Description: Drawn: CDN Amended

Checked: DH > Approved: SD

Master: MBNL / EE / H3G: Project: Purpose of Issue: Issue: > M001 MBNL H3G 5G UNILATERAL Planning A

Date: Revision / Upgrade Description:

Page 99 Page 23/06/2020 43.6m Drawn: CDN First Issue - Site nomimation dated: TBC

> Checked: DH

Approved: SD >

Hutchison 3G UK Limited > Star House, 20 Grenfell Road

Maidenhead, SL6 1EH

> Tel: 01628 765 000 > Fax: 01628 765 001

> H3G Base Station Information line: Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of NGR E: 295741 N: 091998 0845 6043000 All rights reserved. © Crown Copyright licence no. 100062043 the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Available 8am-8pm Monday to Friday All rights reserved. © Crown Copyright licence no. 100062043 Design Consultant & Principal Contractor:

SITE AREA PLAN SITE LOCATION PLAN WHP Telecoms Unit 1 Maple Park,

100mm 100mm Low Fields Avenue, Leeds LS12 6HH 01:50,000 1km 2 01:1250 25m 50 Tel: 01133023550 WHP e-mail: [email protected]

Site Name: SW AT SIDMOUTH ROAD Site ID: EDE12840

Address:

SIDMOUTH ROAD, EXETER, 50mm 50mm EX2 7HL GOOGLE MAPS QR CODE Title: 002 SITE LOCATION PLAN

Project: GOOGLE MAPS - https://goo.gl/maps/UwL56acdyqz3Xkdx8 H3G 5G UNILATERAL

Purpose of Issue: SITE PHOTOGRAPH GOOGLE STREETVIEW - https://goo.gl/maps/ejxwQ4jH3ynz32NKA PLANNING EE Cell ID: MBNL Cell ID: 3UK Cell ID:

10mm 10mm N/A N/A N/A Master Drawing No: Issue: EDE12840_M002 B v1.6 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7

Planning Committee Report 19/1417/FUL

1.0 Application Number: 19/1417/FUL

Applicant name: Mr Iain Smith, Gladstone Road Exeter Limited

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide co-living accommodation with associated accesses/egresses, landscaping and other external works

Site address: Ambulance Station, Gladstone Road, Exeter, Devon, EX1 2EB

Registration Date: 11th October 2019

Web Link to application, drawings/plans: http://publicaccess.exeter.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=PZ7SE4HBLJR 00

Case Officer: Deborah Crowther

Ward Member(s): Cllr Branston, Cllr Moore, Cllr Vizard (Newtown and St Leonards Ward)

REASON APPLICATION IS GOING TO COMMITTEE – Officer Decision

2.0 Summary of Recommendation:

DELEGATE to GRANT permission subject to completion of a S106 Agreement relating to matters identified and subject to conditions as set out in report, but with secondary recommendation to REFUSE permission in the event the S106 Agreement is not completed within the requisite timeframe for the reason set out below.

3.0 Reason for the recommendation: as set out in Section 18 at the end of the report.

 The development will make effective use of a previously developed (‘brownfield’) site.  The site is in a sustainable, highly accessible location, close to the City Centre.  The principle of a specialist housing development (rented studios with tenants having access to communal amenity areas) in this location is acceptable in principle.  The development will support economic growth through the creation of jobs and resident expenditure in the City Centre.

Page 101  The scheme will help the Council towards providing a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites, this benefit is attributed significant weight in favour of the scheme.  The co-living accommodation will provide Build to Rent housing, 20% of which will be affordable private rent, which is a significant positive benefit of the scheme. The percentage is in line with national planning guidance on build to rent schemes. The affordable housing will be prioritised for essential local workers.  The scheme will improve pedestrian crossing facilities on Gladstone Road and will make a contribution towards improving pedestrian / cycling crossing facilities at the Gladstone Road / Heavitree Road junction.  The design and general visual impact of the scheme is considered acceptable.  The quality of amenity that will be provided within the proposed co-living block is considered acceptable, although officers had sought for provision of communal areas on the upper floors of the building in addition to the lower ground/ground floors.  The impact on the amenity of surrounding properties has been assessed and taking into account the urban context of the site, the impacts are considered to be within acceptable limits.  There are no other material considerations to warrant refusal of this application subject to an appropriate planning obligation under S106 being entered into.

4.0 Table of key planning issues

Issue Conclusion Sustainable Development and The Council does not have a 5 year Application of the NPPF housing land supply, which ‘tilts’ the determination towards permission unless other material considerations indicate otherwise under Para. 11 of the NPPF. The Principle of the Proposed The proposed use of co-living housing Development (including Economic is appropriate for the site which lies in Benefits and Housing Supply) close proximity to the City Centre in a very sustainable location. The development will support economic growth through the creation of jobs and resident expenditure in the City Centre. The co-living use will provide specialist housing in a highly accessible location, and help the Council towards providing a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites. The development will make effective

Page 102 use of a previously developed (‘brownfield’) site in line with local and national planning policy. The proposed development accords with Policies CP1, CP4, CP5, AP1, AP2, H1, and H2 (as applicable). Affordable Housing The co-living development will provide dwellings, therefore affordable housing is required in accordance with Policy CP7. The co-living development will be Build to Rent housing, i.e. 100% rented out. National Planning Practice Guidance states that 20% is generally a suitable benchmark for the level of affordable housing in build to rent schemes. This is a material consideration indicating that in this case 20% should be provided as opposed to 35%. The developer has confirmed that 20% affordable rent is agreed; this equates to 27 affordable rent studios. Furthermore, the developer has agreed that the affordable housing will be prioritised for essential local workers. Access and Impact on Local Access will be improved for all users Highways on Gladstone Road by provision of a pedestrian crossing point adjacent to the site access. The crossing would be in the form of dropped kerbs and tactile paving on both sides of the carriageway with a refuge area. A financial contribution will be secured to improve pedestrian/cyclist crossing points on Heavitree Road; this will benefit all users of Heavitree Road. The buildings have been designed to be inclusive and accessible to wheelchair users, taking into account the Equalities Act 2010. The Local Highway Authority has confirmed that safe and suitable access will be achieved, and there will be no significant impacts on the transport network in line with the NPPF. The

Page 103 proposed development accords with Policies CP9, T1, T2, T3 and Chapter 9 of the NPPF. Parking Provision The development will be car -free except for operational and pickup/drop-off parking to be provided in the courtyard area to the north of the main buildings. Cycle parking spaces will be located within a secure, covered cycle stand pavilion located in the courtyard area to the north with the gated entrance to the development providing an added form of security. 72 cycle stands will be provided for the co-living use, which meets the standards set out in the Sustainable Transport SPD. Overall the proposed development accords with the Sustainable Transport SPD and Chapter 9 of the NPPF with regard to parking. Design and Landscape Removal of existing unsightly buildings and car parking areas from the site is a benefit of the scheme. The proposed architecture and use of high quality modern materials and soft/hard landscaping will improve the overall appearance of the site. The proposed elevational design of the building fronting Gladstone Road will increase active frontages and contribute to the vibrancy of the area. The streetscene along Gladstone Road will benefit from an improved public realm. The pitched roof design respects the form of existing adjacent residential development. The main part of the new building will be much taller than the adjacent buildings on Sandford Walk and St Matthews Close to the north and north west. However, the police station site justifies a change in character between the Sandford Walk properties and Heavitree Road in terms of scale of townscape. The scheme has been

Page 104 amended during the application to reduce the massing of the development. Whilst finely balanced, given the local and national guidance promoting the efficient use of land, the scale and mass of the development is considered to be acceptable in terms of urban design. Whilst the proposal development is not fully sympathetic to local character, the proposal is otherwise in accordance with Policies CP17, DG1 and Chapter 12 of the NPPF on ‘Achieving well - designed places’. Impact on Heritage Assets With regard to archaeological impacts the development is acceptable subject to a planning condition requiring archaeological work to be undertaken both on and off-site. The site forms part of the setting of two conservation areas and one locally listed building, which is a non-designated heritage asset. The proposed redevelopment of the Site would introduce additional height, but would not change the existing character of the heritage assets’ settings or the ability to experience and appreciate their significance. The proposed redevelopment would therefore preserve the significance of these heritage assets in accordance with section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the NPPF and Policy C1 and C3 of the Exeter City Local Plan. Residential Amenity The average size of each studio from lower ground floor to third floor is 20 sq m, the average size of apartments on the fourth floor is larger. Each studio is self-contained with a kitchenette, ensuite shower room, work space and wardrobe/storage. Communal space will be provided at lower ground and ground floor level

Page 105 consisting of communal kitchen, communal dining room, flexible events space, work space area and laundry and possible gym. A total of 409 sq m communal space will be provided in the building and a secure external courtyard will be provided for residents. Provision for organised social activities for residents will help create a sense of community in line with the co-living model. In the absence of a local or national policy that sets out space standards for co- living developments, officers are of the view that the quality of amenity that will be provided within the proposed co-living block is acceptable. It is accepted that there will be reliance of existing public open spaces nearby to provide outdoor amenity and recreational space, and a contribution is therefore sought to enhance these spaces and their recreational value. Impact on Amenity of Surroundings Policy DG4 states that residential development should be at the maximum feasible density taking into account site constraints and impact on the local area, and ensure a quality of amenity which allows residents to feel at ease within their homes and gardens. The latter applies equally to adjoining properties. The impact on the amenity of surrounding properties has been assessed with regard to: privacy, outlook, natural light, overshadowing and noise. Overall, the proposed development is considered to accord with Policy DG4 in terms of its impact on the amenities of surrounding properties, taking into account the urban context. Impact on Trees & Biodiversity One mature Ash tree (TPO’d) will need to be removed, however, this is in declining health and three trees will be planted as compensation. No arboricultural objection is raised to the

Page 106 proposal by ECC Tree Manager. The existing site has low ecological value. Biodiversity enhancement measures will be secured by condition. The proposed development accords with Policies CP16 and LS4, and Paragraphs 170 and 175 of the NPPF. Contaminated Land Environmental Health has recommended a full contaminated land condition to ensure that contamination on site is remediated. This will be an environmental sustainability benefit of the scheme. Flood Risk, Surface Water Drainage The site is within Flood Zone 1 and the proposed uses are appropriate in this zone. Ground infiltration is not feasible, due to low permeability clay strata. As per the existing arrangement, surface water drainage is to discharge to the existing SWW sewer network serving the existing site. Attenuation will be provided in an underground attenuation tank with a restricted discharge rate. This will be an environmental sustainability benefit. DCC Lead Local Flood Authority raise no objection subject to a pre-commencement condition. Sustainable Construction and Energy The co-living block will need to meet Conservation Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 in respect of energy and CO2 emissions in accordance with Policy CP15. This will be secured by condition. The site is within a proposed Decentralised Energy Network area. A condition will be added to facilitate connection of the building to this network. A Waste Audit Statement will be secured by condition.

5.0 Description of Site

The application site comprises 0.26 hectare of land within Newtown and St Leonards Ward. The site lies approximately 0.5 mile to the east of the city centre. The existing site is currently vacant and was last occupied by South

Page 107 Western Ambulance Service. Existing buildings on the site include a warehouse building and a two-storey office and staff facilities building.

The site is bounded by Gladstone Road to the east. The site currently has two vehicular accesses from Gladstone Road. The northern site access provides access into the car park, the southern site access provides access to the ambulance station.

The existing buildings on the site are set back from Gladstone Road by at least 8.0 metres. A substantial Ash Tree (subject to a Tree Preservation Order) lies between the existing buildings and Gladstone Road in the south eastern area of the site. At this point, the existing building is set back from Gladstone Road by over 13.0 metres.

To the east of the site, on the opposite side of Gladstone Road, lies Waitrose supermarket and Heavitree Hospital. There are a number of substantial trees on the eastern side of Gladstone Road between the road and the supermarket and hospital buildings/parking areas. A number of large trees in the locality make a significant positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

To the west of the application site is St Matthews Close, comprising three storey purpose built flats. Blocks 7 and 8 St Matthews Close are the nearest flats to the site. These flats are separated from the application site by the access road and areas of parking for the flats. Blocks 7 & 8 are oriented so that the blank gable end of the building faces on to the application site.

Immediately adjacent to the south of the site is Devon and Cornwall Constabulary Police Headquarters and Central Devon Magistrates’ Court. The Police headquarters building varies in height stepping from one storey along Gladstone Road up to five storeys centrally on the site. The tallest building on the site is approximately 15m in height when measured from Gladstone Road.

Immediately to the north of the site is a terrace of two storey houses on Sandford Walk (31-51 odd numbers only) and no.1 Gladstone Road, the rear of which face the site. Sandford Walk properties are characterful Victorian properties. Sandford Walk has been pedestrianised which has enabled planters to be positioned to enhance the visual appearance of the streetscene. The main entrance doors to the north of the terrace front immediately on to the pavement area. The only outdoor amenity/outdoor seating spaces to Sandford Walk properties (31-51 odd numbers) and 1 Gladstone Road are their south facing courtyard areas. The Sandford Walk properties and their courtyard areas are separated from the application site by a brick boundary wall. This wall varies in height but is around 1.5m high.

The existing building on the application site is functional in appearance, it has a part flat / part shallow monopitch roof and a rendered finish to the walls. The part

Page 108 of the building closest to Gladstone Road has a frontage along the road of 13.0m. The existing building is just over 38 metres at its longest running back from Gladstone Road in a westerly direction. The existing building does not run parallel with Sandford Walk properties but is slightly offset so that the building varies in distance from the boundary wall with Sandford Walk from 4.6m at the pinch point with 1 Gladstone Road to over 16.0m at the western end of the building. The existing topographic survey shows that near to Gladstone Road the ridge level of the existing building (58.83 AOD) is similar to eaves level of the adjacent properties on Sandford Walk. The building then reduces in height towards the west to that of a single storey building (refer to Existing Site Context Elevations North and West). The existing building has a number of ground floor windows in the northern elevation. In the two storey element of the existing building there are windows at both ground floor and first floor level in the east and south elevations.

Ground level falls across the site from the highest point adjacent to Gladstone Road westwards towards St Matthews Close. The difference in ground level between Gladstone Road and St Matthews Close is approximately 3.0m.

The site is close to the junction with Heavitree Road (B3183), St Luke’s University Campus is located approximately 180m to the south. The site is sustainable in terms of its accessibility to non-car modes of transport. There are bus stops 160m to the south of the site on Heavitree Road, Exeter Central Train Station lies approximately 1.2km to the west with Exeter St Davids approximately 1.5km distant.

The site is within Flood Zone 1. The application site is indicated as potentially contaminated in the Council’s GIS system. Heavitree Road is within the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), the site itself is not within the AQMA. The site lies outside any Conservation Area. The boundary of St Leonards Conservation Area lies to the south of the site (southern side of Heavitree Road). Lower Summerlands Conservation Area lies to the west of the site beyond St Matthews Close. Mont Le Grand Conservation Area lies to the east of the site beyond Waitrose and the hospital buildings. The nearest locally listed buildings are at St Luke’s College on the southern side of Heavitree Road within St Leonards Conservation Area. Summerlands to the west of the site beyond St Matthews Close are Grade II listed buildings.

6.0 Description of Development

The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings on the site and redevelopment to provide co-living accommodation with associated accesses/egresses, landscaping and other external works. 133 studio rooms are shown on the proposed plans with ground floor common rooms, entrance reception areas and landscaped amenity.

Page 109 The application has been substantially revised twice since it was originally submitted in order to reduce the scale of the building and improve the design. The description of the proposal has been revised since submission of the application; the original proposal was for redevelopment of the site to provide purpose built student accommodation.

The scheme proposes a main block of accommodation with studios arranged over 6 levels including a lower ground level and rooms within the roofspace. Two lower wings are proposed to the north with studios arranged over three levels, this include rooms within a lower ground floor. The wings would enclose a landscaped courtyard area.

The building feature pitched roofs. In the main building and the wings, the upper storey of accommodation is contained either partially or fully within the roof space. The main block is positioned in the southern part of the site and the building steps down in scale towards the north. The distance between the Police Headquarters site and the proposed building is a minimum of 2.5m, which at points increases to 4m (Design and Access Statement, paragraph 8.1.13). Provision is made for an access path to the accommodation and the plant room at lower ground floor level.

The projecting 2/3 storey wings to the north of the main building would be opposite the rear elevations of numbers 31, 33, 35, 47, 49 and 51 Sandford Walk.

The landscape layout shows outdoor seating within the courtyard area to the north of the building between the two projecting northern wings. The area is adjacent to the vehicular access (for fire tenders, delivery vehicles, drop-off and pick-up). To the northwest of the courtyard is the proposed cycle store which is positioned along the existing northern boundary wall with Sandford Walk. At the north western corner of the site is the proposed bin store with ramped access.

The development will have a contemporary style with grey coloured standing seam roof cladding, buff brickwork, aluminium cladding, timber cladding, pre cast concrete/stone. The Design and Access Statement states that along the principle elevation of Gladstone Road a strong colonnade is proposed in precast stone to create prominence along the street and relate to the street frontage. The dormer windows within the roof space are proposed to be clad in a light weight metal standing seam zinc. On the gable ends of the building facing the Sandford Walk dwellings spandrel glazing and areas of timber cladding are proposed to create interest and visually reduce the impact of the facade. Window opening frames are proposed in a grey colour which would have a visual contrast with the brickwork but blend with the roof cladding.

Each studio room is proposed to be self-contained with its own kitchenette and en-suite shower room and WC. Each studio room also has work space,

Page 110 wardrobe and storage. All the studio rooms would have access to a communal kitchen, dining, work and social spaces; these communal spaces are mainly located on the ground floor of the main block.

The development would also have a reception, office/management suite, laundry facility, covered cycle storage, refuse store and plant rooms. Lift access is proposed to all levels of the building and the developer has confirmed that 7 rooms will be fitted out so that they are wheelchair accessible. Furthermore, the developer has stated that if there is an increased demand for wheelchair accessible studios above the 7 provided, the remaining units have been designed to be easily adapted if required. The residential accommodation would have a General Manager and a team (including security contractor) to support in the general running of the scheme. The Management Plan sets out that the site is likely to be staffed 8am to 8pm Monday to Friday with key times covered over weekends. All tenants would have a contact number for out of hours’ emergencies.

The main entrance to the building is proposed from Gladstone Road. The proposed building is set back from the pavement of Gladstone Road by approximately 6 to 7m.

The primary access route for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles is proposed at the north east corner of the site. At the south west corner a stepped pedestrian access to the lower level of accommodation is proposed. At the north west corner a ramped level access for pedestrians and cyclists is proposed as well as a set of steps. Refuse collections are proposed from St Matthews Close.

Section 2.2, Tenant Profile, of the Management Plan states, “the site is ideally located to attract young professionals who work in or out of Exeter, with having exceptional direct transport links to Bristol. The studios are an attractive housing option for young professionals, who want the independence of living alone, but also like to have the option of being part of a community of likeminded individuals in a secure and managed environment.”

The accommodation comprises –

Lower Ground Floor: 20 studios. Plant room. Amenity Space of 44m2 is shown; this may be used as a gym.

Ground Floor: 17 studios – consisting of 7 studios looking on to the courtyard area to the north of the building, 2 studios with outlook on the southern elevation, 8 studios on the western elevation. Entrance foyer, reception, lobby, flexible events and social space, workspace, communal kitchen, communal dining area, laundry.

The laundry room will comprise 4 washers and 4 dryers (18m2).

Page 111

The communal kitchen and dining space (total area approx. 176m2) makes provision for 8 x kitchen stations and additional fridge/storage space, seating at bench style tables for up to 40 people and seating at smaller tables for up to 24 people (Co-Living Design Review, Section 3.2).

