Author: danwyn

Pennsylvania Road Student Block Appeal Dismissed

Last year, in defence of our Neighbourhood Plan’s objective of securing a balanced community, many objected to plans to build a student HMO in the back garden of this property and were rewarded when ECC’s Planning Committee refused the application. The owner immediately appealed against this decision and now the Planning Inspector’s findings have been published.

In coming to a decision to dismiss the appeal the Inspector cites various pieces of planning legislation, including NP Policy H1: Heritage –

‘Development affecting heritage assets within St James must pay special regard to the need to conserve and enhance their settings and any special architectural or historic features of significance.‘

The main thrust of his rejection though relates to the impact of the proposal on community balance and cites the following:

Exeter Local Plan Policy H5(b) which supports the development of student housing provided that:

‘The proposal will not create an over concentration of the use in any one area of the city which would change the character of the neighbourhood or create an imbalance in the local community.’

and

Exeter St James Neighbourhood Plan Policy C3 which states that:

‘The development of small scale purpose built student accommodation will be permitted provided that the proposal would not prejudice the objective of creating a balanced community

Significantly, in reaching his conclusion to dismiss the Inspector states: 

“I have no doubt that the immediate area around the appeal site, already contains an imbalance in the community weighted towards students …….. the proposal would lead to an over concentration of student accommodation resulting in a harmful imbalance in the local community. As such, it is contrary to LP Policy H5 and NP Policy C3.”

This negative impact on community balance and the non-compliance with NP C3 and LPH5(b) provides sound material for use in any further applications for student accommodation.

When it became clear that the original plan for a 101-bed co-living development would not be accepted, a revised proposal was subsequently submitted for an 89-bed development (see background here). On Friday 4 October ECC reached the right decision, in no small measure thanks to the 160 individuals who objected, when the application was refused.

Among reasons given for the refusal were the scale, massing and height of the proposal not reflecting existing and surrounding buildings together with other significant design issues relating to the layout of the site. On the face of it good news indeed, but is it? 

The officer’s report includes some rather disturbing comments:

• In principle the redevelopment of this site for co-living, with the loss of the existing garage and single HMO dwelling, would be considered acceptable (para 28)
• It is considered that the benefits of the proposal, including the increase in dwelling numbers on this site would outweigh the harm caused ….. (para 37)

Community balance, the central thrust of our Neighbourhood Plan (NP) is dismissed. The Report points out that the NP and the current Local Plan (LP) were both adopted prior to the relatively recent emergence of this type of accommodation, and that:

• the weight that can be given to community balance impacts is limited due to the lack of co-living inclusion within the policies themselves (para 17)

This, of course, is correct; the policies that are designed to improve community balance specify student accommodation in its various forms and there is little doubt that the applicant has relied upon the resultant semantic loophole. There is strong evidence within the application’s documentation of a deliberate decision during the pre-application stage to replace the original designation as ‘purpose built student accommodation’ to that of ‘co-living’, while continuing to focus on provision for the still-intended student occupants.

However, although the Officer’s Report indicates the overarching vision for a balanced community spelt out in the NP should still be given limited weight, there is no sign thereafter of any consideration of this very important aspect of community balance, let alone that it was given any weight at all in reaching the decision to refuse. So, a green light has been given for the developer to resubmit yet another revised set of plans which may be smaller in scale but which need pay little heed to community balance.

Vigilance is required as it is more than likely that a new application will be forthcoming.

Wider-reaching concern The Report is at pains to explain that the absence of inclusion of co-living in any NP or LP policy addressing community balance, means that co-living cannot be refused in principle, but this raises a very serious criticism of the proposed Exeter Plan, that is expected to replace the current Local Plan. If the absence of such policy is encouraging developers to propose co-living schemes across the City, why has no policy whatsoever been included in the draft Exeter Plan that addresses the need to ensure communities are balanced whatever the type of development proposed? Does the Local Planning Authority really believe that balance is not of such significance that the challenge must be met to design a watertight policy that protects this? No time to lose in preparing a new Neighbourhood Plan The need for a new NP that addresses the issues now being faced is urgent but to get another neighbourhood planning process off the ground requires motivated individuals. Contact us if you are keen to become actively involved with the few who have already expressed a willingness to step forward, taking the lead for the community on this rewarding journey.

On Saturday 28 September the Trust hosted this event for students and residents which was organised by the University to mark the beginning of the new academic year. Members of the Uni’s Community Engagement team were present to welcome everyone and to give out welcome packs to new students.

Fortunate with some fine weather for a change, the event went well: giant Jenga and Connect 4 games were on hand and free ice cream was provided for all and the Trust ran its fundraising Plant & Book stalls.

