Educational research building at Former Walled Garden Adjacent To Reed Mews, Exeter

What was proposed

The application sought consent for partial demolition and a part two, part three-storey educational building for teaching, research and associated landscaping.

“Planning Committee Report 25/0098/FUL and 25/0099/LBC 1.0 Application information Number: 25/0098/FUL and 25/0099/LBC Applicant Name: Roger Ball, University of Exeter Proposal: Partial demolition of the existing garden walls and workshops and construction of a part two, part three storey educational building for teaching and research use and associated landscaping, including temporary enabling works (revised).”

Officer report

The historic site

The site was a terraced walled garden within the Grade II listed Reed Hall curtilage, with historic walls, workshops, potting sheds, glasshouse remains and a vault.

“Description of site The site is a walled, terraced garden with brick boundary and retaining walls. It occupies land that slopes relatively steeply from north to south and west to east. It forms part of the curtilage of the adjacent Reed Hall and as such is Grade II Listed. The site was historically the productive garden of Reed Hall (which was known as Streatham Hall until it was gifted to the University by Alderman Reed in 1922 and renamed in his honour).”

“The biggest physical constraint to development of the site is its topography, which makes access challenging (Mardon Hill for example is 1:6). Heritage is the most significant policy constraint: as well as being within the curtilage of the Grade II listed Reed Hall, the grounds are within gardens on the Devon Gardens Trust local list (https://www.devongardenstrust.org.uk/gardens/reed-hall-streatham-hall) and as such are a locally designated Park & Garden (there are two…”

Officer report

How the design changed

After officers rejected the initial design in principle, an intensive redesign reduced the building’s footprint, height and excavation and changed its materials and landscaping.

“Limited pre application discussions with the applicant did take place prior to the application but unfortunately the university were unable to undertake a full pre- application enquiry due to programme constraints and instead proceeded to the submission of a fully detailed application in January 2025. Following detailed assessment, officers advised in June 2025 that they were unable to support the submitted proposal due to its impacts on the adjacent listed buildings.”

“The principal aspects of the redesign were a reduction in the footprint of the building (by 19%) to step it back further from the Reed Mews courtyard and from Reed Hall itself (see comparison images in presentation). Taken alongside the reduced excavation proposed (towards the IAIS building), this reduced the proposed floor area by 27% at level 00 and 13% at level 01. The revised scheme will now provide around 1750sq m compared to the 2000sq m previously proposed.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because less than substantial heritage harm would be outweighed by economic, social, accessibility, environmental and heritage benefits, subject to conditions.

“The package of public benefits may be summarised into three categories as follows: Firstly it is clear that the investment will bring economic benefits to the University, and that in turn the development will deliver further economic benefits to the city and the region, helping to reinforce and enhance the numerous and significant economic and social benefits already arising from the presence of the University in the city.”

“Officers consider that these measures constitute public benefits and as such they may be weighed against the heritage harm arising from the proposal. Together with the economic benefits expected to arise from teaching and research activities in the new facility, time limited benefits such as construction and supply-chains jobs, and accessibility benefits brought by the new path, officers consider the public benefits of the proposal to be sufficient to outweigh the heritage…”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Consultees generally raised no objection subject to conditions, while heritage officers accepted the revised proposal despite residual harm; no public representations were received.

“Lead Local Flood Authority (Devon County Council): Initially, whilst raising no objection in principle, the LLFA raised a series of queries regarding the proposal to discharge into a (private) combined sewer. Their objection was withdrawn following exchanges of information and a new drainage strategy with the revised proposal, subject to a pre-commencement planning condition.”

“OVERALL Overall, taking all the elements of the scheme into account including the mitigation measures proposed including detailed recording of the buildings to be demolished, my conclusion is that the level of harm to the overall significance of Reed Hall (including all its curtilage listed structures and its garden setting) will fall fairly centrally within the “less than substantial” level of harm.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke in support, describing the facility’s academic purpose, design revisions, economic benefits, accessible route, sustainability measures and heritage mitigation.

What members discussed

Members supported the collaboration, reduced massing, accessible routes, recording and reuse of historic materials, sustainability, economic benefits and the balance between harm and benefits.

“the application would benefit the sustainability of the global south and was suitable given the site's historical context; • positive aspects included the reduction in the building's massing to lessen its visual impact and improved pedestrian routes; • the evolution of the application through collaboration between the university and planning officers was commended; • ensuring that information about the heritage assets being lost would be properly recorded and made public…”

Minutes

The vote

The Chair moved the recommendation, Councillor Ketchin seconded it, and the committee voted unanimously in favour.

“The Chair moved, and Councillor Ketchin seconded the recommendation, which was voted upon and CARRIED unanimously .”

Minutes

The decision

Listed building consent was granted subject to the report’s conditions, relevant update-sheet revisions and delegated authority for minor changes to listed-building conditions.

“RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report, the two additional conditions requested for airport safeguarding reasons and the minor changes to conditions to address the issues raised by the applicant in their correspondence as set out in the Planning Committee Update Sheet.”

“RESOLVED that the listed Building Consent be granted subject to conditions as set out in the report, subject to any minor revisions outlined in the Planning Committee update sheet, which relate specifically to the Listed Building. Delegated authority was given as sought by officers in their presentation for the minor changes to the conditions to be finalised by officers in consultation with the Chair.”

Minutes