The work space and entrance foyer provides 8 x work stations, breakout seating, library space. Total area of approx. 151m2 (64m2 entrance + 87m2 workspace)

The flexible events and social space allows for the following facilities: • Casual seating area and TV zone • Breakout seating which is easily moveable • Foldable games tables which can be moved for larger events • Total area of approx. 102m2

The communal kitchen and dining area, workspace and flexible social space provides 365m2 of communal space which, together with the amenity space on the lower ground floor of 44m2 equates to 409m2; 3.1m2 communal space per studio.

First Floor: 36 studios – consisting of 7 studios with windows facing north looking onto the courtyard, 3 studios with windows looking east on to the courtyard, 3 studios with windows looking west on to the courtyard. 8 studios have windows looking west. The remaining studios have an aspect to the south or east.

Second Floor: 25 studios with 8 studios having windows that look north, 5 studios with windows looking west, the rest of the studios have an aspect to the south or east. 1 space labelled amenity (approx. 14m2) may be used as a break-out seating area.

Third Floor: 24 studios with 8 studios having windows that look north, 2 studios with windows looking west, the other studios have an aspect to the south or east.

Fourth Floor: 11 studios, no windows looking north, one studio with a window looking west, main aspect of the 11 studios is to the south.

Sections through the proposed building and Sandford Walk properties show:

Section through 49 Sandford Walk (Section 01-01): Eaves level on the north elevation of the main building will be 10.2m above Sandford Walk Level. The distance between the rear of the Sandford Walk property and the main building is 20.0m. Eaves level of the two storey wing (plus a lower ground floor) is 4.0m above Sandford Walk Level; distance between the rear of the Sandford Walk property and the two storey wing is 10.3m

Page 112 Section through 45 Sandford Walk (Section 02-02): Eaves level on the north elevation of the main building will be 10.6m above Sandford Walk Level. The distance between the rear of the Sandford Walk property and the main building is 22.3m.

Section through 39 Sandford Walk (Section 03-03): Eaves level on the north elevation of the main building will be 11.2m above Sandford Walk Level. The distance between the rear of the Sandford Walk property and the main building is 24.6m.

Section through 35 Sandford Walk (Section 04-04): Eaves level on the north elevation of the main building will be 12.5m above Sandford Walk Level. The distance between the rear of the Sandford Walk property and the main building is 27.1m. Eaves level of the three storey wing is 6.3m above Sandford Walk Level; distance between the rear of the Sandford Walk property and the three storey wing is 14.5m.

The bin store is located adjacent to the existing boundary wall with Sandford Walk properties in the north west of the site. The flat roof of the bin store is indicated just above the height of the existing boundary wall. The plans indicate capacity for up to x 5 communal 1100 litre bins (Design and Access Statement, Paragraph 9.10.1.). The Waste Management Plan (section 4 of the Management Plan) states that the bin store will contain a mixture of 1100 litre wheeled Eurobins for general waste and 1100 litre Eurobins for mixed/recyclable waste. It will be the responsibility of each tenant to take their own refuse down to the bin store using the lifts or staircase as and when required and place refuse in the wheeled Eurobins provided. The bins will be collected by the local authority. The ramped access will enable the bins to be taken to St Matthews Close for collection.

The proposed site plan shows that at its closest point, the proposed building would be 6.0 metres from the existing boundary retaining wall with properties on Sandford Walk. The northern wings of the building that project towards Sandford Walk lie between 6.0m (at its closest point) and 9.0m (at its furthest point) from the existing boundary wall. Both projecting wings are proposed to have a brickwork finish (buff colour) with a section of timber cladding. A vertical section of spandrel glazing is proposed in the northern wall of the wing at the western end of the site with glazing to light circulation space. The wing at the eastern end shows glazing at ground floor level to light the flexible events and social space and one window at first floor level is proposed to light a corridor.

7.0 Supporting information provided by applicant

The following supporting documents were provided as part of the original application in October 2019:

Page 113

 Ecological Appraisal (Bowland Ecology) July 2019  Flood Statement (Jubb) 17 September 2019  Built Heritage Statement (RPS Group) 1 October 2019  Ground Investigation Report (Tier Environmental Ltd) 7 October 2019  Air Quality Assessment (Redmore Environmental)(Reference 2879r3) dated 27 September 2019  Drainage Strategy (Jubb) 9 October 2019  Ambient Noise and Building Envelope Assessment (PDA) Revision 3, dated 30 September 2019  Statement of Community Involvement (Bell Cornwell) October 2019  Overheating Analysis (Consolux), Issue No. P1, 1 October 2019  Transport Statement (ADL Traffic and Highways Engineering Ltd), Issue 4, 10 October 2019  Framework Travel Plan (ADL Traffic and Highways Engineering Ltd), Issue 4, 10 October 2019  Supporting Statement (Arboricultural Appraisal by Advanced Arboriculture) dated 27 September 2019  Construction Management Plan (The Watkin Jones Group) October 2019  Daylight and Sunlight Report (Consil) dated 9 October 2019  Management Plan (Fresh Student Living) October 2019  Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (RPS) 10 September 2019  Design and Access Statement (Manson), dated 10 October 2019  Planning Statement (Bell Cornwell) October 2019  Landscape Design Statement (TPM) October 2019  BREEAM Pre-Assessment Report Revision 0 (Consolux), 573, 19 September 2019  Energy and Sustainability Statement (Consolux Sustainability Ltd)(reference 573/11.2), September 2019, Revision P3

The following additional information was subsequently submitted:

 Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment (1st Line Defence), 5 May 2019

The following information was submitted to support the first set of amended plans in March 2020:

 Addendum Daylight and Sunlight Report (Consil) dated 16 March 2020  Design and Access Statement Co-living Addendum Document (Manson), dated 16 March 2020  Co-Living Design Review (Manson), dated 17 March 2020, REV B  Preliminary Risk Assessment Report (Tier Environmental Ltd) dated 5 March 2020, reference TE1 151 PRA, issue number 1.1.

Page 114  Ambient Noise and Building Envelope Assessment (PDA) Revision 4, dated 11 March 2020  Construction Management Plan (The Watkin Jones Group) March 2020  Framework Travel Plan (ADL Traffic and Highways Engineering Ltd), Issue 2, 12 March 2020  Air Quality Assessment (Redmore Environmental)(Reference 2879r4) dated 11 March 2020  Supporting Statement (Arboricultural Appraisal by Advanced Arboriculture) dated 5 March 2020  Drainage Strategy (Jubb) Technical Note 02-Rev B, 6 March 2020  Ecological Appraisal (Bowland Ecology) 9 March 2020  Flood Statement (Jubb) (TN01 Rev A) dated 5 March 2020  Ground Investigation Report (Tier Environmental Ltd) 5 March 2020  Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (RPS) 9 March 2020  Energy and Sustainability Concept Statement (Consolux Sustainability Ltd)(reference 573/4.2), March 2020, Revision 4  Transport Statement (ADL Traffic and Highways Engineering Ltd), Issue 2, 12 March 2020  Overheating Analysis (Consolux), Issue No. P2, 16 March 2020  Management Plan (Fresh Property Group), 19 March 2020

Revised documents were received on 14 August 2020 (not listed below) and the application was re-advertised on 20 August 2020. However, on 20 August 2020, a further full set of revised documents were received; the application was again re-advertised on 10 September 2020.

The following information was submitted to support the second set of amended plans received 20 August 2020:

 Addendum Daylight and Sunlight Report (Consil) dated 13 August 2020  Air Quality Assessment (Redmore Environmental)(Reference 2879r5) dated 7 August 2020  Supporting Statement (Arboricultural Appraisal by Advanced Arboriculture) dated 13 August 2020  BREEAM Pre-Assessment Report Revision 0 (Consolux), 573/11.1, 13 August 2020  Built Heritage Statement (RPS Group) V3 19 August 2020  Construction Management Plan (The Watkin Jones Group) August 2020  Management Plan (Fresh Property Group) 4 August 2020  Co-Living Design Review (Manson), dated August 2020, REV C  Planning Statement (Bell Cornwell)(9277) August 2020  Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (RPS) 4 August 2020  Design and Access Statement Rev A (Manson), dated August 2020  Drainage Strategy (Jubb) Technical Note 02-Rev C, 7 August 2020  Ecological Appraisal (Bowland Ecology) 4 August 2020

Page 115  Energy and Sustainability Concept Statement (Consolux Sustainability Ltd)(reference 573/4.2), August 2020, Revision 4  Flood Statement (Jubb) (TN01 Rev B) dated 7 August 2020  Ground Investigation Report (Tier Environmental Ltd), Issue 1.5, TL1196GIR, dated 5 August 2020  Landscape Design Statement (TPM), August 2020  Ambient Noise and Building Envelope Assessment (PDA) Revision 5, dated 3 August 2020  Preliminary Risk Assessment Report (Tier Environmental Ltd) dated 5 August 2020, reference TE1 151 PRA, issue number 1.2  Transport Statement (ADL Traffic and Highways Engineering Ltd), Issue 3, 7 August 2020  Framework Travel Plan (ADL Traffic and Highways Engineering Ltd), Issue 3, 7 August 2020

The following additional information was subsequently submitted:

 Design and Access Statement Rev B (Manson), dated August 2020  Comparative south/east elevations to show change in massing for first and second set of amended plans  Proposed sections through the development and Sandford Walk  Letter dated 9 October 2020 from ADL Traffic & Highways Engineering Ltd  Report on Co-Living and the Exeter Economy (Development Economics), October 2020

8.0 Relevant Planning History

There is no relevant planning history for the site.

9.0 List of Constraints The Site forms part of the setting of the Mont le Grand Conservation Area to the east and the St Leonards Conservation Area to the south, including a single locally listed building within it (St Luke’s College). With regard to the locally listed building near the site, this is a non-designated heritage asset, as referred to in Para. 197 of the NPPF. Potential contamination. Within Area of Archaeological Importance. Heavitree Road within Air Quality Management Area. TPO Ash tree on eastern side of site Within ‘zone of influence’ for Exe Estuary SPA and Ramsar Site (statutory duty to protect European sites under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended)). Residential properties adjacent to and near the site – amenity considerations.

10.0 Consultations

Page 116 All consultee responses can be viewed in full on the Council’s website.

Natural England:

9 April 2020

This development falls within the ‘zone of influence’ for the Exe Estuary SPA, as set out in the Local Plan and the South East Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy (SEDESMS). It is anticipated that new housing development in this area is ‘likely to have a significant effect’, when considered either alone or in combination, upon the interest features of the SAC/SPA due to the risk of increased recreational pressure caused by that development. Mitigation will be required to prevent such harmful effects from occurring and permission should not be granted until the implementation of these measures has been secured. An appropriate assessment may be necessary in view of the European Site’s conservation objectives and in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). The proposals should be reviewed in light of the Government’s commitment towards the delivery of biodiversity net gain.

1 September 2020

Confirmed that advice sent in letter dated 9 April 2020 still applies.

Police Designing Out Crime Officer (Devon and Cornwall Police):

27 August 2020

Comments provided on need for 24/7 onsite management, compartmentalisation regarding lift and stairwell access, access through the building for residents and gated access to the development in terms of security. Potential nuisance within void areas and certification of cycle and bin stores.

15 April 2020

Comments on staff and security presence within the building 24 hours a day. Requests a condition with respect to 24-7 onsite management of the development is maintained indefinitely, as is the vetting of potential tenants.

Comments on access and movement, secure boundary and gating, comments on lighting of the development. Comments on security of windows and doors, security of cycle stores and bin stores. Comments on surveillance, natural and passive. Recommends CCTV is installed throughout the development with monitoring provided by the 24 hour staff security presence. Detailed advice on CCTV. Comments on landscaping elements.

Page 117 RSPB:

22 April 2019

Provide recommendations on provision for nesting birds. Strongly recommends use of swift boxes.

Recommend condition requiring a Landscape and Environmental Management Plan which should include the number of integral boxes, the locations and box types marked on the working drawings and provision of photographic evidence that they have been installed correctly.

South West Water:

20 August 2020

No comment.

Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service

21 August 2020

The drawings (without prejudice) appear to satisfy the criteria for B5 access under Building Regulations therefore no objection.

Consideration should be given at an early stage for the provision of fire hydrants for the development.

The Fire and Rescue Authority is a statutory consultee under the current Building Regulations and will make detailed comments at that time when consulted by building control (or approved inspector).

Local Highway Authority (Devon County Council):

Original comments 11 November 2019 (summarised)

Recommends: A S106 contribution of £65k is required to improve the pedestrian/cycling crossing facilities at the Gladstone Road/Heavitree Road junction.

Conditions with respect to: 1. Access Point Gladstone Road 2. Access Points to St Matthews Close 3. Crossing Point on Gladstone Road 4. Cycle Parking Facilities

Page 118 5. Management Plan (provision sustainable transport welcome packs, student pick up/drop off) 6. Construction Management Plan

The proposed development is being promoted as car free, which for a sustainably located city centre student development is acceptable. Trip generation is not a concern.

The proposed development is expected to generate a considerable number of new pedestrian and cycle movements to and from the site. Given the enhanced pedestrian and cycling numbers that are being generated, facilities need to be enhanced. The highway authority have conducted design work to improve the facilities at the Gladstone Road/Heavitree Road and a sum of £65k is sought from the applicant.

The existing northern site access should be reconfigured into a dropped kerb crossing.

This access is proposed to be gated and these gates are located approximately 15 metres away from the back edge of the carriageway – this is welcomed as it provides an area for a vehicle to wait off the carriageway, whilst the gates are closed.

The southern site access is redundant, and a footway should be reinstated (together with full height kerbs).

Being situated on the fringe of the city centre, the site is well located to access a variety of amenities by sustainable modes.

Comments on adoptable areas and maintenance of trees.

There is a missing crossing point of Gladstone Road to the supermarket (located directly opposite). To mitigate this, the applicant has proposed a pedestrian crossing across Gladstone Road, adjacent to the site access. The crossing would be in the form of dropped kerbs and tactile paving on both sides of the carriageway together with a pedestrian refuge. The principle of the crossing is acceptable however the details of the island and other highway matters need to be discussed at a later stage (S278).

The secure pedestrian/cycling access in the form of a ramp onto St Matthews Close will enhance permeability of the site.

This access point on to Gladstone Road, full reinstatements of the redundant access point on Gladstone Road, pedestrian crossing (including refuge) and the access points onto St Mathews Close will need to be provided prior to the site coming into occupation and the applicant is advised that these works will need to

Page 119 be carried out under a suitable agreement (Section 38/278 of Highways Act 1980). The applicant must apply for and get permission to work on the highway before undertaking any such works.

To provide for deliveries/servicing of the building/assist with pick up/drop off, the onsite courtyard is to be used and is acceptable.

The secure, covered cycle stand pavilion meets the standard set out in the Sustainable Transport SPD.

Arrangements for pick up/drop off detailed within the submitted Management Plan should be included in any legal agreements attached to the site.

Comments regarding the Travel Plan and Construction Management Plan.

In summary, the impact of the development is acceptable in highway terms and suitable pedestrian/cycling facilities, cycle parking facilities and pick up/drop off arrangements that are proposed for the traffic attracted to the site.

Comment on revised plans 2 April 2020

No change in terms of highways. Same observations apply.

15 October 2020 – in response to additional information provided by the applicant’s Transport Consultants

S106 contributions – requests that S106 contributions are backdated to initial response. Conditions as previously recommended.

Lead Local Flood Authority (Devon County Council):

16 October 2020

No objection, recommends pre-commencement condition relating to detailed surface water drainage design.

Waste Authority (Devon County Council):

6 April 2020

Recommends condition requiring submission of Waste Audit Statement prior to commencement of development.

Place Making Officer (Exeter City Council):

Comments on the original proposal were provided on 14 November 2019

Page 120

Six storey high building, concern regarding relationship with Sandford Walk dwellings. Close proximity of wings to existing dwellings. Oppressive nature of wings and full six storey height of the building is likely to be overbearing. Adverse impact with regard to sunlight/daylight. Comments on outdoor amenity space and landscaping.

Comments on first revised scheme were provided on 23 April 2020

Comments on height and massing relationship of the proposed building with the existing Sandford Walk dwellings. Comments on landscaping.

Comments on second revised scheme

On 7 October 2020, a comparative drawing was received to indicate the difference in massing between the first revised scheme (featuring flat roofs) and the second revised scheme (featuring pitched roofs).

7 October 2020

Notes ridge height of the proposed building is higher etc. Proposed pitched roofs have a more sympathetic appearance to the neighbouring dwellings and presents a better relationship with Gladstone Road. Requests a series of sections showing the proposed building in relation to the adjoining dwellings.

14 October 2020

Further to our meeting today and in advance of my detail comments to be sent shortly, I would add my concerns about the scale of the western elevation of the proposed building in relation to the St Matthews Close flats. The ridge height of the proposed building is shown about 9.6 m higher than that of the existing flats which is likely to have a domineering effect.

In connection with this the blank projecting area of almost 4 storey high brickwork at the western end appears to be largely featureless and well-considered detailing should be considered to enliven this part of the building.

Comments following revised/additional drawings and Design and Access Statement received 15 October 2020:

 The proposed pitched roofs of the amended design moderates the massing of the building and reduces the likely overbearing effect of the previous proposal, would have a more sympathetic appearance with the neighbouring Sandford Walk dwellings and presents a better relationship with Gladstone Road.

Page 121  Despite the new images included in the Design and Access Statement (p.30), the Proposed Sections (drawing no. 2407 373) still suggests that potentially there would be an uncomfortable height relationship between the proposed building and the existing flats of Nos. 7-8 St. Matthews Close which the step back of the previous design appeared to take into account.  The additional recessed patterned brickwork panel at the western end of the of the southern elevation will help to enliven this part of the otherwise largely featureless expanse of brickwork and full details will be required.  The open area to the north of the building is essentially a service yard for vehicle access and the location of the bin and bicycle stores. Whilst a few small trees and shrubs are proposed to be planted and some seating provided the small size and northerly orientation means it will have limited value.  More space has been provided for three trees proposed at the entrance to the building fronting Gladstone Road in place of the existing Ash tree which would be removed to accommodate the development. The location of the trees would be further back from the highway.  The proposed underground crating system has been extended which would enhance the establishment and growth of the new trees.  Full details and specification of all works in relation to the proposed trees including paving construction and the location of existing and proposed above and below ground services will be needed.

Heritage Officer (Exeter City Council):

29 April 2020

Comments on potential for archaeological remains on the site which should be identified and properly recorded through an agreed programme of archaeological work; this can be secured by planning condition.

Proposals are acceptable in terms of impact on the settings of nearby conservation areas and other heritage assets. This is helped by the site being set back from the conservation area boundaries, and in particular that of the St Leonards CA along Heavitree Road and a little way away from the locally listed buildings of St Luke’s and the listed buildings at Summerlands.

Comments that visualisations in views across the city, in relation to its surroundings and to the city centre buildings would have been useful.

Comments unfortunate that the redevelopment of this site and of the adjoining Police station site have not been designed as one.

Parks and Greenspace (Exeter City Council):

Page 122 28 August 2020

From a landscape perspective there are no substantial changes between the previously submitted application and the current revision, so my previous comments remain valid (below for information). The change from student housing to co-living is not likely to substantially change the demographic profile of the development, and so the additional demand highlighted in the original comments remains similar albeit with slightly fewer overall beds. Note that the two requested contributions in the previous comments have been combined into a single contribution in our updated comments, and for comparison contributions are set at similar levels to what we requested at another co-living site in Exeter.

We would not object to this application from a Parks & Green Spaces perspective, subject to appropriate off-site contributions being made in lieu of sufficient on-site green open space being provided to cover the additional demands put on our parks and green spaces by additional residential developments.

The application proposes only a small POS with no private gardens, and the proposed on-site POS is not of sufficient space to serve the number of residents proposed nor to provide sufficient green open space within the development for residents to enjoy. Particularly in times of good weather, it is likely that a large number of the occupants will want to access a suitable green open space, and we therefore anticipate that the residents will create an additional demand on nearby public parks.