QCG WORKING PARTY

A recent working party in Queen’s Crescent Garden saw a band of hardy volunteers come together to tidy up the garden in readiness for autumn. A great deal of progress was made to clear up the perimeter both inside and out:

On Saturday 29 June the St James community came together at the Trust’s annual summer fundraising event. Blessed with fine weather, friends and neighbours sought bargains at the plant and book stalls where business was brisk while home-made cakes, teas, coffee and squash were consumed at the refreshment stall.

There were also parachute games, giant Jenga and Connect Four for all to enjoy but perhaps the high spot was a visit from Minerva, the Little Owl.

An excellent, well-supported day which raised much-needed funds thanks to the efforts of our volunteers and the generosity of members who donated plants, books and cakes.

The AGM held on 2 July was attended by 33 members including Board Members Robyn Connett (Chair), Paul Layton (Secretary), Rebecca Bower (Treasurer) and Harry Temple.

Robyn welcomed members to the meeting and spoke to various aspects of the Annual Report concentrating particularly on the Queen’s Crescent Garden regeneration project and the Board’s continuing determination to secure a fair share of the neighbourhood portion of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding. Other matters raised included the Trust’s communication with members through our biannual newsletter About St James, the website and regular mailings; monitoring ECC planning applications and responding as consultee in relation to the Neighbourhood Plan; and vigilance in reviewing the Trust’s resilience.

The Annual Report was adopted and the accounts approved. Harry Temple was re-elected to the Board but gave notice that he would be standing down in November.

At the close of the business meeting members were treated to a thought provoking presentation by Frazer Osment, Chair of LDA Design and co-architect of the Exeter St James Neighbourhood Plan:

“Our Neighbourhood Plan – its achievements and lessons learned for a future Plan“

Latest application for student accommodation on rear garden of 47 Union Road, REFUSED, with the adverse impact on community balance recognised

Following his lost appeal against the refusal of an application for a 10 bed student block in the rear garden of his Union Road property, a 13 bed student HMO (advertised with double occupancy possible in all but one room) above a self-contained 2 bed basement flat also advertised for students, Mr Startup, the owner, submitted plans (23/1483/FUL) last December for a 6 bed student block on the same site (see our previous article here).

Local residents, including many Trust members, who submitted objections will be relieved and delighted that this application has been refused. The Planning Officer’s Report, which reveals appropriate consideration has been given on this occasion to the consultation responses including that submitted by the Trust, provides a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of the proposal against national and local policies, and concludes that it is contrary to a wide range of specific policies, including four Neighbourhood Plan (NP) policies relating to environmental matters, design and community (see Decision Refusal Notice here).

Each of these are equally important, but it is particularly encouraging that, on this occasion, community balance has been recognised by the Planning Authority as a valid issue and the refusal decision, citing NP Community policy C3 ‘Small Scale Purpose Built Student Accommodation’ includes the statement:

By virtue of the intensity of use, the overdevelopment of the plot and the location of the development, the scheme would prejudice the objective of creating a balanced community in St James, Exeter

Time will tell whether the owner decides to accept this decision, or to submit an appeal as he did following refusal of his original application on the site, and which he has now done in the case of 70 Pennsylvania Road, another HMO property that he owns, where his similar proposal to develop the rear garden as purpose built student accommodation was also refused (see here).

All members are cordially invited to attend the AGM to be held on Tuesday 2 July 6.15pm St Sidwell’s Primary School York Road Exeter

6.15pm Registration 6.30pm Business Meeting

followed by

‘Our Neighbourhood Plan – its achievements and lessons learned for a future Plan’

a presentation by Frazer Osment Chair of LDA Design co-architect of Exeter St James Neighbourhood Plan

Click on the headings below to view/download documents:

AGENDA

MINUTES OF THE AGM 2023

THE ANNUAL REPORT & FINANCIAL STATEMENT

DIRECTOR NOMINATION FORM

ONLINE FORM OF PROXY

Please print documents; no copies will be available at the meeting

Please note:

Director Nomination Forms must be returned no later than Tuesday 25 June

Online Proxy Forms must be returned no later than 6.15pm on Monday 1 July

If you are unable to attend please use the Proxy Form to appoint your voting representative.

The Trust has learnt that the refusal of the application 21/1014/FUL for a 26 bed student accommodation block (PBSA) on the former Maximum Motors’ site in Howell Road (see News Archive for previous coverage relating to this proposal) has been overturned at appeal, although the related application for award of costs against the Council has been refused. Despite the permission being contingent upon 18 conditions including a pre-approved management plan, this is not only extremely disappointing, but baffling.

