Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

It was proposed by Councillor C Parker and seconded by Councillor Nutley that the minutes of the previous meeting be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

A vote was taken.

Resolved

That the minutes of the previous meeting be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

If Councillors have any questions relating to predetermination or interests in items on this Agenda, please contact the Monitoring Officer in advance of the meeting.

Councillor C Parker declared an interest in application 23/00785/FUL due to his spouse being the applicant. He left the room for this application and so did not speak or vote on it. He also did not chair consideration of this item, and so the chair then fell to Vice-Chair Councillor Bradford.

Councillor Ryan declared an interest in application 23/00785/FUL due to his acquaintance with the applicant. He left the room for this application and did not speak or vote on it.

Councillor Parrott declared an interest in application 20/00291/MAJ due to his stated objection prior to becoming a Councillor. He informed the committee that he would be acting in his capacity as ward member and consider all information before voting.

Councillors C Parker and Ryan left the room for this application. It was chaired by Vice-Chair Cllr Bradford.

The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee.

It was proposed by Councillor Bullivant and seconded by Councillor J Taylor that permission be granted as set out in the report.

A vote was taken – the result was unanimously in favour

Resolved

That permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.     Time limit for commencement

2.     Accord with plans

The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee.

Public Speaker, Supporter – Spoke on:

·       Masterplan for southwest Exeter expansion

·       Conversion of nearby sites already

·       Improved architecture

Comments from Councillors:

·       Development plan

·       Large 4 storey building

·       Not suitable for area

·       Against various policies

·       Concerns about traffic

·       Car parking on other side of major road

·       Overbearing

·       Lack of parking spaces

·       Flood risk

·       Largely redesigned from original application

·       CIL contributions needed

·       South west water do not support

·       Architecture concerns

·       Lack of public transport

·       No on-street parking

·       Lack of comments on revised scheme

·       Design concerns from landscape officer

·       Larger car park needed

·       82 objections

·       Parish council objection

·       Out of place design

·       Cycle path needed

In response Officers clarified the following:

·       This is a gateway to Exeter and no longer a rural area

·       Good quality development

·       Modern design of all buildings on site

·       Reserved matters only

·       Reasonableness required

·       Consultees have all had a chance to comment

·       Unsure of timescale for road realignment

·       No highways objections

·       New pedestrian cycle bridge

It was proposed by Councillor J Hook and seconded by Councillor Taylor that permission be refused for the reason set out further down.

A vote was taken – 8 were in favour, 4 against, and 1 abstained.

Resolved

That permission be refused for the following reason:

1.     The building bears little relationship to the distinctive characteristics of the Exeter Alphington Context, it is an insufficiently striking or individual landmark building, and the car parking is poorly assimilated into the context. This is contrary to the NPPF’s requirements outlined in agenda report 3.13, the Local Plan Policy EN2A, and Exminster Neighbourhood Plan Policy EXM3

Note:

Decision to refuse this application was contrary to officer recommendation. Members considered the application unacceptable due to its design being insufficiently striking and reflecting local characteristics as other Exeter gateway buildings do.

The Enforcement Officer introduced the item to the committee.

Comments from Councillors included

·       Are the dwellings below market value or occupied by locals?

·       What is the time period for holiday in comparison to a residential let?

·       Is council tax being paid?

In response Officers clarified that:

·       Financial information not part of enforcement

·       A holiday let is considered to be not a main residence

·       Business rates would be paid

·       Council tax backpay may be up to 6 years

It was proposed by Councillor Bullivant and seconded by Councillor Palethorpe that enforcement action be carried out as set out in the report.

A vote was taken – 12 were in favour, 0 against and 1 abstained.

Resolved

That

1.     A Breach of Condition Notice be issued.

2.     A 12-month compliance period be agreed;

3.     In the event of the notice not being complied with, authorisation be given to take further action as necessary including proceeding to prosecution.

The Committee noted the appeals decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate.

The Committee noted the Major Decisions Summary sheet.