Additionally, no play provision is provided within the development. We are informed that this type of accommodation will be adult-only, therefore there will be no additional demand on play areas and there is no requirement for play area provision or off-site contribution towards play area provision.

The nearest public park is at Belmont Park, approximately 600m (5-10min walk along fairly quiet roads with footways. The next closest is Bull Meadow, but this is less likely to be heavily used by residents from this development as it is around 1km walk away which included crossing the busy Heavitree Road.

Belmont Park will be able to absorb the extra users created by the development, however the additional demand on the park and adult gym will generate additional wear and tear and will require infrastructure and equipment to be replaced sooner. We therefore seek a contribution for works at Belmont Park as follows:

 Contribution towards the upgrade and maintenance of Belmont Park, which will see additional use as a result of the proposed development. Works would likely include enhanced lighting provision on the main path (increased active travel, improved safety at night) and revenue works such

Page 123 as path and fencing repairs, upkeep and replacement of adult gym equipment, replacement of parks furniture, vegetation management. We would request an off-site contribution of £50,000 (equivalent to around £381 per bed) towards open spaces provision.

Tree Manager (Exeter City Council):

25 August 2020

No arboriculture objections.

Environmental Health (Exeter City Council):

14 September 2020

Submitted CEMP does not contain sufficient detail on noise and vibration control (including from piling and compaction activities), dust control during demolition or working hours. Section 8 states that no work which is audible at the site boundary will take place outside the permitted working hours - we ask that all construction works cease outside these hours. The CEMP needs to be revised and resubmitted.

Recommends approval with conditions: CEMP, contaminated land, UXO, noise from development, noise mitigation

Exeter Cycling Campaign:

14 November 2019

Comments on cycle parking and crossing on Gladstone Road. Proposed crossing across Gladstone Road essential. Traffic calming measures would also help. Better pedestrian access to St Luke’s campus across Heavitree Road is a necessity.

28 August 2020

Large amount of cycle storage space provided. Comments that it is not aspirational in numbers provided. Comments on security, ease of use, allocation of spaces.

Exeter Civic Society:

30 April 2020

Raises several concerns. Understand that the former police station site is likely to come forward shortly and in those circumstances the sub-committee is of the

Page 124 view that the Council should take a holistic view of the re-development of the larger site rather than allow piecemeal development. Appears that the studios would be too small to support long term residential use with adequate amenity. Policy void against which to judge proposals for co-living. Remain of the view that the five storey element is too tall for this site.

Living Options Devon:

Note that development will be compliant with Approved Document Part M. Note zero car parking is proposed in order to reduce car usage. Some disabled people depend on having their own transport and may feel this new development will discriminate / exclude them from having the opportunity to live on this site. Questions whether provision can be made for Blue Badge holders. Asks if there will be storage/charging space for mobility scooters/electric wheelchairs. Asks if there will be height adjustable surfaces in the communal kitchen areas Recommends permeable surfaces, advises careful consideration will need to be given to accessibility.

11.0 Representations

At the time of writing this report, there have been 134 contributors to the application overall. 128 of these objected, 4 were neutral and 2 were in support.

The application was publicised four times: once in relation to the original plans and documents, once in relation to the first set of amended plans and documents (April 2020), and twice in relation to the second set of amended plans and documents (August/September 2020).

In response to the original submitted scheme, concerns raised can be summarised as:

 Overdevelopment of the site, large size/footprint of the buildings. Lack of space for landscaping on Gladstone Road. Existing set back of buildings on Gladstone Road is deliberate in urban design, to allow frontage directly back of pavement would ignore existing layout and setting and be detrimental. Construction would require access over third party land.  Would restrict development of police station site or create unsatisfactory relationship. Near proximity to Police Station boundary (scale, bulk, massing), overlooking – will prejudice redevelopment of Police Station site Police Station and Ambulance Station redevelopment should be treated as a whole. Significant impact on opportunity to maximise regeneration of both Police Station and Ambulance Station site.  Height of development too high, large scale/height of building out of character with neighbouring residential development, buildings appearing

Page 125 overbearing and out of proportion with immediate buildings, will dwarf adjacent houses  Would set unwelcome precedent for future high rise buildings in the area  Detrimental visual impact. Low rise terraced housing would fit into the area.  Detrimental impact on amenity of existing residents including loss of outlook, loss of daylight/sunlight, overshadowing, dominating impact. Overlooking, loss of privacy to existing properties and courtyard areas due to windows in north elevation of proposed building. Noise and disturbance in area, increased litter, antisocial behaviour, increase in crime.  Student accommodation will change the residential character of the area.  Too much student accommodation in residential areas of Exeter. Question need for more student accommodation in the city.  New large student developments would be better placed near the main campus rather than in a residential area. St Luke’s campus cannot expand.  Loss of trees, impact on streetscene. Ash tree adds to local amenity in Gladstone Road. Mature trees are important for absorbing carbon dioxide etc. at time of Climate Emergency and providing biodiversity, important for health and wellbeing. There should be more trees planted and green roofs for climate change mitigation.  Pedestrian links shown across Police Station site are undeliverable as on third party land  Increased traffic, increased congestion, increased potential for accidents. Traffic calming measures are required on Gladstone Road. Site suitable for car share space.  Affordable residential housing would be more appropriate. Need affordable housing for young professionals and decent accommodation for those on a low income. Need family housing; family housing would support local school. Need for housing for local people.  Need to ensure habitat enhancement (insects, birds, bats etc)  Concern about loss of ambulance station as a facility, loss of local employment

A neutral comment was received on the need for good safe bicycle storage.

Emails/letters of objection received following re-consultation on the first revised scheme raise the following (summarised) concerns:

 Overdevelopment  Building too high, massing too great  Design/materials out of keeping, not locally distinctive  Too close to Gladstone Road

Page 126  Detrimental Impacts on Residential Amenity including daylight, sunlight, overshadowing, loss of outlook, loss of view, loss of privacy, proximity of bin store  Noise and disturbance caused by future residents of the development  Increase crime in the area  Large blocks of flats are out of character  Loss of mature trees  Impact on streetscene  Impact on setting of St Luke’s  Type of accommodation not needed  Need housing for local people. Need housing for older people. Need for family housing. Need more affordable housing.  Too much student accommodation in Exeter.  Nothing to stop students from renting the units.  Will not be subject to CIL.  Will not contribute to Council’s housing target.  Co-living developments should not be approved until ECC has a co-living policy.  Sui generis use will not pay same level of Council tax.  Co-living should only be approved when satisfactory space and amenity standards are provided and maintained in perpetuity.  Question whether development would be truly car free  Need to prevent parking permits being allocated to building’s residents.  Traffic calming measures required for Gladstone Road  Needs safe pedestrian crossing on Gladstone Road.  Plans are misleading.  Precedent for development on Police Station Site.  Public consultation was not long enough.  Revised plans do not address concerns raised on original plans.  If Ambulance site and adjacent Police Station site combined, opportunity to sympathetically develop a much larger area.  Reduced value/saleability of adjacent existing properties.  Further student accommodation in the city should be subject to a review given the effects of the pandemic.  Comments with respect to maximising opportunity for habitat enhancement

Beverley Bateman, FirstPlan, on behalf of Waitrose and Partners, support the provision of the new pedestrian crossing across Gladstone Road but provide comments on the proposed design. Provide comments on funding and timing of works for improved facilities for pedestrian crossing Gladstone Road/Heavitree Road junction. Enforcement of management plan for pick up/ drop off of students through legal agreement. Request consultation on any subsequent application to discharge a planning condition relating to Construction Management Plan.

Page 127

Emails/letters of objection received following re-consultation on the second revised scheme reiterate the following (summarised) concerns:

 Building too large for the site.  Impact on historic environment including impact on St Lukes.  Large concentration of young people, detrimental impact on quality of life existing residents  Disturbance from use of indoor/outdoor communal spaces  Increase in noise  Separation distance is not large enough from existing residential properties  Negative impact on amenity of Sandford Walk properties including loss of daylight/sunlight, loss of privacy, close proximity of bin store to existing residential properties, increase in traffic.  Need affordable housing for local people.  Co-living accommodation is worse than student accommodation as allows for permanent residents.  Little more than hotel rooms, not high quality homes.  Consideration should be given to developing with the police station site  A mix of homes for different sized households would integrate better with the existing community.  Seeks confirmation that no parking permits will be issued to residents  Plans difficult to read.  Questions whether co-living means student accommodation  More cycling parking spaces, co-bikes hire point & co-cars electric car hire bays should be considered.  Landscaping/tree planting conditions are required. Outside lighting should be designed to minimise impacts on bats. A shallow pond would provide a welcome addition for wildlife.  Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust: Submitted a lengthy consultation response setting out the background and justification behind a request for a S106 financial contribution of £58,575 (based on 134 dwellings) towards the cost of providing capacity for the Trust to maintain service delivery during the first year of occupation of each unit in the development.

In support of the second amended set of plans, the following comments were received:  Reduced scale now acceptable  Good quality housing within walking/cycling distance of key amenities/onward transport links  Brownfield site  Shared communal spaces will foster good community bonds, improved mental health, providing a vibrant place to live

Page 128

12.0 Relevant Policies

National Planning Policy and Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (February 2019) – in particular sections:

2. Achieving sustainable development 4. Decision-making 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes 8. Promoting healthy and safe communities 9. Promoting sustainable transport 11. Making effective use of land 12. Achieving well-designed places 14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG):

Air Quality Appropriate assessment Build to rent Climate change Design: process and tools Effective use of land Flood risk and coastal change Healthy and safe communities Historic environment Housing for older and disabled people Housing: optional technical standards Housing supply and delivery Land affected by contamination Light pollution Natural environment Noise Planning obligations Travel Plans, Transport Assessment and Statements Use of planning conditions Waste Water supply, wastewater and water quality National Design Guide (October 2019) Cycle Infrastructure Design Local Transport Note 1/20 (DfT, July 2020)

Development Plan

Page 129

Core Strategy (Adopted 21 February 2012) Core Strategy Objectives CP1 – Spatial Strategy CP4 – Density CP5 – Mixed Housing CP7 – Affordable Housing CP9 – Transport CP11 – Pollution CP10 – Community Facilities CP12 – Flood Risk CP15 – Sustainable Construction CP16 – Green Infrastructure, Landscape and Biodiversity CP17 – Design and Local Distinctiveness CP18 – Infrastructure

Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011 (Adopted 31 March 2005)

AP1 – Design and Location of Development AP2 – Sequential Approach H1 – Search Sequence H2 – Location Priorities H5 – Diversity of Housing H7 – Housing for Disabled People L4 – Provision of Youth and Adult Play Space in Residential Development T1 – Hierarchy of Transport Modes T2 – Accessibility Criteria T3 – Encouraging Use of Sustainable Modes C1 – Conservation Areas C2 – Listed Buildings C3 – Buildings of Local Importance C5 – Archaeology LS2 – Ramsar/Special Protection Area LS4 – Nature Conservation EN2 – Contaminated Land EN3 – Air and Water Quality EN4 – Flood Risk EN5 – Noise DG1 – Objectives of Urban Design DG2 – Energy Conservation DG4 – Residential Layout and Amenity DG7 – Crime Prevention and Safety

Devon Waste Plan 2011 – 2031 (Adopted 11 December 2014) (Devon County Council)

Page 130 W4 – Waste Prevention W21 – Making Provision for Waste Management

Other Material Considerations

Development Delivery Development Plan Document (Publication Version, July 2015)

DD1 – Sustainable Development DD5 – Access to Jobs DD8 – Housing on Unallocated Sites DD9 – Accessible, Adaptable and Wheelchair User Dwellings DD13 – Residential Amenity DD20 – Accessibility and Sustainable Movement DD21 – Car and Cycle Parking DD25 – Design Principles DD26 – Designing out Crime DD28 – Conserving and Managing Heritage Assets DD30 – Green Infrastructure DD31 – Biodiversity DD34 – Pollution and Contaminated Land

Exeter City Council Supplementary Planning Documents:

Affordable Housing SPD (April 2014) Archaeology and Development (Nov 2004) Sustainable Transport SPD (March 2013) Planning Obligations SPD (April 2014) Public Open Space SPD (Sept 2005) Residential Design Guide SPD (Sept 2010) Trees and Development SPD (Sept 2009)

Devon County Council Supplementary Planning Documents:

Minerals and Waste – not just County Matters Part 1: Waste Management and Infrastructure SPD (July 2015)

Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans:

St Leonards (adopted March 2008) Mont Le Grand (adopted March 2009)

13.0 Human rights

Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home.

Page 131 The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property

Any interference with property rights is in the public interest and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regime for controlling the development of land.

14.0 Public Sector Equalities Duty

As set out in the Equalities Act 2010, all public bodies in discharging their functions must have “due regard” to the need to:

Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard in particular to the need to: a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it;

Page 132 c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.

15.0 Financial Issues

Material considerations

 20% of the dwellings within the co-living block will be affordable private rented (Policy CP7, Chapter 5 and Glossary of NPPF, and PPG advice on Build to rent). 5% of the affordable dwellings to be fitted out so they are wheelchair accessible.  £114,247 habitats mitigation (Policies CP16 and LS2, Chapter 15 of NPPF, PPG advice on Natural Environment and Natural England consultation response).  £50,000 towards the upgrade/maintenance of off-site public open spaces. (Policy L4, Public Open Space SPD and consultation response from Service Manager Public & Green Spaces).  £65,000 improve the pedestrian/cycling crossing facilities at the Gladstone Road/Heavitree Road junction (Policies CP9 and T1, Sustainable Transport SPD and consultation response from Devon County Council – Local Highway Authority).  Public realm improvements to Gladstone Road in the form of a pedestrian crossing (shown on plans), adjacent to the site access. The crossing would be in the form of dropped kerbs and tactile paving on both sides of

Page 133 the carriageway together with a pedestrian refuge (Chapter 9 of NPPF, PPG advice on Promoting sustainable transport and Devon County Council – Local Highway Authority consultation response).  The proposal will create 6 full-time jobs (planning application forms). The proposal will also create jobs in construction and related industries.

The request from the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust for a financial contribution to be secured through a S106 agreement is one of a number of similar requests submitted by the Trust in respect of recent residential applications under consideration by the Council. Officers have responded generically to these requests outlining why it is considered that they are not considered to meet the necessary tests relating to S106 obligations, and consequently are not being sought in connection with these developments. This follows the advice made to Planning Member Working Group on 27 August 2019.

Non-material considerations

The adopted CIL charging schedule applies a levy on proposals that create additional new floor space over and above what is already on a site. This proposal is not CIL liable, as it does not comprise uses within the Community Infrastructure Charging Schedule.

The co-living block will generate council tax.

16.0 Planning Assessment

The key issues are:

1. Sustainable Development and application of the NPPF 2. The Principle of the Proposed Development (including Economic Benefits and Housing Supply) 3. Affordable Housing 4. Access and Impact on Local Highways 5. Parking Provision 6. Design and Landscape 7. Impact on Heritage Assets 8. Residential Amenity 9. Impact on Amenity of Surroundings 10. Impact on Trees and Biodiversity 11. Contaminated Land 12. Flood Risk and Surface Water Management 13. Sustainable Construction and Energy Conservation

1. Sustainable Development and application of the NPPF

Page 134 The site lies in close proximity to the City Centre in an accessible location with good access to local amenities. Proposed residential development on the site is acceptable in principle as sustainable development in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and adopted local policies.

The Council does not have a current 5 year housing land supply, which ‘tilts’ the determination towards permission unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

Paragraph 11 of the NPPF sets out the criteria for the determination of sustainable development and states that decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-taking this means:

c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or

d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.”

In respect of the above it is important to note the two footnotes to the above paragraph of the NPPF which are critical for application of the balance to be given between policies when making a decision, namely footnote 6 and footnote 7 which provides the necessary interpretation of the paragraph.

Footnote 6 sets out a list of policies in the Framework relating to protected assets which include, amongst others, heritage assets. Footnote 7 indicates that polices will be out of date where a council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.

Para. 11 as above applies a clear presumption in favour of sustainable development particularly where proposals include the provision of housing where the authority cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply position (footnote 7). This indicates that permission should be granted. However, footnote 6 makes it clear that policies for the protection of assets of particular importance are of major importance and these can provide a clear justification to refuse permission if granting permission would “significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits”. It is thus necessary to weigh up the balance of issues and policies in

Page 135 accordance with the requirements of Para. 11 of the NPPF.

The application of the above presumption in favourable of sustainable development (and its predecessor Para. 14 of the NPPF 2012) have resulted in several court cases, notably in the Supreme Court ruling of Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes and SSCLG (2016). This case confirmed that where a council does not have a 5 year housing land supply, housing policies are deemed to be ‘out-of-date’. However, the fact that a policy is considered out of date does not mean it can be disregarded, but it means that less weight can be applied to it with the level of weight given to be a matter of planning judgement. The Supreme Court judgement confirmed that for the purposes of applying a tilt in favour of sustainable development, known as the ‘tilted balance’ (NPPF Para. 11(d)), policies of the development plan will remain applicable, but it will be for the local planning authority to determine the balance of policies for the protection of environment and amenity against the need for housing and the economy.

The various matters to be considered are set out in the remainder of this section of the report below.

2. The Principle of the Proposed Development (including Economic Benefits and Housing Supply)

The application site lies within a sustainable location. Core Strategy Policy CP1 (Spatial Strategy) states that development will be guided to the most sustainable locations, recognising the contribution to be made to growth by the existing urban area, particularly the City Centre. Policy AP1 states that proposals should be located where safe and convenient access by public transport, walking and cycling is available or can be provided.

The site is currently vacant; its last use was an ambulance station. The use as an ambulance station is considered by officers to be a community facility. The proposed loss of this use is considered acceptable with respect to Core Strategy Policy 10 as the site is surplus to requirements of South Western Ambulance Service.

The site comprises previously developed (‘brownfield’) land; the Core Strategy supports maximising the use of previously developed land (Vision, Objectives, Spatial approach). Policy AP2 (Sequential Approach) gives priority to meeting development needs on previously developed land. Planning decisions should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs (Paragraph 118, NPPF). The NPPF promotes the effective use of land, including using employment land for homes in areas of high housing demand (Paragraph 121). The NPPF states that where there is an existing shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that decisions avoid homes being built at low densities,

Page 136 and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site (Paragraph 123).

The original submission was for student accommodation. Since submission, the description of the application has been amended to co-living accommodation. The Management Plan for the co-living accommodation states, under Tenant Profile, “the studios are an attractive housing option for young professionals, who want the independence of living alone, but also like to have the option of being part of the community of likeminded individuals in a secure and managed environment”.

The proposed co-living accommodation comprises 133 studio rooms with ground floor communal common rooms, shared kitchen and dining space, an entrance reception area and landscaped amenity.

The proposed use as co-living accommodation is sui-generis, i.e. the use does not fall within any specific Use Class as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended). Exeter City Council currently has no adopted planning policy relating to co-living development proposals. However, adopted policies relating to general housing development are applicable to the scheme.

Policy CP4 requires residential development to achieve the highest appropriate density compatible with the protection of heritage assets, local amenities, the character and quality of the local environment and the safety and convenience of the local and trunk road network. Impacts of the proposed development on heritage assets, local amenities, character of the locality and highways are considered in later sections of this report. The proposal is for high density residential accommodation. Taking into account the balance of the other planning considerations set in later sections of this report, the development accords with Policy CP4.

In regard to concerns raised about the suitability of the development in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Government has not issued any new planning guidance advising against high density housing, due to the requirement for social distancing, or other types of development that attract high numbers of people, such as offices, retail/leisure or sports stadia, and officers consider that the building is likely to be positively managed in this respect by the on-site management.

