54-home residential development at Topsham Golf Academy, Exeter Road, Topsham

The site and its surroundings

The 1.9-hectare site was enclosed by hedgerows, adjoining housing, open land and sports pitches, with public transport and local services nearby.

“Issue Conclusion and occupation and contribute £35,232 towards local health care provision. The development would also be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and other standard contributions. Environmental Impact The most southern part of the site is shown on the Council’s GIS map as potentially at risk of contamination. The development is also affected by road and ASHP noise.”

“To the south and east, the site adjoins the recently completed Berkeley Park residential development, also by Heritage Developments (South West) Ltd, comprising mainly two-storey dwellings with associated landscaping. To the north, the site is bounded by hedgerows and open grassland, beyond which lies further residential development fronting Newcourt Road.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the location sustainable, the design appropriate, neighbour impacts acceptable and the housing benefits important because the city lacked a five-year supply.

“The proposed redevelopment of the former Topsham Golf Academy is an appropriate and sustainable use of the site. The principle of residential development is established through adjacent permissions and supported by the emerging Exeter Plan.”

“Highways, drainage and urban design matters are acceptable. The scheme will deliver social and economic benefits, including 35% affordable housing and infrastructure contributions. Overall, the development accords with the Development Plan when read as a whole, and the impacts can be satisfactorily addressed. The Council is currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and the proposal will make a positive contribution towards housing delivery.”

Officer report

Consultees and public comments

Highways and drainage objections were withdrawn after further information, while consultees sought conditions and residents raised concerns about traffic, ecology, drainage, healthcare and design.

“Following the submission of the amended plans, which altered the internal highway layout, the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the scheme, subject to the inclusion of conditions. These conditions include the submission of details regarding highway-associated works, garaging and vehicle parking, access, visibility splays, and the compound.”

“Following the submission of further information, the LLFA has withdrawn its objection and has no in-principle objections to the application, subject to the following pre- commencement planning conditions: • Soakaway test results in accordance with BRE 365 and groundwater monitoring, showing low risk of groundwater re-emergence downslope from soakaways. • A detailed drainage design based on the approved Flood Risk Assessment and the results of soakaway and groundwater tests.”

Officer report

What was said at the meeting

The agent supported approval, highlighting affordable homes, energy efficiency, future connectivity, infrastructure contributions and collaboration with officers and consultees.

Members discussed the scheme

Members welcomed the revised layout, green space, affordable housing, wildlife measures and future-proofed access, while discussing fencing, traffic calming, the Topsham gap and healthcare pressure.

“the comparison slide was commended and highlighted the applicant’s commitment to working collaboratively with officers and adapt plans based on expert input; • meaningful changes had been made to the layout in response to feedback; • there were visible green space and presence of wildlife-friendly areas indicated on the plans and based on the information presented, there were no reasons for refusal; • officers and developers were thanked for improvements made to the final…”

“Members had highlighted a number of key benefits, which included improved layout, provision of green space, delivering affordable housing and future- proofed site access; • fencing/screening concerns could be managed through existing conditions on materials and boundary treatments; • the site was already enclosed by development and did not contribute to wider openness and therefore there was no harm to strategic separation; • there had been no NHS objections and the S106…”

Minutes