Amongst other grounds, not least the threat to sustainability presented by the worsening of the existing community imbalance, with temporary student residents comprising more than half of the total resident population, the Trust and Exeter St James Forum before it, with the full support of our city councillors, had argued that the proposal was contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan’s Community Policy C2a.

The preamble to Policy C2, which serves as guidance for the interpretation of the policy wording, explains that in St James, with its largely intact residential character with tight pattern of streets and spaces, there are few areas apart from Sidwell Street where large scale (10 or more bed) purpose built student accommodation (PBSA) may be appropriately integrated.

Policy C2, worded positively as required, then states:

Large scale purpose built student accommodation will be permitted in areas where it can be properly integrated into the urban area

before listing three location descriptions which must be met for such integration to be deemed acceptable.

C2a sets out the first location description as follows:

locations a) that are not predominantly characterised by intact streets of traditional terraced, semi-detached and detached forms of 2-3 storey residential development;

The Inspector acknowledges that ‘the location around the appeal site comprises some intact streets of traditional terraced, semi-detached and detached forms of 2-3 storey residential development’ yet concludes this large-scale PBSA is compliant with Neighbourhood Plan Policy C2a, apparently by focusing on the one street, Howell Road, and even then solely on the few non-residential elements, noting the former garage site itself, the brick wall surrounding (residential) Horseguards and the nearby prison wall.

It is hard to comprehend how the various intact residential streets in the immediate vicinity of the development site, Danes Road, Hoopern Street, and Horseguards together with the predominantly intact residential Howell Road itself, could have been dismissed when reaching this verdict.

It is a serious concern that the sustainability of the community will be further threatened, and regrettable that an opportunity has been lost for development of much-needed homes for local residents on one of the relatively few windfall sites likely to arise in St James owing to closure of commercial premises. However, residents will draw some comfort from knowing that one of the 18 conditions upon which permission is granted states:

No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied until a management plan has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

The management plan will include:

i) occupation/letting criteria,

ii) staff support/control,

iii) student discipline,

iv) car ownership/parking,

v) security, and,

vi) an arrival/departure procedure.

Immediately upon occupation of the development, the developer shall implement the management plan. Following implementation of the management plan, there must be no variation of it without the prior written agreement of the local planning authority.

The Trust will urge the local planning authority to insist that, under this plan, management contact details are made available to local residents to facilitate swift resolution of any issues that may arise.

This disappointing outcome will provide useful food for thought should residents come forward with the vision and determination to prepare a new neighbourhood plan to replace the current plan which in any case is due to expire in 2028. The Trust very much hopes that this will be the case, with other areas of the city already considering the merits of neighbourhood planning for their own areas.

See the decision notice for the Appeal here and the Application for Award here.

‘RE-CONSULTATION’ OF APPLICATION 23/0949/FUL NOW UNDERWAY

What do YOU say? Have the revisions successfully transformed an unacceptably ‘poor response to the setting’ into a well-designed development St James’ needs?

The original proposal, shown above, was highly and widely criticised by professionals as well as local residents in the many responses to the consultation last August / September, identifying it as ‘over-development’, ‘poor response unsympathetic to its context’, ‘fundamentally unsuitable for this site’, ‘overbearing on nearby properties’ etc.

A damning verdict – and the applicant was advised by planning officers they would not be able to recommend approval. So, pre-empting refusal, a revised proposal has been submitted.

How does this compare? (see below)

Unless you are of the opinion that this is the kind of development St James needs and believe that some tinkering with specific design issues has responded satisfactorily to the overarching design objection, and that the proposal can no longer be described as overbearing and fundamentally unsuitable for the site, and in addition are not concerned there would be a worsening community balance caused either by the proposed co-living use, nor the implicitly evidenced intended use as student accommodation ……… please add your response to the outcry, whether or not you objected during the initial consultation.  Click for further information and commentary here.

Closing date for comments now confirmed as 5 May

Recently installed CCTV comes to QCG

The need for a camera in this position has long been considered very important by Exeter’s Community Safety Partnership and Dennis Cavanagh, ECC’s CCTV Control Centre Manager, is impressed by the far better coverage made available by this camera, not only of the Garden, but of Queen’s Crescent, Longbrook Street, and York Road, including the Mosque and St Sidwell’s Primary School.

Two stills taken from the CCTV covering Queen’s Crescent Garden

Dennis says, “As a key transit route for university students and Exeter residents in the North of the City this addition further demonstrates the Council’s commitment to the Safer Women at Night initiative.”

Inspector Simon Arliss, with whom the Directors have been working since 2018, specifically identified QCG as a key site for a camera in the original Safer Central Exeter funding bid and hopes are high that as well as providing evidence for dealing with any serious incidents, it will act as a very useful deterrent to the low level ASB including fly tipping and vandalism that has been occurring from time to time.