Representations have been made about the benefits of developing the site in combination with the adjacent police station site to the south. However, the current application has come forward for redevelopment of the single site and not a wider redevelopment scheme. At the time of writing this report, no formal planning application has been submitted for redevelopment of the police station site. A comprehensive redevelopment scheme for both sites is not possible as

Page 137 the current site has come forward on its own; each planning application must to be determined on its own planning merits.

Policy CP5 requires the supply of housing to meet the needs of all members of the community. The application is accompanied by supporting documentation to evidence the need for the proposed accommodation. A report entitled Co-living and the Exeter Economy (October 2020) sets out that co-living:  is especially relevant to people with a relatively short-term accommodation need, such as might traditionally be met by a house-share or serviced accommodation.  offers shared amenities with all-inclusive bills and with relatively ‘easy-out’ arrangements.  residents benefit from higher standards of amenity and support services than would be found in alternative forms of accommodation, such as a house-share.  provide co-working space to help foster networking opportunities for young professional workers and entrepreneurs.  developments are staffed to provide residents with concierge services and security.  typical age profile of occupants would be expected to be aged between 25 and 35 years. Occupants are therefore expected to be well-qualified and would often be at an early stage on the career ladder.  as a concept is not designed as key worker housing, it is likely that some residents would be employed by the public sector  concept can also be relevant to ‘young minded’ middle aged workers.

The report states that recent data suggests that only around 12% of graduates for the University currently continue to live and work in Exeter after graduation (currently around half of the levels exhibited by other small university cities in the UK). In order to capture a greater proportion of potential future economic growth Exeter will need to do more to retain a greater proportion of the annual supply of highly qualified graduates produced by its own University. One challenge to retaining a higher proportion of graduates is the current lack of affordability of housing in the City. The Co-living concept could play an important role in helping to boost levels of graduate retention in Exeter, by providing an opportunity for attractive but affordable housing sharing facilities for local graduates alongside other like-minded young people.

Policy CP5 states that specialist housing should be provided as part of mixed communities, in accessible locations close to facilities. The proposal for co-living is considered to be a specialist form of housing, which is mainly aimed at younger people who wish to live in a social environment that is well managed. It will provide accommodation for people who might otherwise live in a standard HMO and by doing so could possibly free up existing housing stock for family dwellings.

Page 138 The co-living development will deliver much needed new housing in a sustainable location taking into account that the Council does not currently have a 5 year housing land supply, as required by national policy. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in NPPF 11d) therefore applies.

Given the sustainable location of the site in close proximity to the City Centre, the principle of a residential development (rented studios with tenants having access to communal amenity areas) in this location is acceptable in principle. The development will support economic growth through the creation of 6 jobs and resident expenditure in the City Centre. The co-living use will provide specialist housing in a highly accessible location, and help the Council towards providing a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites. The development will make effective use of a previously developed (‘brownfield’) site in line with local and national planning policy. The proposed development accords with Policies CP1, CP4, CP5, AP1, AP2, H1, and H2 (as applicable).

3. Affordable Housing

Policy CP7 requires 35% of the total housing provision on sites capable of providing 3 or more additional dwellings as affordable housing. The NPPF states that affordable housing should only be sought on major developments (i.e. 10 or more homes or site area of 0.5ha or more). While the co-living block is sui generis, it will still deliver dwellings in the form of the studios, therefore the requirement for affordable housing set out in Policy CP7 applies to the proposal. The co-living accommodation will be Build to Rent housing, as defined in the NPPF (i.e. purpose built housing that is typically 100% rented out).

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) on build to rent states that 20% is generally a suitable benchmark for the level of affordable private rent homes to be provided (and maintained in perpetuity) in any build to rent scheme. As this guidance was published after the Core Strategy was adopted, officers consider that it is a material consideration that indicates that in this case 20% affordable housing should be provided as opposed to 35% as set out in Policy CP7. When applied proportionally, this results in a requirement of 27 affordable studios. Officers consider that the Council’s requirement of seeking 5% of affordable units as wheelchair accessible should also apply (Affordable Housing SPD). In addition, it is considered that the affordable units should be given priority to essential local workers and the developer has agreed to this. The affordable housing will be secured in a s106 agreement.

Given that the required affordable housing is to be provided in accordance with the NPPG level of 20% on Build to Rent schemes, which supersedes the Core Strategy requirement of 35%, the proposal meets with the policy requirements for affordable housing providing this is secured through a s106 agreement. The provision of wheelchair accessible units within the scheme will also meet

Page 139 objectives of the Public Sector Equalities Duty (PSED).

4. Access and Impact on Local Highways

As set out in their detailed consultation response, DCC Local Highway Authority raise no objections to the development subject to a number of recommended planning conditions and clauses within a Section 106 agreement.

The proposal is for the development to be car free which is supported in this sustainable location. Traffic generation for the proposed use is not a concern. In terms of safety, the proposed access is acceptable. The proposed courtyard is deemed acceptable to provide for deliveries and servicing of the building and assist with pick up/drop off. The ramp providing pedestrian/cycling access, as well as for refuge collection purposes, onto St Matthews Close (together with the stepped), is acceptable. This access will enhance permeability through the site for residents of the development.

The proposed development is expected to generate a considerable number of new pedestrian and cycle movements to and from the site. The proposal includes a new pedestrian crossing across Gladstone Road, adjacent to the site access. The crossing will be in the form of dropped kerbs and tactile paving on both sides of the carriageway together with a pedestrian refuge. This proposed pedestrian crossing is welcomed and will benefit all users of Gladstone Road.

Given the existing lack of signalised crossing points on the Gladstone Road / Heavitree Road junction (where accidents have occurred), DCC Local Highway Authority has requested a financial contribution of £65,000 to improve the pedestrian / cycling crossing facilities at the Gladstone Road / Heavitree Road junction. The justification for requesting this contribution is set out in detail in the consultation response.

The contribution towards improved crossing points on Heavitree Road will improve access for all users and this is a significant planning benefit of the application. The works will be paid for by the developer and secured through the s106 agreement and conditions.

DCC Local Highway Authority also require a number of planning conditions to be attached to any approval relating to: 1. Access Point Gladstone Road 2. Access Points to St Matthews Close 3. Crossing Point on Gladstone Road 4. Cycle Parking Facilities 5. Management Plan (provision sustainable transport welcome packs, student pick up/drop off)

Page 140 The co-living accommodation will be car-free and residents will not be entitled to residential parking permits. Instead they will be encouraged to use sustainable modes of travel through a full Travel Plan to be conditioned.

The proposed development gives more priority to pedestrians and cyclists in line with national and local policy, and best practice guidance. Such improvements will also ensure improved accessibility for wheelchair users, other mobility impaired people and parents with pushchairs in line with the PSED.

The development has been designed with inclusive access in mind and will be compliant with part M of the Building Regulations and wheelchair accessible.

In relation to the comments received from Living Options (Section 10 of this report), the applicant’s Highway Consultation has responded:  Given the site constraints, a provision for an on-site disabled bay within the courtyard area would severely impact the area available for delivery vehicles to turn around.  Given the type of development proposed, it is unlikely that a demand for a disabled bay would arise. However, if a demand for a disabled bay does arise in future, then we would review this at the time and investigate potential to provide a space on site.  Alternatively, a Blue Badge Holder can apply for a on-street disabled parking bay to Devon County Council.  Given the type of development proposed, it is unlikely that there would be a demand for a communal storage space for mobility scooters/electric wheelchairs. In the event that there is a requirement, those parties can store and charge their scooters and wheelchairs in their rooms.

The proposed development is acceptable with respect to access and impact on local highways; the proposed development is considered to accord with Policies CP9, T1, T2 and T3 in that it has been designed and will be managed to put pedestrians and cyclists before cars, and is in a highly sustainable location where opportunities to utilise sustainable modes of travel will be maximised. It will therefore support the Council’s corporate priority of Net Zero Exeter 2030.

5. Parking Provision

Paragraph 105 of the NPPF advises that if setting local parking standards, policies should take into account, amongst other criteria, the accessibility of the development, the use of development and the availability of and opportunities for public transport.

The indicative car parking standard for residential in the Sustainable Transport SPD is 1.5 spaces per dwelling. However, the co-living accommodation will be car-free. This is considered acceptable in this location given the opportunities to access facilities and public transport. The car free nature of the development

Page 141 has been agreed by the Local Highway Authority. The courtyard area can be used for move in/move out of residents.

The secure covered cycle stand pavilion is welcomed and meets the standard set out in the Sustainable Transport SPD. This will be conditioned to be maintained in perpetuity.

The proposed development is considered to be acceptable with regard to parking.

6. Design and Landscape

Planning decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions (Paragraph 117, NPPF). Local Plan First Review Policy H2 (Location Priorities) states that priority will be given to meeting housing needs on previously developed land and permitting development at the highest density that can be achieved without detriment to local amenity, the character and quality of the local environment etc. The proposal is for a high density development, 133 studios over 6 floors of accommodation (including the lower ground floor and rooms in the roof space) on a 0.26Ha site.

Notwithstanding the sustainable location of the site, the application site is heavily constrained by reason of: 1. Close proximity to the terrace of existing two storey residential properties immediately to the north of the site (Sandford Walk odd numbers 31 to 51 and 1 Gladstone Road). The rear of this terrace of 12 properties and their south facing courtyard areas means that any proposed development on the ambulance station site gives rise to potential for loss of daylight/sunlight, loss of privacy, potential for development to appear dominant and overbearing. These issues of neighbour amenity are discussed under sub-heading 9 below. 2. The existing Ash Tree (subject to a Tree Protection Order) between the existing building and Gladstone Road which currently makes a positive contribution to the existing streetscene. 3. The shape of the site which has a relatively small frontage on to Gladstone Road (approximately 27m north-south) yet runs back into the site from Gladstone Road (west-east) for a distance of approximately 58m with 12 terraced properties immediately to the north and the Police Headquarters site immediately to the south.

A balance is required between achieving an effective use of a brownfield site within a sustainable location whilst safeguarding and improving the environment and protecting local amenity.

Page 142 Chapter 12 of the NPPF is titled ‘Achieving well-designed places’. Paragraph 127 sets out that planning decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

The main part of the new building will be much taller than the adjacent buildings on Sandford Walk and St Matthews Close to the north and north west. The ridgeline of the proposed main building will be 9.7m higher than the ridge of St Matthews Close, 9.8m higher than Sandford properties at the western end of the terrace and 6.9m higher than Sandford Walk properties at the eastern end of the terrace. However, to the south of the site lies the Police Station buildings with Heavitree Road beyond. The police station site, includes a five storey building. The proposed ridge level of the main building is approximately 3.2m higher than the tallest building on the police station site. The police station site justifies a change in character between the Sandford Walk properties and Heavitree Road in terms of scale of townscape. Some step up in height towards the south of the site is considered to be appropriate.

Height and massing of the proposals has been subject to much discussion with the developer during the planning application. In response to feedback from the local planning authority during the planning application, the developer has significantly changed the proposed design of the proposals to reduce the massing of the development and to address other design concerns raised by officers, including impacts on the amenity of nearby residents which are considered under sub-heading 9.

The proposed pitched roof design is considered to be a much more appropriate and sympathetic design response given the context of the site in relation to existing adjacent residential development compared to previous flat roof proposals. The utilisation of pitched roofs has reduced the overall scale and

Page 143 massing of the development. The pitched roofs also better respect the form of the residential properties on Sandford Walk and St Matthews Close.

That said, the juxtaposition between the buildings of lower height on Sandford Walk and St Matthews Close and the proposed development of significantly greater height remains uncomfortable. However, the scale/massing of the scheme has been reduced to a degree that, whilst finely balanced, given the local and national guidance promoting the efficient use of land, officers consider that it does not warrant refusal in urban design terms.

It is recognised that the proposals will have an impact on the potential to bring forward a comprehensive redevelopment scheme on the adjacent police station site. However, at the time of writing this report there is no formal planning application for redevelopment of the adjacent site and the current application must be determined on its own planning merits. The proposals are considered to have an acceptable relationship with the existing buildings to the south. The police station site is much larger than the current application site and there is scope for any layout in a future redevelopment of the site to take account of the development proposals on the Ambulance Station site.

The removal of existing unsightly buildings and car parking areas from the site is a benefit of the scheme. The proposed architecture and use of high quality modern materials and soft/hard landscaping will improve the overall appearance of the site. The materials and landscaping will be conditioned to ensure that the quality of the materials proposed is agreed and delivered in accordance with Paragraph 130 of the NPPF.

In amending the design of the scheme, the design of the buildings has benefited from being simplified on all elevations. The removal of the previously canted windows on the southern elevation is welcomed and the northern elevation no longer appears contrived in its design.

The proposed elevational design of the building fronting Gladstone Road will increase active frontages and contribute to the vibrancy of the area.

Replacement planting is proposed on Gladstone Road to ensure that trees continue to make a positive contribution to the streetscene. As stated in the supporting Landscape Design Statement, the additional trees will soften the frontage of the new development, provide vertical structure and year round interest, whilst enhancing the overall verdant character of the street. The streetscene along Gladstone Road will benefit from an improved public realm.

With respect to Policy DG1, the development is considered to comply with parts:  a) in that the development is compatible with the urban nature of the locality and the development puts people before traffic.  b) the grain of the development promotes the urban character of Exeter

Page 144  c) landscape design is fully integrated into the proposal. The landscaped area of the courtyard will provide an attractive outdoor amenity area for the studios and will also enable delivery vehicles to turn and space for pick up / drop off of residents etc. The proposed hard and soft landscaping will enhance the visual appearance of the scheme.  d) the density of the development will promote Exeter’s urban character  e) the proposed development is a compatible use in the area which will add to the vitality of the locality  h) the design of the scheme does promote local distinctiveness and the architecture will positively contribute to the visual richness and amenity of the townscape  i) the types of materials will relate well to the palette of materials in the locality

The design accords with Policy DG1 except for DG1(f) where it states that the height of constituent part of buildings should relate well to adjoining buildings, spaces and to human scale and DG1(g), where it states that the volume and shape (the massing) of structures should relate well to the character and appearance of the adjoining buildings and the surrounding townscape. The buildings will be much greater in height and massing to adjacent properties on Sandford Walk and St Matthews Close. Whilst not complying with parts f and g of Policy DG1, as set out above the scale and mass of the development is considered to be not refusable in terms of urban design.

The detailed consultation responses from the Council’s Place Making Officer are set out in Section 10 of this report. In summary, the pitched roof design -  moderates the massing of the building  reduces the likely overbearing effect  has a more sympathetic appearance with Sandford Walk dwellings  presents a better relationship with Gladstone Road.

The requested additional recessed patterned brickwork panel at the western end of the southern elevation will help to enliven this part of the otherwise largely featureless expanse of brickwork. Another welcome change to the scheme is that more space has been provided for three trees proposed at the entrance to the building fronting Gladstone Road and the trees would be further back from the highway. The proposed underground crating system has been extended which would enhance the establishment and growth of the new trees.

The Place Making Officer comments:  there is potentially an uncomfortable height relationship between the proposed building and the existing flats of Nos. 7-8 St. Matthews Close.  The open area to the north of the building is essentially a service yard for vehicle access and the location of the bin and bicycle stores. Whilst a few small trees and shrubs are proposed to be planted and some seating

Page 145 provided the small size and northerly orientation means it will have limited value.

In terms of safety and security, the Police Designing Out Crime Officer has made comments that mainly relate to detailed design matters that can be addressed through a condition for a detailed landscaping scheme or through building regulations. A condition to secure a strategy for the distribution of CCTV across the site in an unobtrusive manner in accordance with Policy DG7 is considered appropriate.

Given the above, whilst the proposal development is not fully sympathetic to local character, the proposal is otherwise in accordance with Policies CP17, DG1 and Chapter 12 of the NPPF on achieving well-designed places. Overall, the proposal is deemed to be acceptable with respect to design and landscape matters.

7. Impact on Heritage Assets

The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) places a duty on local planning authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas, and to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings that are affected by development proposals. This is reflected in Policies C1 and C2. Policy C3 protects buildings of local importance (locally listed). Policy C5 prevents harm to scheduled monuments, including their setting, and seeks to preserve archaeological remains in situ or archaeological recording works where this is not feasible or practical.

The NPPF was published after the development plan policies above were adopted and includes additional policies relating to conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Therefore, the development plan policies above are not fully up-to-date. Paragraph 189 requires developers to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected by their proposals – the developer has done this in the supporting heritage report (see Section 7.0). Significance is defined in the Glossary of the NPPF as: ‘The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. The interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting…’. When considering the impact of development proposals on the significance of designated heritage assets, the NPPF states that great weight should be given to their conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be) (Para. 193). Para. 194 states that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated asset (which includes conservation areas, listed buildings and scheduled monuments) should require clear and convincing justification. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, Paragraph 196 states that this harm should be

Page 146 weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Public benefits could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental objectives as described in the NPPF. Considerable importance should be placed on the statutory duties within the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) described above when carrying out this balancing exercise. In the case of non-designated heritage assets (i.e. locally listed buildings) Paragraph 197 states that the effect on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account…and when weighing applications a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

The application site lies within the setting of two Conservation Areas; St Leonards Conservation Area, and Mont Le Grand Conservation Area. The proposed building will clearly be viewed from St Leonards Conservation Area as demonstrated by CGI view 2, looking north from Heavitree and Gladstone Road junction. The site also lies within the setting of a locally listed building (St Luke’s College).

The Council’s Heritage Officer considers that the proposed height and massing is acceptable to the settings of the nearby Conservation Areas and other heritage assets.

The supporting Built Heritage Statement finds that:

1. When looking towards the Site from St Luke’s College the proposed building would maintain the existing building line but would appear slightly taller than the existing development. However, the majority of the building would be concealed by intervening built development, notably including the Police Station, and the proposed development would not alter the current character of these views. There would be limited changes to views of the buildings and into the conservation area which would not alter the ability to appreciate or understand the significance of the College buildings or wider conservation area.

2. The existing setting of the St Leonards conservation area is characterised by mixed development, including a range of late twentieth and twenty-first- century buildings with large footprints, often exceeding three or four storeys in height. The proposed development would not change this existing character and, would have a minimal impact on views into and out of the conservation area. The St Leonards Conservation Area would remain as a large, predominantly residential area containing high-quality nineteenth-century housing and landmark institutional buildings. The proposed development would therefore have no impact on the significance, including the character and appearance, of the St Leonards Conservation Area.

Page 147 3. The development would alter some distant, peripheral views from the Mont Le Grand Conservation Area. However, this view is currently characterised and dominated by the neighbouring supermarket and its associated car park. The changes within the Site, including additional height, would not alter the character of these views or the ability to experience and appreciate the significance of the Mont le Grand Conservation Area.’

Officers consider, by reason of the separation distances and intervening buildings between the application site and the heritage assets, the proposed development would result in a neutral impact on the settings of both the Conservation Areas and a neutral impact on the setting of St Luke’s College, therefore the proposed development would cause no harm to the heritage assets.

The application is accompanied by an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment, the conclusions of which are:  no designated or non-designated archaeological assets recorded on the study site.  site considered to have a low to moderate archaeological potential for Roman evidence and a low archaeological potential for Prehistoric or Medieval evidence. Features associated with Post-Medieval agricultural activity and evidence of 19th century nursery structures could be present.  Any remains, should they occur on site, would most likely just be of local significance.  It is considered unlikely that the redevelopment of the study site would either have a significant or widespread below ground archaeological impact.

With regard to archaeology, as recommended by the Heritage Officer, a condition is necessary to secure a written scheme of archaeological work to be carried out including on-site work, and off site work such as the analysis, publication, and archiving of the results, together with a timetable for completion of each element.

The site does form part of the setting of two conservation areas (Mont Le Grand Conservation Area and St Leonards Conservation Area) and one locally listed building (St Luke’s College), which is a non-designated heritage asset. The proposed redevelopment of the Site would introduce additional height, but would not change the existing character of the heritage assets’ settings or the ability to experience and appreciate their significance. The proposed redevelopment is acceptable with respect to impacts on heritage assets; the proposals would preserve the significance of these heritage assets in accordance with section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the NPPF and Policies C1 and C3 of the Exeter City Local Plan.

8. Residential Amenity

Page 148

Policy DG4 states that residential development should ensure a quality of amenity which allows residents to feel at ease within their homes and gardens. The Residential Design SPD includes minimum space standards for dwellings, however the Council now applies the national ‘Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard’ (March 2015), as it was published after the Residential Design SPD was adopted in 2010. The Residential Design SPD also includes minimum garden sizes. Officers do not consider that the local or national space standards should be applied to co-living housing schemes, as they are not standard dwelling types. The SPD states that part of the need for minimum space standards is to ensure that dwellings are flexible and adaptable, so they meet the changing needs of occupiers over time. Conversely co-living housing is a specialist type of housing aimed at a specific sector of the market that might otherwise live in an HMO. The properties typically have similar characteristics to Purpose Built Student Accommodation, but are open to anyone to live in over the age of 18 and have more communal space than other forms of housing. They are characterised by their design and management, which are intended to foster social interaction and a sense of community between residents.

The size of the majority of rooms in the proposed co-living scheme fall below the national space standard for a 1 bed 1 person dwelling of 37 sq m. The room sizes of the studios vary between 18 and 42 sq m. The average size of studio on the Lower Ground, Ground, First, Second and Third Floors is 20 sq m. The eleven studios on the Fourth Floor are more generous in size with an average of 26.5 sq m. This small apartment size would be a concern for an ordinary housing development. However, the proposal is for co-living accommodation with communal amenity areas provided on the ground floor of the building.

The communal kitchen and dining area, workspace, flexible social space and communal area on the lower ground floor provides 409 sq m communal space which equates to 3.1 sq m communal space per studio.

This compares with 667 sq m of additional communal floor space provided for the Co-Living accommodation block recently granted a resolution to approve on the Harlequins Shopping Centre site in the City Centre. This scheme comprises 99 studios and 26 cluster flats with 251 bedspaces overall. The amount of additional communal floor space per bedspace in the Harlequins scheme is 2.66 sq m. Based on the number of units (studios and cluster flats) it is 5.34 sq m.

In order to encourage socialising and a sense of community within the co-living development, officers sought provision to be made on each floor of accommodation for communal areas such as kitchen/dining rooms, living rooms, work spaces, gym etc. The lack of communal amenity space on the four storeys above the ground floor is likely to limit social interaction to some degree.

Page 149 Policy DG4 still applies to co-living housing and it is important that a quality of amenity is provided to make residents feel at ease within the property, recognising the intrinsic characteristics of the co-living model. There is no national planning guidance at present in this respect, or a local policy that specifically deals with this type of housing. In the case of this proposal, a total of 409 sq m communal space will be provided in the building. The quality of amenity in this respect is considered to be acceptable.

Officers are satisfied that the proposals will provide the environment and be managed in such a way that it will function as a genuine co-living development, taking into account the inclusion of communal spaces to encourage social interaction outside the private spaces and organised social activities in the management plan. The management plan submitted with the application should be secured in a s106 agreement to ensure this remains the case and a condition added prohibiting the use of the communal areas for anything other than the purpose of providing shared amenity space for the residents. The s106 should include provisions for monitoring compliance of the management plan in the future.

In terms of outdoor amenity space, it is considered that the proposed courtyard area on the northern side of the building, adjacent to the service yard, will not adequately cater for the needs of the occupiers of 133 studios in providing outdoor seating and outdoor amenity. Little outdoor amenity space is provided and the space that is provided is on the northern elevation, where the area will lack sunlight. Therefore, it is expected that residents will use the public open spaces within the vicinity of the site for outdoor amenity. A contribution of £50,000 is therefore required for the maintenance and upgrade of off-site public open spaces. This is justified by Policy L4 and section 6 of the Public Open Space SPD. These will be secured through a s106 agreement.

In terms of waste collection, confirmation is awaited from the Waste Collections Manager that the bin store with capacity for 5 no. 1,100 litre bins will be sufficient for the co-living accommodation. An update will be provided at committee. A condition should be added requiring bins to be stored inside the bin store at all times except for when they are being emptied, in the interests of the amenity of the area.

In terms of residential amenity, the proposal is considered to meet with the basic requirements of Policy DG4, however it is accepted that there will be reliance of existing public open spaces nearby to provide outdoor amenity and recreational space, and a contribution is therefore sought to enhance these spaces and their recreational value.

9. Impact on Amenity of Surroundings

Page 150 The amenity issues to consider are: privacy, outlook, natural light, overshadowing and noise. The adjoining properties that are considered to be most affected by these issues are the residential properties to the north (31 to 51 Sandford Walk odd numbers only and 1 Gladstone Road). The impact of the proposals on Block 7 St Matthews Close is limited due to orientation of the buildings; a blank gable wall of 7 St Matthews Close faces south east towards the site. Blocks 5 and 6 St Matthews Close are positioned further away to the west from the site; the west elevation of the main proposed building will be approximately 36m from 5 & 6 St Matthews Close. Given the large separation distance, impacts on residential amenity arising from the development are considered to be acceptable with respect to 5 & 6 St Matthews Close in the urban context.

Policy DG4 states that residential development should be at the maximum feasible density taking into account site constraints and impact on the local area, and ensure a quality of amenity which allows residents to feel at ease within their homes and gardens. The background text states that ‘Residential layout should be at the maximum feasible density taking account of all the design constraints relating to a particular site. Full account should be taken of the need to preserve the amenity of the occupiers of adjoining development, but the urban theme of this design guidance should run through new proposals. An existing suburban context will not be seen as justifying a similar, new, suburban scheme at insufficient densities,’ (Paragraph 13.35).

Supplementary guidance on residential amenity is provided in Chapter 7 of the Residential Design SPD. Paragraph 7.2 of the SPD states that the standards are flexible according to site analysis. In addition, the background text of Policy DG4 states that distance standards will be applied flexibly and not at the cost of good townscape and sufficient densities.

Privacy

The Residential Design Guide SPD states that a minimum back to back distance of 22m is required between habitable room windows. Where buildings of different storey heights back onto one another, privacy distances will need to be increased (Paragraph 7.18 Residential Design Guide SPD). The guidance also states that privacy may be achieved by avoiding windows between habitable rooms (living room, dining room, kitchen and bedroom) directly facing one another).

The supporting Design and Access Statement shows how the minimum of 22m distance is achieved between the majority of windows, between the scheme and the rear of Sandford Walk. The Design and Access Statement makes reference to the fact that the majority of the proposed building is not set out at 90 degrees to the Sandford Walk properties. This improves the degree of privacy between

Page 151 the proposed and existing properties by reducing the amount of direct overlooking.

The gable ends of the wings of the building on the north elevation are the closest parts of the building to the main rear wall of the Sandford Walk properties. The separation distances are 10.5m and 14.5m for the wing towards the east and wing towards the west respectively (diagram on page 50, Design and Access Statement). The windows shown at ground floor level within these gable ends of the wings will be acceptable in terms of privacy to the adjacent neighbours. As a result of the existing boundary wall, ground floor windows within the gable of the wing at the eastern end of the site, opposite numbers 47 and 49 Sandford Walk will not result in any loss of privacy to adjacent neighbours.

The windows in the gable end of the wing at the western end and the first floor window of the wing at the eastern end do not light studio rooms but are lighting circulation space. It is considered reasonable and necessary to condition that these windows lighting circulation space are obscured glazed and non-opening in order to protect the privacy of existing residents on Sandford Walk.

The seven windows lighting studios at first floor level in the main part of the building on the north elevation are considered to be acceptable in terms their relationship to the Sandford Walk properties and degree of privacy. This is by reason of the distance between the proposed windows and the main rear elevation of Sandford Walk properties (which ranges from almost 22m at number 45 Sandford Walk to 25m at number 39.

Numbers 33, 39 and 47 Sandford Walk have windows in rear extensions; detailed reference is made to these windows on Pages 53 & 54 of the Design and Access Statement. One of the windows (no. 33) has opaque glazing and the distance from the main building is 24.5m and so is considered acceptable with regard to impact on privacy. Another window (no. 39) is high level and is at a distance of 21.5m from the main building; this does not raise privacy concerns. The two windows in the rear extension to number 47 are positioned less than the recommended distance of 22m from windows in the main building; the distance is approximately 20m. Potential overlooking from studio windows at first, second and third floor level is reduced to some degree because the windows are not at 90 degrees to one another.

The degree of separation between the main building and Sandford Walk properties is considered acceptable for windows lighting the studios at first floor level. However, with respect to windows at second and third floor level on the north elevation, it is considered reasonable and necessary to condition that the lower parts of the studio windows are glazed with obscured glass in order to reduce the degree of overlooking to the existing residents on Sandford Walk.

Page 152 In term of use of the courtyard area as outdoor amenity space and use of the cycle store etc, the existing red brick wall to the north of the site is to be retained. The height of the existing wall varies but is around 1.5m in height. Site levels are to be reduced as part of the scheme. Sections shown on page 50 of the Design and Access Statement show how this will improve the relationship between the rear of Sandford Walk dwellings and the site by increasing the height of the wall, improving security and reducing overlooking by residents. A condition is necessary to control the detailed design of boundary treatment for the scheme as a whole, this will enable control to any changes to the northern boundary wall (including any necessary retaining elements within the site as indicated on the Landscape Layout, drawing number 101 Revision Q).

Subject to the conditions discussed in the section above requiring partial obscure glazing to second and third floor studio windows in the northern elevation of the proposed building, and windows in the gable ends of the wings that light circulation spaces to be obscure glazed (not at ground floor level on the wing at the eastern side of the site), the scheme will have an acceptable impact on neighbours with respect to privacy.

Outlook

On the issue of Outlook, the Residential Design Guide SPD states that residents should be able to enjoy good quality outlook, without adjacent buildings being overbearing. ‘Where habitable room windows face onto a blank or largely blank wall of another building, a minimum distance equal to twice the height of the blank wall (measured from ground floor level to eaves or parapet) must be provided between the two buildings… Where there is a level difference between the two buildings the distance must increase… or may decrease accordingly,’ (Paragraph 7.24).

The current outlook from the Sandford Walk properties is towards the existing buildings on the Ambulance Station site including the warehouse building, carpark, diesel tanker and the two storey flat roof building at the eastern end near Gladstone Road.

Whilst the height, scale and massing of buildings on the site will increase, the proposal will improve the visual appearance of the site in terms of providing a development that is more aesthetically pleasing in terms of architecture with the provision of a high quality building design and landscaping around the buildings.

The developer has provided sections showing the separation distances between the buildings and properties on Sandford Walk (drawing number 2407_374).

In relation to the proposed wings of the buildings, in both instances there would be a distance in excess of twice the height of the eaves level of the gable end walls. Furthermore, the gable end walls will be visually broken up by a number of

Page 153 window openings. In relation to the relationship with the main part of the building, the distance between the building and Sandford Walk properties is close to or exceeds twice the height of eaves level. Section 01-01 shows that the separation distance between the main part of the building and 49 Sandford Walk falls short of being twice the height of eaves level by 0.35m. In any case, the outlook from Sandford Walk properties will not be on to blank elevations that lack interest.

Given the elevational treatment of the building, the separation distances from neighbouring properties, and having regard to the urban nature of the locality, the visual outlook for residents is considered by officers to be acceptable.

Natural Light

In terms of natural light, the Residential Design SPD states ‘Developers should demonstrate that dwellings have sufficient daylight to allow comfortable use and enjoyment of habitable rooms, gardens and communal spaces. Where there is doubt about the quality of daylight developers will be required to produce plans illustrating shadow paths at the winter solstice and spring/autumn equinox (sunrise, midday and sunset),’ (Paragraph 7.21). The developer has provided a daylight and sunlight report by a specialist consultancy (Consil) in accordance with the BRE Report ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A guide to good practice’ 2nd Edition (2011). The report analyses the effect the proposed development would have on the daylight and sunlight amenity to the neighbouring residential properties in St Matthews Close and on Sandford Walk.

The findings of the report are:

Flats 1-8 St Matthews Close  all the windows would meet the guidance levels for both daylight and sunlight. Sandford Walk properties including 1 Gladstone Road  all rooms which are able to benefit from sunlight would meet the annual sunlight requirements.  in relation to winter sunlight, only one room - at No. 33 Sandford Walk - would fail to meet winter sunlight requirements. However, the report notes (see paragraph 5.4.4) that this impact is unlikely to affect the amenity of the occupier given the high level of annual sunlight which this room enjoys on an annual basis. The report further notes that the BRE numerical guidelines for winter sun is particularly difficult to achieve in urban and semi-urban areas when the sun is lower.  in relation to the daylight effects the assessment notes (see paragraph 5.4.5 of the Report) that, 58 of 68 (85%) of the windows now fully meet the vertical sky component (VSC) guidelines (i.e. of retaining 0.8+ of existing light levels). Of the other 10 windows, these are only very minor failures with the levels being between 0.71 to 0.79 or more of existing light levels.

Page 154  in addition to VSC analysis, the Report also considers the level of daylight distribution (DD). Key conclusions are that 33 of the 42 rooms (79%) would meet the BRE guidance of retaining at least 0.8 hectare the amount of existing sky visibility. Of the remaining nine, three are rooms which have been ‘knocked through’ and therefore benefit from daylight from the front side of the house, with the failure being confined to the area where the partition wall was originally sited. Of the others, the failure levels vary from 0.53 to 0.77. The report notes that these rooms are generally bedrooms where the level of daylighting is less important.

The report makes reference to the fact that the BRE Report has been in existence for eight years and superseded the 1991 edition. Whilst the 2011 edition provides guidance on adopting a flexible approach and using alternative target values, the testing methods remain largely unchanged from the original publication. Consequently, rigid application of the numerical guidelines could well give rise to an inappropriate form of development for a brownfield site such as this and highlights the importance of the revised NPPF which specifically identifies the need to apply daylight and sunlight guidance flexibly. The NPPF states:

“authorities should take a flexible approach in applying policies or guidance relating to daylight and sunlight, where they would otherwise inhibit making efficient use of a site (as long as the resulting scheme would provide acceptable living standards).”

Based on the results of the report and given the urban context, officers consider that the impact on natural light to surrounding properties will not be significantly adversely altered. The proposed development will not result in an unacceptable reduction of daylight or sunlight amenity.

Overshadowing

Overshadowing to the rear courtyards is assessed in the Addendum Daylight and Sunlight Report. The report finds that:  the amount of sunlight currently received varies significantly depending on the location along the terrace and the extent of obstruction from the rear extensions and boundary walls.  as an example, no part of the rear courtyard to 51 Sandford Walk would receive two hours of sunlight, whereas 39 Sandford Walk would receive 80% and only three courtyards currently receive sunlight to at least half the area.  for the March period, six of the 12 courtyards would meet shadowing guidelines. For the six courtyards where the guidelines are not met, the impact will be limited due to the existing small size of the courtyards.  for June period, all courtyards would meet shadowing guidelines.

Page 155  the level of lighting which would be provided to the courtyards would be consistent with already encountered by the other terraced properties in the area for example those on the northern side of Sandford Walk and East John Walk

Based on this analysis and given the urban context, it is not considered that the impact of overshadowing to properties would warrant refusal.

Noise

As set out in Section 7 of this report, the application is accompanied by an Ambient Noise and Building Envelope Assessment.

This Assessment concludes that the noise levels recorded mean that the application site is suitable for residential development from a noise perspective, taking into account noise from local road traffic, noise due to the police station and from Waitrose, and acceptable internal noise levels can be achieved provided that adequate acoustic attenuation is provided to habitable areas.

The Assessment also considers noise levels in the external amenity areas. The results of the noise model produced by PDA indicate that the noise level in the courtyard area would be below the national guideline value. The calculations demonstrate that the relevant national criteria (of BS8233:2014) and WHO Guidelines can be achieved both within the proposed accommodation and in the external courtyard area.

ECC Environmental Health raise no objections to the development with respect to noise subject to conditions securing:  noise impact assessment - impact of noise from the development on local receptors, including noise from plant and equipment as well as noise from deliveries, residents and events. If, following the assessment, the LPA concludes that noise mitigation measures are required, the applicant shall then submit a scheme of works to ensure that the development does not have a significant negative impact on local amenity.  noise mitigation in-line with recommendations of the report by the Acoustic Consultants  a Construction Method Statement that includes detail on noise and vibration control (including from piling and compaction activities), and working hours

The recommended conditions summarised above are considered to be reasonable and necessary to make the development acceptable with respect to noise impacts.

Control of Antisocial Behaviour

Page 156 The Management Plan sets out that the site will have a General Manager and a team (including security contractors) to support with general running of the scheme. The site will likely be staffed 8am to 8pm Monday to Friday with key times covered over weekends. In cases of emergency, the site will be covered by an out of hours help desk. All tenants will sign an Assured Short Hold Tenancy Agreement. A CCTV system is proposed; the management plan sets out that this will be a deterrent to potential Anti-Social behaviour both inside and outside the buildings. Officers consider that the staffing arrangements and security measures are acceptable; the Management Plan and CCTV system will be secured by condition/S106.

Overall, the proposed development is considered to accord with Policy DG4 in terms of its impact on the amenities of surrounding properties, taking into account the urban context.

10. Impact on Trees and Biodiversity

Paragraph 175d) of the NPPF states that opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity.

The main arboricultural feature on the site is the Ash Tree on Gladstone Road which is subject to a Tree Preservation Order. The supporting Arboricultural report sets out how the Ash Tree is in declining health. The report states: At the time that the Tree Preservation Order was served, I was unable to see any clearly apparent symptoms of Ash Dieback Disease within the tree’s crown, though I did note symptoms of decline, “manifesting itself with a combination of deadwood throughout the crown, a lower crown density than would be expected of a healthy specimen, considerable secondary foliage sprouting from major limbs, and chlorotic foliage, particularly on the northern side of the lower crown.” I also noted at the time that, based on evidence observed across Devon, it is almost inevitable that the tree will succumb to this endemic disease in the near future; reference to the Forestry Commission’s interactive map (http://chalaramap.fera.defra.gov.uk/) shows that Ash Dieback Disease has been present within the immediate area since 2016.

I re-inspected the tree on Friday 7th August 2020 with my colleague, Joel Gray. It was immediately apparent that the decline noted a year ago has accelerated significantly. The central section of the crown now features a greater proportion of deadwood, and the chlorosis extends throughout the crown. Both myself and Mr Gray are satisfied that this tree is suffering from Ash Dieback Disease, and based on first-hand observations from across the UK and Ireland, but particularly south-west England, I now anticipate this tree’s rapid decline, along with the associated reduction in timber strength which is a considerable cause for concern in heavy trafficked areas such as this.

Page 157 Irrespective of any development proposals, I simply do not consider the retention of this tree to be a viable proposition and, based on current observations, I would expect it to require removal for safety reasons within a maximum of two years, if not less. Set in a development context, British Standard 5837:2012 clearly categorises this as a Category U specimen, described as being, “… in such a condition that they cannot realistically be retained as living trees in the context of the current land use for longer than 10 years.” With an actual safe useful life expectancy of well under five years, this categorisation is irrefutable.

The removal of the Ash tree is considered to be acceptable by officers. ECC Tree Manager has raised no arboricultural objection to the proposals.

The Landscape Design Statement sets out that the tree species proposed to the development frontage have been selected for their potential to grow into large naturalistic specimens, complementing the existing trees within the streetscape. The trees are proposed to be planted as extra-heavy standards to create instant impact. This will be conditioned.

The application is accompanied by an Ecological Appraisal. In summary, the report finds:  The proposal will result in the loss of an area of amenity grassland, this habitat is botanically species-poor and of limited ecological value.  The proposal will remove a semi-mature ash tree regarded as low value habitat that is very common in the surrounding area.  The existing building has low/negligible potential to support roosting bats.  The removal of the semi-mature ash tree is unlikely to negatively impact foraging and commuting bats in the area due to its isolated nature.  Any additional lighting within the site has the potential to negatively impact foraging and commuting bats in the area.  Works may result in impacts to nesting birds if works are undertaken within the nesting season.

The Ecological Appraisal makes a number of recommendations:  Replacement planting at a ratio of 2:1 to mitigate the loss of the ash tree, species planted will be native, appropriate to the locality and berry bearing.  In relation to bats, as a precautionary measure, works to demolish the building will be undertaken under Reasonable Avoidance Measures and advises that any new lighting schemes for the development of the site to be designed so that they are ‘bat friendly’.  Removal of nesting bird habitat to take place outside the breeding bird season.

In terms of enhancement measures, the Ecological Appraisal recommends the installation of bat and bird boxes on buildings on site and the incorporation of bat friendly features into the new building designs.

Page 158

In addition, the new trees and planting areas shown on the proposed landscaping plan will not only have a positive visual impact, but will also create habitats and food source for local birds and invertebrates

The above enhancement measures will be an environmental sustainability benefit of the scheme.

With reference to The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, this development has been screened in respect of the need for an Appropriate Assessment (AA) and given the nature of the development it has been concluded that an AA is required in relation to the potential impact on the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA). This AA has been carried out and concludes that the development could have an impact in combination with other residential developments primarily associated with recreational activity of future occupants. However, this impact will be mitigated in line with the South-east Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy prepared by Footprint Ecology on behalf of East Devon and Teignbridge District Councils, and Exeter City Council (with particular reference to Table 26). An appropriate contribution will be secured from the development towards implementing the non-infrastructure measures within the mitigation strategy, thereby reducing the impacts of the development to a level where the integrity of the European sites will not be adversely affected and the conservation objectives of the SPA are achieved.

Therefore, the proposed development is considered to accord with Policies CP16 and LS4, and Paragraphs 170 and 175 of the NPPF. Conditions should be added to ensure the recommendations of the Ecological Appraisal are secured, including the need to approve the location and details of the integral bird boxes.

11. Contaminated Land

A Ground Investigation Report supporting the application recommends a number of remediation actions and mitigation measures. These are:  A 600mm clean cover system (comprising clean imported soil overlying a high visibility geotextile membrane) will be required in soft landscaped areas.  The existing fuel storage tanks and interceptors will require decommissioning and removal prior to the commencement of the redevelopment works. Any hydrocarbon impacted soils and perched groundwater will also require removal and treatment/disposal at a suitably licensed facility.  Ground gas protection measures will be required, potentially including a hydrocarbon/volatile resistant membrane.

Environmental Health has recommended a full contaminated land condition to ensure that the contamination is remediated prior to occupation of the

Page 159 development. This accords with Policy EN2 and Paragraphs 118 and 170 of the NPPF. This will be an environmental sustainability benefit of the scheme.

12. Flood Risk and Surface Water Management

Policy EN4 does not permit development if it would be at risk of flooding. The site is within Flood Zone 1 and the proposed uses are classified as ‘more vulnerable’ (see PPG). ‘More vulnerable’ uses are appropriate in Flood Zone 1, therefore the proposal accords with Policy EN4.

Policy CP12 requires all development proposals to mitigate against flood risk utilising SUDS where feasible and practical.

Ground infiltration is not feasible, due to low permeability clay strata. As per the existing arrangement, surface water drainage is to discharge to the existing SWW sewer network serving the existing site. Attenuation will be provided in an underground attenuation tank with a restricted discharge rate. The proposed drainage design provides a betterment of greater than 30%, reducing flow rates to the existing network, whilst also considering the impacts of climate change. This will be an environmental sustainability benefit. DCC Lead Local Flood Authority raise no objection subject to a pre-commencement condition relating to the details of the surface water drainage design.

The proposal is considered to be acceptable with respect to flood risk and surface water management in conformity with Policy CP12.

15. Sustainable Construction and Energy Conservation

Policy CP15 requires development proposals to demonstrate how sustainable design and construction methods will be incorporated. An Energy Statement has been provided accordingly. It is proposed that the development would use Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and boilers as a main source of heat for hot water.

Policy CP15 requires residential development to be zero carbon from 2016. However, national Planning Practice Guidance states that local planning authorities can set energy performance standards for new housing that are higher than the building regulations, but only up to the equivalent of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Therefore, this is the standard currently sought in respect of energy and CO2 emissions for residential development within the city.

Conditions should be added to ensure that the sustainable design and construction standards required by Policy CP15 are implemented.

Page 160 Policy CP13 requires new development with a floorspace of at least 1,000 sq m, or comprising 10 or more dwellings, to connect to any existing, or proposed, Decentralised Energy Network (DEN) in the locality. The site is located within Local Energy Network B, as shown on the Proposals Map of the Development Delivery DPD (Publication Version), therefore a condition will be added to ensure that the development is constructed so that it is capable of connecting to the network.

Policy W4 of the Devon Waste Plan requires planning applications for major development to include a waste audit statement. In this case it has been agreed to add a pre-commencement condition requiring this.

17.0 Conclusion

The development will make effective use of a previously developed (‘brownfield’) site. The site is in a sustainable, highly accessible location, close to the City Centre. The principle of a specialist housing development (rented studios with tenants having access to communal amenity areas) in this location is acceptable in principle. The development will support economic growth through the creation of jobs and resident expenditure in the City Centre. The scheme will help the Council towards providing a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites, this benefit is attributed significant weight in favour of the scheme. The co-living accommodation will provide Build to Rent housing, 20% of which will be affordable private rent. The affordable housing provision is a significant positive benefit of the scheme and the percentage is in-line with National Planning Practice Guidance on build to rent schemes. This will be prioritised for essential local workers.

Another positive benefit of the scheme is the inclusive design of the proposals, including but not limited to the provision for 7 of the studios to be fitted out for wheelchair access.

The co-living development will be car free and provides on-site secure cycle storage. The scheme will improve pedestrian crossing facilities on Gladstone Road and will make a contribution towards improving pedestrian / cycling crossing facilities at the Gladstone Road / Heavitree Road junction. The improved crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists and other measures in the proposals to give more priority to pedestrians and cyclists are a significant planning benefit of the scheme.

Following pre-application discussions, the applicant has continued discussions during the application and the proposed development has been amended twice since it was submitted. The scheme has been amended in order to reduce its scale and massing and reduce the impacts on adjacent neighbours.

Page 161 The design and general visual impact of the scheme is considered acceptable. The proposed architecture and use of high quality modern materials and soft/hard landscaping will improve the overall appearance of the site. Gladstone Road will benefit from an increased active frontage and an improved public realm, the proposal will contribute to the vibrancy of the area.

The design of the scheme has been amended so that it respects the form of existing adjacent residential development. The police station site justifies a change in character between the Sandford Walk properties and Heavitree Road in terms of scale of townscape. Given the local and national guidance promoting the efficient use of land, the scale and mass of the development, while larger than the housing in Sandford Walk, is considered to be acceptable in terms of urban design.

The quality of amenity that will be provided within the proposed co-living block is considered acceptable, although officers had sought for provision of communal areas on the upper floors of the building in addition to the lower ground/ground floors. Given the likely reliance on existing public open spaces nearby to provide outdoor amenity and recreational space, a contribution will be secured to enhance these spaces and their recreational value. The impact on the amenity of surrounding properties has been assessed and taking into account the urban context of the site, the impacts are considered to be within acceptable limits.

There are no other material considerations to warrant refusal of this application subject to an appropriate planning obligation under S106 being entered into. Where the proposal does not accord fully with policies, this is considered to be outweighed by other policies of the development plan and material considerations, which are described in the planning assessment above.

Overall the proposed development is considered to be acceptable by officers, it is considered to be sustainable in overall terms.

18.0 RECOMMENDATION

Page 162  Management Plan to ensure no parking is associated with the development  £65,000 contribution to improve the pedestrian/cycling crossing facilities at the Gladstone Road/Heavitree Road junction.

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

And the following conditions:

(Details to be provided on the Additional Information Update Sheet before Planning Committee)

B) REFUSE PERMISSION FOR THE REASONS SET OUT BELOW IF THE LEGAL AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED) IS NOT COMPLETED BY 16 May 2021 OR SUCH EXTENDED TIME AS AGREED BY THE CITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER

 Co-living Management Plan/Monitoring  20% of the dwellings within the co-living block will be affordable private rented with first priority to essential local workers. 5% of the affordable dwellings to be fitted out so they are wheelchair accessible.  £114,247 habitats mitigation.  £50,000 for maintenance/upgrade of off-site public open spaces.  Management Plan to ensure no parking is associated with the development  £65,000 contribution to improve the pedestrian/cycling crossing facilities at the Gladstone Road/Heavitree Road junction. the proposal is contrary to Exeter Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2012 Objectives 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10, and policies CP5, CP7, CP9, CP10, CP17 and CP18, Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995- 2011 saved policies, L4, T1, C5, LS2, and DS1, Exeter City Council Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2014, Exeter City Council Sustainable Transport Supplementary Planning Document 2013 and Exeter City Council Public Open Space Supplementary Planning Document 2005.

Page 163 This page is intentionally left blank 10 5 0 10 20

NORTH Scale of Meters - 1:500

KEY Application Site Area

E JOHN WALK

ST MATTHEWS CL SANDFORD WALK

GLADSTONE ROAD

HEAVITREE HOSPITAL Page 165 Page

POLICE OFFICES

WAITROSE

HEAVITREE ROAD

GLADSTONE ROAD

Client

WATKIN JONES GROUP

Project GLADSTONE ROAD COLLEGE ROAD ST LUKE'S CAMPUS EXETER STUDENT ACCOMMODATION

Drawing Title HEAVITREE ROAD SITE LOCATION PLAN

ATLAS HOUSE Date Scale AUG 2020 1:500 @ A1

Issue Status PLANNING

Drawing No. Rev. Drawn 2407_350 - BC/LF

Edinburgh Office Dundee Office Hawthorn Rise 11 South Tay Street 10 Belford Road Dundee Edinburgh EH4 3BL DD1 1NU

T: 0131 225 2958 T: 01382 226 361

E: [email protected] W: www.mansonarchitects.co.uk

All dimensions and levels to be checked on site and the Architect to be informed of any discrepancies prior to the commencement of work. Unspecified dimensions are not to be scaled off this drawing. All dimensions are in millimetres unless otherwise specified. If any dimensions or details conflict please notify the Architect immediately. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8 REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMITTEE Date of Meeting: 16 November 2020 Report of: Director Title: Delegated Decisions and Planning Report Acronyms

1 WHAT IS THE REPORT ABOUT

1.1 This report lists planning applications determined and applications that have been withdrawn between the date of finalising the agenda of the last Planning Committee and the date of finalising this agenda. Applications are listed by Ward.

2 RECOMMENDATION

2.1 Members are requested to advise the Assistant Service Lead City Development (Roger Clotworthy) or the Director (Bindu Arjoon) of any questions on the schedule prior to Planning Committee meeting.

2.2 Members are asked to note the report.

3 PLANNING APPLICATION CODES

3.1 The latter part of the application reference number indicates the type of application: OUT Outline Planning Permission RES Approval of Reserved Matters FUL Full Planning Permission TPO Works to Tree(s) with Preservation Order ADV Advertisement Consent CAT Works to Tree(s) in Conservation Area LBC Listed Building Consent ECC Exeter City Council Regulation 3 LED Lawfulness of Existing Use/Development LPD Certificate of Proposed Use/Development TEL Telecommunication Apparatus Determination CMA County Matter Application CTY Devon County Council Application MDO Modification and Discharge of Planning Obligation Regulations NMA Non Material Amendment EXT Extension to Extant Planning Consent PD Extension - Prior Approval PDJ Office to Dwelling - Prior Approval

3.2 The decision type uses the following codes: DREF Deemed Refusal DTD Declined To Determine NLU Was Not Lawful Use PAN Prior Approval Not Required PAR Prior Approval Required PER Permitted REF Refuse Planning Permission RNO Raise No Objection ROB Raise Objections SPL Split Decision WDN Withdrawn by Applicant WLU Was Lawful Use WTD Withdrawn - Appeal against non-determination

4 PLANNING REPORT ACRONYMS

The following list explains the acronyms used in Officers reports: AH Affordable Housing AIP Approval in Principle Page 167 BCIS Building Cost Information Service CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan CIL Community Infrastructure Levy DCC Devon County Council DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government: the former name of the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government DfE Department for Education DfT Department for Transport dph Dwellings per hectare ECC Exeter City Council EIA Environment Impact Assessment EPS European Protected Species ESFA Education and Skills Funding Agency ha Hectares HMPE Highway Maintainable at Public Expense ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection MHCLG Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government NPPF National Planning Policy Framework QBAR The mean annual flood: the value of the average annual flood event recorded in a river SAM Scheduled Ancient Monument SANGS Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space SEDEMS South East Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy SPA Special Protection Area SPD Supplementary Planning Document SPR Standard Percentage Runoff TA Transport Assessment TEMPro Trip End Model Presentation Program TPO Tree Preservation Order TRO Traffic Regulation Order UE Urban Extension

Bindu Arjoon Director

Page 168 All Planning Decisions Made and Withdrawn Applications between 30/09/2020 and 05/11/2020 Alphington Delegated Decision Application Number: 18/1263/RES Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Withdrawn by Applicant Date: 08/10/2020 Location Address: 8 Church Road (8-10 Church Road) Alphington Exeter Devon EX2 8SB Proposal: Discharge of condition Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0365/FUL Delegation Briefing: 10/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 05/10/2020

Location Address: 7 Waterloo Road Exeter Devon EX2 9DT Proposal: Retrospective application for replacement single storey rear extension. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0746/FUL Delegation Briefing: 24/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 23/10/2020 Location Address: Underhayes Balls Farm Road Cowick Exeter Devon EX2 9RA Proposal: Rear and side extension with alterations to house. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0951/LPD Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Was lawful use Date: 03/11/2020 Location Address: Havills 69B Church Road Alphington Exeter Devon EX2 8SW Proposal: Change of existing Class A1 use to A2 use on the Ground Floor and 1 flat on the First Floor. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1019/PD Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Prior Approval Not Required Date: 06/10/2020 Location Address: 88 Cowick Lane Exeter Devon EX2 9HD Proposal: Single storey rear extension extending a maximum 3.879m from rear elevation and max. overall height 3.2m with max. height to eaves 2.38m.

Page 169 Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1035/CAT Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 08/10/2020 Location Address: Ide View Perridge Close Exeter Devon EX2 9PX Proposal: Tree Species : PoplarWork as per sketchThe residents of Perridge Close wish to re surface the road is is privately maintained. Where residents exit there property the tarmac is braking up as there is no hard edge. The worst case is Ide View, the tree roots are causing an issue with the road ( and other ) but to install concrete kerbs would require the removal of some of the roots ,hence the application. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1048/FUL Delegation Briefing: 27/08/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 30/09/2020

Location Address: 24 Veitch Gardens Exeter Devon EX2 8AD Proposal: First floor side extension. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1116/FUL Delegation Briefing: 01/10/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 30/10/2020

Location Address: 34 Shillingford Road Exeter Devon EX2 8UB Proposal: Change of materials to exterior finishes on dormer walls (Approved on application 20/0717/FUL) Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1122/FUL Delegation Briefing: 01/10/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 28/10/2020 Location Address: Osborne House Alphington Road Exeter Devon EX2 8SA Proposal: Retrospective consent for internal works and construction of a summerhouse and sauna. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1123/LBC Delegation Briefing: 01/10/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 28/10/2020 Location Address: Osborne House Alphington Road Exeter Devon EX2 8SA Proposal: Retrospective consent for internal works and construction of a summerhouse and sauna. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1236/FUL Delegation Briefing: 08/10/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 03/11/2020

Location Address: 7 Blenheim Road Exeter Devon EX2 8SD Proposal: Single storey rear extension.

Page 170 Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1341/LPD Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Was lawful use Date: 29/10/2020 Location Address: 8 Mill Lane Alphington Exeter Devon EX2 8SG Proposal: Certificate of lawfulness sought for loft conversion, rear dormer roof extension and 2no roof windows. Duryard And St James Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0523/FUL Delegation Briefing: 02/07/2020 Decision Type: Refuse Planning Permission Date: 22/10/2020 Location Address: 3 Longbrook Terrace Exeter Devon EX4 4EU Proposal: Change of use from small HMO (C4 Use class) to large HMO (Sui Generis), 3 storey rear extension and associated alterations. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0708/FUL Delegation Briefing: 09/07/2020 Decision Type: Refuse Planning Permission Date: 13/10/2020

Location Address: 22 Ridgeway Exeter Devon EX4 5AR Proposal: Construction of 2 storey 3 bedroom dwelling with parking, landscaping and associated alterations. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0709/FUL Delegation Briefing: 30/07/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 13/10/2020 Location Address: 22 Ridgeway Exeter Devon EX4 5AR Proposal: Installation of balcony to rear elevation. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0836/TPO Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 08/10/2020 Location Address: Pembroke House Pennsylvania Road Exeter Devon EX4 5BQ Proposal: T1 Beech. Crown reduce to previous level (approx 2m). Kretz.D basal decay.T2 Oak. Crown reduce to previous level (approx 1.5m) Mid crown stem damage. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0930/FUL Delegation Briefing: 17/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 23/10/2020 Location Address: 1 New North Road Exeter Devon EX4 4HH Proposal: Refurbishment of existing property internally. Reinstate existing lean-to conservatory at front with new timber-framed system. Replace existing single-storey side wall and flat-roof.

Page 171 Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0988/CAT Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 08/10/2020 Location Address: 27 New North Road Exeter Devon EX4 4HF Proposal: Reduce T1 sycamore and T2 holly in front garden to approximately 3 metres in height in accordance with highways obstruction removal request from Devon CC (letter to be attached later in application). Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1006/VOC Delegation Briefing: 03/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 13/10/2020

Location Address: Existing Car Park B To Far North West Corner Of The University Of Exeter Streatham Campus Located Off Rennes Drive Exeter Proposal: Temporary removal of Condition 4 in respect of application 18/0487/FUL granted 15/06/2018 to allow existing Car Park D to be operational up to 2 April 2021. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1161/FUL Delegation Briefing: 24/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 23/10/2020

Location Address: Lopes Hall St Germans Road Exeter Devon EX4 6TH Proposal: Temporary installation of a marquee. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1162/FUL Delegation Briefing: 24/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 23/10/2020 Location Address: The Ram Quad University Of Exeter Stocker Road Exeter Devon EX4 4PZ Proposal: Temporary installation of a marquee. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1164/FUL Delegation Briefing: 24/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 23/10/2020

Location Address: Queens Building Quad The Queens Drive Exeter Devon EX4 4QH Proposal: Temporary installation of a marquee. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1165/FUL Delegation Briefing: 24/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 23/10/2020

Location Address: Streatham Court Quad Rennes Drive Exeter Devon EX4 4PU Proposal: Temporary installation of a marquee.

Page 172 Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1166/FUL Delegation Briefing: 24/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 23/10/2020 Location Address: Xfi Building Rennes Drive Exeter Devon EX4 4ST Proposal: Temporary installation of a marquee. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1167/FUL Delegation Briefing: 24/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 23/10/2020 Location Address: The Forum Plaza Stocker Road Exeter Devon EX4 4SZ Proposal: Temporary installation of a marquee. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1249/CAT Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 22/10/2020 Location Address: 33 Edgerton Park Road Exeter Devon EX4 6DD Proposal: Holm Oak T1 - Crown reduction on eatern side growing over and teqwards roof by approx 3m. Corwn lift several drooping limbs towards swing area by 2-3m after previous Holm Oak removal (20/0044/CAT). Exwick Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0714/FUL Delegation Briefing: 02/07/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 02/10/2020 Location Address: Land Adjacent To 26 St Albans Close Exeter Devon EX4 2NE Proposal: Construction of 3 no. terraced dwellings with access, parking, landscaping and associated works. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0835/CAT Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 02/11/2020 Location Address: 235 Exwick Road Exeter Devon EX4 2AT Proposal: T1 Sycamore. Reduce crown to previous level; T2 Holm Oak. Reduce crown to previous level. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1085/CAT Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 22/10/2020

Location Address: 15 Brentor Close Exeter Devon EX4 2ES Proposal: Ash - Ash dieback, significant threat to people and property - remove tree to near ground level (see triage assessment attached) Plant replacement in nearby greenspace.

Page 173 Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1110/CAT Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 22/10/2020 Location Address: Gable House Exwick Manor 237 Exwick Road Exeter Devon EX4 2AT Proposal: Tree 1 - American Oak - Fell due to low amenity value and location in the middle of a parking area where a garage/storage area is to be created. The site is not suitable for additional planting so we will seek out a tree planting project in Exeter to donate and plant withTree 2 - Sycamore - Fell due to low amenity value and location within the boundary of a parking area where a garage/storage area is to be created. The site is not suitable for additional planting so we will seek out a tree planting project in Exeter to donate and plant with Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1118/FUL Delegation Briefing: 17/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 12/10/2020 Location Address: 16 Exwick Villas Exwick Road Exeter Devon EX4 2AS Proposal: First floor extension over existing ground floor rear extension. Heavitree Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0693/PD Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Prior Approval Not Required Date: 29/10/2020 Location Address: 24 Vaughan Road Exeter Devon EX1 3DH Proposal: Single storey rear extension extending a maximum 4.1m from rear elevation, height to eaves 2.5m and maximum overall height 4m. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0969/FUL Delegation Briefing: 27/08/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 06/10/2020 Location Address: Tesco Express 85 Fore Street Heavitree Exeter Devon EX1 2RN Proposal: Proposal to install new modular extension and timber gate within existing compound wall. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1004/FUL Delegation Briefing: 17/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 29/10/2020 Location Address: 77A Fore Street Heavitree Exeter Devon EX1 2RN Proposal: Change of use of first floor from retail to a self-contained flat.

Page 174 Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1044/FUL Delegation Briefing: 03/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 16/10/2020 Location Address: 174 Sweetbrier Lane Exeter Devon EX1 3DG Proposal: Proposed first floor extension above existing ground-floor extension. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1049/TPO Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 08/10/2020

Location Address: 70 Polsloe Road Exeter Devon EX1 2NF Proposal: T1 - Holm Oak - Re-pollarding due to weak pollard points and excessive end weight on limbs hanging over road and pavement. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1080/FUL Delegation Briefing: 24/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 23/10/2020 Location Address: 27 Church Street Exeter Devon EX2 5EP Proposal: Two-storey side and rear extension and associated alterations to form 6-bed HMO (C4 use); demolition of existing conservatory and conversion of existing garage into garden room/office. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1152/LPD Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Was lawful use Date: 12/10/2020 Location Address: 66 Sweetbrier Lane Exeter Devon EX1 3AQ Proposal: Hip-to-gable extension, rear dormer and front roof lights. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1168/LBC Delegation Briefing: 24/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 26/10/2020 Location Address: 10 Mont Le Grand Exeter Devon EX1 2PD Proposal: Install electric vehicle charger on front elevation, with 360mm diameter and 150mm depth. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1174/PD Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Prior Approval Not Required Date: 26/10/2020

Location Address: 32 East Avenue Exeter Devon EX1 2DX Proposal: Single storey rear extension extending a max. 5m from the rear elevation with a max. overall height 3.86m and max. height of 2.95m to eaves.

Page 175 Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1259/LED Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Was lawful use Date: 30/10/2020 Location Address: 22 Park Road Exeter Devon EX1 2HS Proposal: Property in use as HMO for Student Accommodation since 1996. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1282/LPD Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Was lawful use Date: 21/10/2020 Location Address: 144 Sweetbrier Lane Exeter Devon EX1 3AR Proposal: Rear single storey extension and loft conversion with rear dormer. All materials to match existing property. Additional volume within loft space is 25m3. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1297/DIS Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Condition(s) Fully Date: 03/11/2020 Discharged Location Address: Land Between 106 Hamlin Gardens And 65 Carlyon Gardens Hamlin Gardens Proposal: Discharge of Condition 14 (Scheme for the Provision of Affordable Housing) of application no. 18/0878/ECC. Mincinglake And Whipton Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0674/FUL Delegation Briefing: 02/07/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 02/10/2020

Location Address: 66 Whipton Village Road Exeter Devon EX4 8AW Proposal: Demolition of existing bungalow and construction of 2 no. 3 bed dwelling houses with parking, landscaping and associated works. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0848/FUL Delegation Briefing: 27/08/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 15/10/2020 Location Address: 66 Brookside Crescent Exeter Devon EX4 8NE Proposal: Single storey rear extension. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0982/PD Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Prior Approval Not Required Date: 20/10/2020 Location Address: 17 Bonville Close Exeter Devon EX1 3JS Proposal: Replace existing conservatory with tiled, single-storey extension.

Page 176 Newtown And St Leonards Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0278/FUL Delegation Briefing: 07/05/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 02/10/2020 Location Address: 3 Hampton Buildings Blackboy Road Exeter Devon EX4 6SR Proposal: Demolition and reconstruction of existing building, and subdivision to provide two self-contained dwellings with associated cycle parking and landscaping works. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0686/NMA Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 22/10/2020 Location Address: The Depot Summerland Street Exeter Devon Proposal: Non-Material Amendment to allow for non-student occupation between December 2020 and June 2021 on a short term let C1 Use basis. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0842/CAT Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 08/10/2020

Location Address: 8 Baring Crescent Exeter Devon EX1 1TL Proposal: 1 Bay tree approximately 8 meters high.The Bay tree thats been coppiced down many times in the past is suffering a bit with the dry weather we've had. The upper canopy is starting to look a little sparse and yellowing.Applying to remove all the big stems down to 1.5 meters leaving the lower new growth to form and take over as well as the coppiced stems to reshoot.Theres been a big push in the communal gardens to replant many new trees and shrubs over the last 10 year and to fad out or manage the likes of the Bay trees and Laurels to give the new trees space to grow which is also the case here with the Bay tree as there are trees planted in the area. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0944/TPO Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Refuse Planning Permission Date: 08/10/2020 Location Address: The Exeter Nuffield Hospital Wonford Road Exeter Devon EX2 4UG Proposal: T14 Robinia - bark has peeled away, they both have healthy looking canopy however the trunk the tree sounds very hollow, leaning away from the road however a concern.T15 Norway Maple - this tree is leaning towards Wonford Road, a risk of branches falling on to vehicles or pedestrians. Has a healthy canopy but bark splitting, extensive dieback I would class this as a high risk and need removing.T16 Robinia very similar to T14 have concerns of a tree fall in strong winds

Page 177 Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0945/CAT Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 08/10/2020 Location Address: The Exeter Nuffield Hospital Wonford Road Exeter Devon EX2 4UG Proposal: Removal of 14 Lawson Cypress trees due to them being not healthy, a few have already failed. Couple of trees sway to the adjacent building which would be seen as a risk. Once removed a stock fence and a laurel hedge would replace unless advised otherwise. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0957/FUL Delegation Briefing: 27/08/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 05/10/2020 Location Address: 45A Victoria Park Road Exeter Devon EX2 4NU Proposal: Replacement garden shed in back garden. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0975/CAT Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Withdrawn by Applicant Date: 02/10/2020 Location Address: 7 Clifton Hill Exeter Devon EX1 2DL Proposal: T1 - Ash - Shorten back lateral branches towards scots pine by 1.5m (only the laterals touching the pine), crown lift lowest areas over road and garden by up to 1.5m, to balance with previously pruned area over neighbours drive.T2 - Copper Beech - reduce in height t by 40%, reshape laterals by 20% to balance the form.T3 - Ginkgo Biloba - reduce two to central leaders by 2m, lightly reshape laterals overhanging neighbours garden by up to 1m. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1111/FUL Delegation Briefing: 17/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 13/10/2020 Location Address: 21 Elmside Exeter Devon EX4 6LW Proposal: First floor rear extension Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1120/CAT Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 22/10/2020 Location Address: 18 St Leonards Road Exeter Devon EX2 4LA Proposal: Removal of diseased cherry tree identified on sketch. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1163/FUL Delegation Briefing: 24/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 23/10/2020 Location Address: St Lukes Quad Heavitree Road Exeter Devon Proposal: Temporary installation of a marquee.

Page 178 Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1185/DIS Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Condition(s) Fully Date: 16/10/2020 Discharged Location Address: 8 Lower Summerlands Exeter Devon EX1 2LJ Proposal: Discharge of condition 3 (Materials) of application 20/0400/FUL Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1235/LED Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Was lawful use Date: 01/10/2020 Location Address: 95 Portland Street Exeter Devon EX1 2EG Proposal: Certificate of lawfulness for existing use as a 5 bedroom HMO (C4 use). Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1272/CAT Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 02/10/2020

Location Address: 7 Clifton Hill Exeter Devon EX1 2DL Proposal: T1 - Ash - Shorten back lateral branches towards scots pine by 1.5m (only the laterals touching the pine), crown lift lowest areas over road and garden by up to 1.5m, to balance with previously pruned area over neighbours drive.T2 - Copper Beech - reduce in height by 40%, reshape laterals by 20% to balance the form. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1274/DIS Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Condition(s) Fully Date: 16/10/2020 Discharged Location Address: 152 Heavitree Road Exeter Devon EX1 2LZ Proposal: Discharge of Condition 3 (Materials) for applications 18/0996/FUL and 18/0997/LBC Pennsylvania Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0950/FUL Delegation Briefing: 20/08/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 02/10/2020

Location Address: Peartree Farm Stoke Hill Exeter Devon EX4 9JN Proposal: Construction of garage which includes mezzanine office. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1033/TPO Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 26/10/2020

Location Address: 7 Rosebarn Avenue Exeter Devon EX4 6DY Proposal: Prune back because of excessive shading.Note. Tree T1 is, we believe, a Caucasian elm and not a multi stemmed beech as specified in TPO 422

Page 179 Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1056/FUL Delegation Briefing: 24/09/2020 Decision Type: Refuse Planning Permission Date: 29/10/2020 Location Address: 1A Rosebarn Avenue Exeter Devon EX4 6DY Proposal: Construction of a four bedroom house and associated works. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1145/FUL Delegation Briefing: 17/09/2020 Decision Type: Refuse Planning Permission Date: 27/10/2020 Location Address: 30 Thompson Road Exeter Devon EX1 2UB Proposal: Construction of new dormer to west elevation. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1149/FUL Delegation Briefing: 17/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 03/11/2020 Location Address: 22 Whitefriars Walk Exeter Devon EX4 7BT Proposal: Alterations to garage and study to form living accommodation. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1268/LPD Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Was lawful use Date: 16/10/2020 Location Address: 26 Tarbet Avenue Exeter Devon EX1 2UE Proposal: Rear dormer extension and loft conversion. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1275/LED Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Was lawful use Date: 04/11/2020 Location Address: 21 Mansfield Road Exeter Devon EX4 6NF Proposal: Use of property as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (Class C4) Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1346/LPD Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Was lawful use Date: 29/10/2020 Location Address: 6 Pamela Road Exeter Devon EX1 2UF Proposal: Loft conversion, rear dormer roof extension and roof lights to the front.

Page 180 Pinhoe Committee Decision Application Number: 19/0699/FUL Delegation Briefing: 30/05/2019 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 13/10/2020 Location Address: Land At Hill Barton Adjacent To The Boundary Of The Met Office Exeter Devon Proposal: Construction of 47 dwellings, including all other associated infrastructure works; and road access to site served off Hill Barton Road roundabout. Delegated Decision Application Number: 19/1776/OUT Delegation Briefing: 05/03/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 29/10/2020

Location Address: Land To Rear Of 26 Harrington Lane Exeter Devon EX4 8PB Proposal: Permission sought for three dwellings (Approval sought for details of access and layout, all other matters reserved for future consideration). Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0545/FUL Delegation Briefing: 04/06/2020 Decision Type: Refuse Planning Permission Date: 21/10/2020 Location Address: 16 Priestley Avenue Exeter Devon EX4 8DG Proposal: Two storey side extension (resubmission of planning approval ref. 19/1584/FUL including no set back or ridge reduction). Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0870/TPO Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 08/10/2020 Location Address: 3 Main Road Exeter Devon EX4 8HR Proposal: Crown lift Silver Birch (T1) by 6 metres to clear small branches off neighbouring shed and property. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0899/TPO Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 08/10/2020

Location Address: Thursby Walk Exeter Proposal: G1 - Oak & Maple - Cut back branches to give minimum 2m clearance off building and to remove all overhanging roof. Cut back branches to suitable growth points or back to main stems if no suitable growth point, as appropriate. Maximum diameter of cuts 100mm.Reason for Works: Branches touching walls and windows of flats. Branches overhang roof and gutters

Page 181 Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1068/FUL Delegation Briefing: 03/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 22/10/2020 Location Address: 32 Harringcourt Road Exeter Devon EX4 8PH Proposal: Single storey rear extension; front porch, rear dormer and new driveway. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1071/TPO Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 26/10/2020

Location Address: 8 Bindon Road Exeter Devon EX4 9HN Proposal: Oak T1 - 20% crown reduction via thinning because of excessive shading overhang into garden. Remove deadwood and crossing branches. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1101/TPO Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 03/11/2020 Location Address: 11 Langaton Lane Pinhoe Exeter Devon EX1 3SP Proposal: We have a large Ash in our front garden. I have consulted an arborist and it is in good health. It has several substantial low hanging branches and dead wood falls whenever windy. The arborist has suggested the following:Boundary Largest TPO Ash Tree - Once Council Permission received, remove deadwood approximately2" diameter or greater, lift crown all-round by approximately 10' to 14' through removal of lowest whorl ofdrooping branches. Priory Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1038/LBC Delegation Briefing: 10/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 20/10/2020 Location Address: Exe View Cottage Lime Kiln Lane Exeter Devon EX2 6LW Proposal: Replacement timber windows and Replacement of existing cement render with lime based render. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1091/FUL Delegation Briefing: 17/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 12/10/2020 Location Address: 8 Mercer Court Bishop Westall Road Exeter Devon EX2 6NL Proposal: First floor side extension and single storey rear extension clad with hanging artificial slates

Page 182 St Davids Delegated Decision Application Number: 19/0629/FUL Delegation Briefing: 10/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 26/10/2020 Location Address: Isca Motors Water Lane Exeter Devon EX2 8BY Proposal: Demolition of existing motor workshop and change of use to provide a 3-storey residential building, including three 2-bedroom and three 1-bedroom flats, and communal amenity space to rear (Revised Scheme). Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0539/FUL Delegation Briefing: 21/05/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 03/11/2020 Location Address: 117 Fore Street St Davids Exeter Devon EX4 3JQ Proposal: Glazed balustrade to roof terrace and minor alterations to internal ground floor and rear courtyard areas. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0540/LBC Delegation Briefing: 21/05/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 03/11/2020

Location Address: 117 Fore Street St Davids Exeter Devon EX4 3JQ Proposal: Glazed balustrade to roof terrace and minor alterations to internal ground floor and rear courtyard areas. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0839/FUL Delegation Briefing: 20/08/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 02/10/2020 Location Address: 55 Chandlers Walk Exeter Devon EX2 8BA Proposal: Replacement of existing timber windows and doors with uPVC windows and GRP composite front door. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0948/CAT Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 08/10/2020 Location Address: 11 St Davids Terrace Exeter Devon EX4 3RF Proposal: T1 Hazel - Coppice at 1ft has become too large for location. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0966/FUL Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 07/10/2020 Location Address: Great Western Hotel Cowley Bridge Road Exeter Devon EX4 4NU Proposal: New separate entrance and porch to hotel bar/lounge.

Page 183 Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0979/FUL Delegation Briefing: 10/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 12/10/2020 Location Address: 193 High Street Exeter Devon EX4 3DU Proposal: Replacement shopfront and advertisement consent only. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0980/ADV Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 12/10/2020 Location Address: 193 High Street Exeter Devon EX4 3DU Proposal: 3no. fascia signs & 1no. projecting hanging sign. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0983/LBC Delegation Briefing: 10/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 12/10/2020 Location Address: 193 High Street Exeter Devon EX4 3DU Proposal: Replacement shopfront which includes new signage and fascias to the front and rear elevation. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1020/FUL Delegation Briefing: 03/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 05/10/2020

Location Address: 24 Haldon Road Exeter Devon EX4 4DZ Proposal: Creation of new self-contained one-bedroom studio apartment within existing lower ground floor of residential property. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1046/CAT Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 08/10/2020 Location Address: 10 Bartholomew Terrace Exeter Devon EX4 3BW Proposal: T1 - Mature birch tree - reduce height and spread by a maximum of 4 metres to enhance light to garden and provide clearance to surrounding structures, as tree has out grown its position. Pruning works will carried out to achieve a natural canopy shape. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1050/DIS Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Condition(s) Partially Date: 13/10/2020 Approved Location Address: Former Site Of City Arcade Fore Street St Davids Exeter Devon EX4 3JE Proposal: INVALID Discharge of condition 5 (highway improvements); 6 (cycle parking); 7 (travel plan) 10 (BREEAM) and 11 (swifts) in respect of planning application 17/1980/FUL granted 22 October 2018.

Page 184 Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1107/FUL Delegation Briefing: 10/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 06/10/2020 Location Address: 45 Preston Street Exeter Devon EX1 1DF Proposal: Replacement of metal and timber windows with double glazed aluminium windows Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1136/CAT Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 27/10/2020

Location Address: 5 Colleton Crescent Exeter Devon EX2 4DG Proposal: Fell: 2 holm oaks (T24 and T25), 2 hollies (T19 and T27)Crown-lift and reshape 3 holm oaks (T20, T23 and T26)Coppice 1 bay tree (T21) Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1142/FUL Delegation Briefing: 17/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 12/10/2020 Location Address: Christmas Market Cathedral Close Exeter Devon EX1 1HS Proposal: Annual Christmas Market to operate for a maximum of 30 days per year in November and December for five years from 2020. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1330/LPD Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Was lawful use Date: 19/10/2020 Location Address: 9 Weirfield Road Exeter Devon EX2 4DN Proposal: Single storey rear extension. St Loyes Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0965/FUL Delegation Briefing: 03/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 06/10/2020 Location Address: Stansfield Centre Falcon Road Exeter Devon EX2 7LB Proposal: Replacement of 1.8m high perimeter fencing with 3m high black mesh fence and new access gates (retrospective application). Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1061/TPO Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Split Decision Date: 26/10/2020 Location Address: 13 Apple Farm Grange Exeter Devon EX2 7TH Proposal: Oak T2 on TPO 369. Branches grown and now touching house. Advised by tree surgeon we need to "crown lift" and remove 3 x lower branches to ensure safety of our house and also next door.

Page 185 Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1192/ADV Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 14/10/2020 Location Address: Unit 8 Rydon Lane Retail Park Digby Road St Loyes Exeter Devon EX2 7HX Proposal: Replacement signage, including 1 internally illuminated fascia sign, 1 internally illuminated projecting sign, and panel on existing totem sign. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1267/LPD Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Was lawful use Date: 16/10/2020 Location Address: 4 Gilbert Avenue Exeter Devon EX2 5NY Proposal: Construction of side dormer extension. St Thomas Delegated Decision Application Number: 19/1570/DIS Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Condition(s) Fully Date: 21/10/2020 Discharged Location Address: 4A And B Ferndale Road Exeter Devon EX2 9BW Proposal: Discharge of conditions 3 (secure cycle parking), 4 (materials) and 6 (boundary treatment) relating to planning permission ref. 18/1473/FUL granted 5th March 2019 for the construction of two semi-detached, two-storey, 3 bedroom dwelling houses on land associated with 4 Ferndale Road (retrospective application). Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0413/FUL Delegation Briefing: 02/07/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 30/09/2020

Location Address: 52 Church Road St Thomas Exeter Devon EX2 9BQ Proposal: Provision of 1 no. additional dwelling flat within roof space, 1st floor rear extension, refurbishment of detached outbuilding and associated landscaping works. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0796/FUL Delegation Briefing: 06/08/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 02/10/2020 Location Address: 81 Wardrew Road Exeter Devon EX4 1EZ Proposal: Remove existing wooden shed and carport and build larger wooden garage in place.

Page 186 Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0920/FUL Delegation Briefing: 17/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 29/10/2020 Location Address: 102 Regent Street Exeter Devon EX2 9EJ Proposal: Single and two storey rear extension (Revised). Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0931/FUL Delegation Briefing: 08/10/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 04/11/2020 Location Address: 84 Dorset Avenue Exeter Devon EX4 1ND Proposal: Side extension and associated works. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0952/FUL Delegation Briefing: 20/08/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 07/10/2020 Location Address: 20 Newman Road Exeter Devon EX4 1PN Proposal: Single storey rear extension and new outbuilding to rear. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1022/FUL Delegation Briefing: 03/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 13/10/2020 Location Address: 93 Wardrew Road Exeter Devon EX4 1EZ Proposal: Retrospective Construction of Garden workshop to rear garden Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1109/CAT Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 22/10/2020 Location Address: 15 Princes Street North Exeter Devon EX2 9AL Proposal: T1 - Silver Birch - Reduce in height by approximately 1.5 metres (previous growth points), and reshape the lateral branches by up to 1 metre, to leave a balanced form. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1239/FUL Delegation Briefing: 08/10/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 02/11/2020 Location Address: 29 Croft Chase Exeter Devon EX4 1TB Proposal: Single storey side extension.

Page 187 Topsham Delegated Decision Application Number: 19/1752/FUL Delegation Briefing: 11/06/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 14/10/2020 Location Address: Station House Holman Way Topsham Exeter Devon EX3 0EN Proposal: Conversion of part of the station building into two flats Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0025/DIS Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Condition(s) Fully Date: 03/11/2020 Discharged Location Address: Sandy Park Lodge Old Rydon Lane Topsham Exeter Devon EX2 7JP Proposal: Discharge of condition 12 (CEMP) of application no. 17/0665/OUT. Committee Decision Application Number: 20/0437/FUL Delegation Briefing: 07/05/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 22/10/2020 Location Address: Land To The North East Of Newcourt Road Topsham Exeter EX3 0BU Proposal: Residential development of 27 dwellings (including 35% affordable housing), access from Newcourt Road, public open space and associated works. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0763/FUL Delegation Briefing: 23/07/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 21/10/2020

Location Address: 44 The Strand Topsham Exeter Devon EX3 0BB Proposal: Removal of existing garden room and construction of single storey rear extension, shed, extension of summer house plus other internal and external alterations. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0764/LBC Delegation Briefing: 23/07/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 21/10/2020 Location Address: 44 The Strand Topsham Exeter Devon EX3 0BB Proposal: Removal of existing garden room and construction of single storey rear extension, shed, extension of summer house plus other internal and external alterations. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/0886/LBC Delegation Briefing: 17/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 26/10/2020 Location Address: 29 Monmouth Street Topsham Exeter Devon EX3 0AJ Proposal: Replacement windows to solarium, dormer window and first floor.

Page 188 Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1023/CAT Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 08/10/2020 Location Address: 12 Follett Road Topsham Exeter Devon EX3 0JP Proposal: The first tree is question is a non-fruiting damson tree, around 5-6 m high on the eastern boundary of our property near to the house and just in front of the patio. We are progressing with planning- approved extension works to the house which are nearing completion and we wish to make significant improvements to the garden environment. The tree in question has a stunted trunk which looks like it has been hacked by previous occupants and there is woodworm and rot evident. The tree then kinks awkwardly across the boundary line of the property because this is regrowth from the previous cuts and this shape will prevent us from planting new hedging along the boundary line. We would like to remove this tree, whilst at the same time we have plans to plant new trees in other locations in the garden.The second tree in question is a fruiting apple tree which is about 3-4 m high. We are working with a professional garden designer and he may suggest to uproot and then retain and replant the tree elsewhere in the garden, so we would like apporoval to do this if recommended. He has extensive experience with this type of procedure. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1030/LBC Delegation Briefing: 01/10/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 26/10/2020

Location Address: 38 White Street Topsham Exeter Devon EX3 0AA Proposal: Relocation of gas meter, removal of gas pipe and replacement windows to the front elevation. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1037/CAT Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Permitted Date: 08/10/2020 Location Address: Heywoods Tresillian Gardens Topsham Exeter Devon EX3 0BA Proposal: Holly - Fell. Marked on attached aerial image with a red circle. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1041/FUL Delegation Briefing: 24/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 22/10/2020 Location Address: 22 Ark Royal Avenue Exeter Devon EX2 7GP Proposal: Single storey side extension. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1093/PD Delegation Briefing: Decision Type: Prior Approval Not Required Date: 06/10/2020 Location Address: 56 Bridge Road Exeter Devon EX2 7BB Proposal: Single storey rear extension extending from the rear of the property by 4.30 metres with a flat roof maximum height of 2.72 meters.

Page 189 Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1102/FUL Delegation Briefing: 24/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 19/10/2020 Location Address: 58 Highfield Clyst Road Topsham Exeter Devon EX3 0DA Proposal: External changes to the upper half of property. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1147/FUL Delegation Briefing: 17/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 05/11/2020 Location Address: 1 Sir Alex Walk Topsham Exeter Devon EX3 0LG Proposal: Two storey side extension. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1159/FUL Delegation Briefing: 24/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 29/10/2020 Location Address: The Barn Victoria Road Topsham Exeter Devon EX3 0EU Proposal: Sunroom and balcony to rear of property. Delegated Decision Application Number: 20/1170/FUL Delegation Briefing: 17/09/2020 Decision Type: Permitted Date: 12/10/2020 Location Address: Sandylands Old Rydon Lane Topsham Exeter Devon EX2 7JW Proposal: Single storey side extension. Total Applications: 122

Page 190 Agenda Item 9 REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMITTEE Date of Meeting: 16 November 2020 Report of: Director Title: Appeals Report

Is this a Key Decision? No

Is this an Executive or Council Function? No

1. What is the report about? 1.1 The report provides Members with information on latest decisions received and new appeals since the last report.

2. Recommendation: 2.1 Members are asked to note the report.

3. Appeal Decisions

3.1 18/0580/FUL – Land and Buildings at Pocombe Grand House, Pocombe Bridge. This was an application for an extension and alterations to existing accommodation to create 1no. additional dwelling unit and construction of 2no. new build dwelling houses, landscaping and associated works.

The application site is located on the western edge of the local authority area, immediately alongside the Alphin Brook (within Flood Zone 3). The site is also within the Alphington Whitestone Valley Park and Landscape Setting Area designation. The Council refused planning permission for this residential scheme for three reasons relating to flood risk, design and highway safety.

The primary reason why the Council refused consent related to the site’s location in Flood Zone 3. Paragraph 158 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) seeks to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. It states that “development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding.” The Council argued that its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) demonstrated that there were almost 100 alternative sites in the Exeter district that would be sequentially preferable to this site for residential development. The Inspector accepted that this was the case, noting in particular that a number of the identified sites would be capable of accommodating a modest scheme such as this. He therefore agreed with the Council that the Government’s Sequential Test had not been passed and as a result the scheme was not acceptable. He also noted that Paragraph 11 of the NPPF, which includes the tilted balance in favour of proposals where the Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing supply, did not apply in this case owing to the location being at high risk of flooding.

In addition, the Inspector agreed with the Council that the development would present a cramped and unsympathetic form of development that would be detrimental to the character of the area. He considered that the additional dwellings would intensify the level of development in the locality and introduce a more urban character to an area that was currently semi-rural. He continued that “due to the need to raise the ground floor levels to address the flood risk issue, this would result in an uncomfortable juxtaposition between the proposed and existing buildings, resulting in the creation of disjointed elevations when viewed together. As a result, the proposed new dwellings would appear as a discordant and incongruous form of development.”

In respect of highway safety, whilst nothing that visibility was slightly constrained by a boundary wall, he did not consider that the marginally increased use of the junction between an existing private driveway and Pocombe Bridge/Hill would lead to unacceptable impacts “In any event,” he continued, “a suitably worded condition could be added to any planning permission, requiring this boundary wall to be reduced in height to ensure compliance with visibility standards.”

In summary, for the reasons given above, the appeal has been dismissed.

Page 191 3.2 19/1676/FUL – St Andrews Yard, Willeys Avenue. This application was for demolition of existing single storey business premises and construction of 9no residential apartments along with on-site parking and associated landscaping.

An Inspector allowed this appeal granting planning permission, subject to conditions, for the construction of 9 no residential apartments along with onsite parking and associated landscaping.

The Inspector noted that the surrounding land use is predominately residential, mainly in the form of rows of brick built, two-storey terrace properties. However within the wider area, there are a number of more recent developments where the overall height of parts of the buildings are taller than the surrounding terraces. He considered that whilst the proposal would considerably increase the amount of built form on the site, it would not be significantly higher than the surrounding properties. It would therefore not represent a visually prominent or overly dominant form of development and, as a result, would not have a significant adverse effect upon the street scene.

In respect of the design approach he commented that the visual appearance of development would be sympathetic to, and in keeping with the existing design, layout and density that exists in the surrounding area. He concluded that the proposed development would not significantly affect the character and appearance of the area and, in this respect, the proposal would be in accordance with objective 9 and Policy CP17 of the Exeter Core Policies DG1 (b, g, and h) of the Local Plan First Review and the Residential Design Guide SPD and Paragraphs 127 and 130 of the NPPF.

The Inspector acknowledged that although concerns were raised by local residents in relation to highway issues, he noted that the County’s Highway officer raised no objection and concluded there is no evidence that highway safety would be compromised. Commenting on the potential for noise during construction and the effect of construction vehicles on surrounding roads he stated that this would be temporary and could be mitigated by a Construction Method Statement.

In respect of comments with regards to the impact of the proposal upon the living conditions of surrounding residents. Whilst there would result in some impact, due to the size and orientation of the gardens in relation to the proposal, it is not considered that this would give rise to significant overbearing or loss of privacy effects to warrant the withholding of planning permission.

The Inspectorate consider Unilateral Undertaking in respect of education financial contribution was necessary, related directly to the development and fairly related in scale and kind.

Costs application: The appellant’s claim for costs was dismissed by the Inspector. He commented that costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably. A local planning authority is at risk of an award of costs if it fails to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal on appeal and/or makes vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact which are unsupported by any objective analysis. In refusing the application, Council Members considered that the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.

He concluded that the Planning Committee was justified that that it had sufficient evidence before them to indicate that they could reasonably reach a different decision to that being recommended to them by their officers. Whilst he came to different view decision on the appeal application, he was satisfied that the Council has shown that it was able to substantiate its reason for refusal. He did not agree that the Council has acted unreasonably in this case.

3.3 19/0634/LBC and 19/0635/LBC – 8 Clifton Hill, Exeter. Two applications: One for removal of pier between internal doors and adaptation to double door opening (19/0634/LBC), and the other for: Removal of one window and portion of wall (19/0635/LBC).

Two planning appeals have been dismissed for listed building consents at 8 Clifton Hill. The first appeal concerned the removal of a pier between internal doors separating the hallway and study, to create a double door opening. The second appeal concerned the removal of an original window and section of wall on the rear elevation of the property.

Page 192 Located within the Belmont Conservation Area, 8 Clifton Hill forms part of a group listing of grade II listed mid-19th century villas comprised of a mix of flats and dwellings. The main issues in both appeals are whether the proposal works to preserve the grade II listed building, or any features of special or architectural interest which it possesses and whether the development preserves or enhances the Belmont Conservation Area.

With regards the first appeal, the inspector noted that much of the internal partition between the hall and the utility had been removed by previous owners. It was also acknowledged that the proposal would create a better visual connection between the spaces. However, the proposal was considered to entail the loss of some original wall fabric to the hallway, eroding the historic fabric and therefore the historic fabric of the building. The harm was regarded as less than substantial. However, in light of no evidence to demonstrate the works would be necessary to secure the continued use of the building or any other public benefits to outweigh the harm identified, the development would therefore fail to preserve the special historic interest of the appeal building.

Regarding the second appeal, the original window, a small sliding sash, appeared to be in good condition and the wall below it, original fabric. The development would entail the loss of some important historic fabric of the building, particularly the sash. This was considered to result in an unnecessary loss and detracted from the special architectural and historic interest of the building. As with the first appeal, there was no evidence to demonstrate the works would be necessary to secure the continued use of the building or any other public benefits to outweigh the harm identified. It was therefore concluded that the development would fail to preserve the special historic interest of the appeal building.

For the reasons given above, the appeal was dismissed.

3.4 19/0875/FUL - 328 Pinhoe Road. This application was for a single storey rear extension to provide 6 bedrooms to residential care home.

The site is located just off Pinhoe Road roughly equidistant between the local centres of Polsloe Bridge and Whipton. It has one point of access via its main frontage on Whipton Village Road, is bound by residential properties on western and northern boundaries, and flanked by The Red House Hotel along the eastern boundary. The property has undergone extensive change over recent decades to support the care home operation (C2 Use Class), including garage and loft conversions, large area of hardstanding for parking at the front of the site and multiple extensions towards the rear.

The proposal sought full planning permission for a 6 bedroom rear extension to be constructed in the shared outdoor amenity space in the far north-western portion of the site, on land which originally formed part of the rear garden of 326 Pinhoe Road. The structure was proposed to be built close to the boundaries and infill most of the open space in this part of the site.

The Council refused planning permission on the basis that the proposal constitutes overdevelopment of an inadequately proportioned site, it would not provide new occupants with a sufficient level of amenity with particular reference to outlook and privacy, it would harm the level of amenity for existing occupiers of the care home, and would also be unacceptably harmful to neighbouring residential amenity as well.

The inspector considered the key issues in this case to be the effects of the proposed development: (1) upon the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring properties; (2) upon the living conditions of the occupants of Aaron Court; and (3) upon the character and appearance of the area.

The inspector acknowledged that the care home is currently operating at full capacity and calculates the proposed scheme to entail a significant proportionate increase in accommodation on the site of 29%, rising from 21 bedrooms as existing to a total of 27 proposed. Due to a number of factors including the long established care home usage of the site since 1986 the inspector considered that additional noise and disturbance associated with C2 use has to an extent become part of the established character of the area. The detached nature of the property, non-C3 uses nearby and heavy use of Pinhoe Road all influence the existing baseline noise profile within the site Page 193 and the proposal was assessed against this benchmark. Notwithstanding these mitigating factors the inspector concluded that the proposal entails a “significant additional intensity of use” that would result in clear potential for additional noise and disturbance, which would further exacerbate the adverse impacts upon living conditions and quality of life for occupants of 324 and 326 Pinhoe Road.

With regard to the living conditions of occupants in Aaron Court the inspector noted that design standards expected for new dwellings are not necessarily consistent or equal to those required for new care home accommodation. Depending on the nature of care provided and specific needs of residents a lower level of outlook for example may be acceptable. Despite such distinction in requirements the importance and policy relevance of achieving well-designed and suitable living accommodation in general was clearly highlighted. It was considered that the proposal would significantly reduce the amount of open space for all residents of the facility and the development would not provide new occupants with adequate levels of outlook or natural light. By virtue of windows facing directly into the rear boundary fence it was agreed that outlook from proposed bedrooms 1 and 2 would be severely lacking and rather meaningless. Given existing boundary features and the proposed extension being single storey the overall impact upon privacy was considered to be acceptable in this instance. The inspector emphasised that the onus is on the applicant to substantiate their case and in this particular instance no evidence was provided to demonstrate that the proposed scheme provides appropriate levels of outlook to meet the needs of occupants.

Turning to the impact of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area it was noted that despite being visible from a number of private vantage points in nearby properties the extension would not result in an adverse public visual impact. It was advised that there comes a point where the accumulative visual impact from private vantage points becomes a matter of public interest. Although the increased footprint and plot ratio (percentage of land covered by building structures) to 46% of the proposal would be uncharacteristic of the area the design of the extension was thought to be intrinsic and well related to the character and appearance of the existing building. This neutral finding did not weigh in favour of the appeal but the inspector concluded that the impact upon the character and appearance of the area was acceptable in this instance. The adverse visual impact from private vantage points could be mitigated by conditions to protect or replace existing boundary features.

According to this assessment the appeal was dismissed.

3.5 19/0899/FUL – 14 and 15 St James Road, Exeter. This application was for the creation of two dwellings.

The site is located within the Duryard and St James Ward of the city and lies directly opposite the western corner of the St James Park Football Stadium. It is also located within the St Sidwell’s Conservation Area. This front aspect currently provides the only means of access to the site whereas the proposed scheme comprised a new opening and separate site access cut into the large retaining wall at a lower level on Well Street. The two new dwellings were proposed to be facing towards the car garage on the opposing side of the street (no.36-37).

The Council refused the application on the grounds that the proposal constitutes overdevelopment of inappropriate and poor design, it would bring about low quality living conditions to the detriment of current and future occupants, and could also result in the potential loss or harm to a TPO tree.

The inspector considered the key issues in this case to be: (4) The effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the St Sidwell’s Conservation Area and upon the existing tree on the site; and, (5) The effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of surrounding and future residents, with a particular regard to the provision of amenity space.

The inspector agreed with the council that the proposal constituted overdevelopment of an inadequately proportioned site and that this would be detrimental to the established pattern of development in the area. It was noted that the significance of the conservation area is derived from the identifiable building pattern as well as the historic fabric and vernacular details of the buildings Page 194 within it. Although the adverse visual impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the St Sidwell’s Conservation Area was considered to amount to ‘less than substantial harm’ the inspector concluded that the proposed design would be visually obtrusive and out of keeping with existing single storey garages and outbuilding structures on this side of Well Street, and in more broad terms be at odds with the character and appearance of the St Sidwell’s Conservation Area.

The proposed outdoor amenity space was considered to have an awkward relationship with both existing and proposed buildings, and would be uncomfortably overlooked and overshadowed. On this basis alone the inspector concluded that the proposed development would not provide future occupiers with a sufficient level of overall amenity.

It was observed that the existing TPO tree would overshadow the outdoor amenity area as was proposed and its use could lead to increased pressure to reduce or remove the tree in future, which would be undesirable in planning terms and further detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

For these reasons the inspector concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.

4. New Appeals

4.1 19/1303/OUT – Land off Woodwater Lane, Adjacent to Ludwell Rise

Outline planning application for 2 dwellings including access, layout and landscaping (scale and appearance reserved for future consideration).

4.2 20/0057/FUL - 22 Bagshot Avenue

Proposed rear and side extension, with construction of basement and internal alterations.

4.3 20/0583/LBC - 4 Oxford Road

Installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Station.

Bindu Arjoon Director

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 (as amended) Background papers used in compiling the report: Letters, application files and appeal documents referred to in report are available for inspection from: City Development, Civic Centre, Paris Street, Exeter

Contact for enquiries: Democratic Services (Committees) - Room 2.3. Tel: 01392 265275

Page 195 This page is intentionally left blank