Hotel redevelopment at Site Of Royal Clarence Hotel, Cathedral Yard, Exeter

The proposal

The scheme would redevelop the hotel with 25 homes, residential space and commercial uses including a public house and restaurant.

“Application information Number: 25/0895/FUL and 25/0896/LBC Applicant Name: [name withheld], Nooko Developments Ltd Proposal: Redevelopment of the Royal Clarence, to include 25 new residential dwellings on the upper floors with part residential on the ground and part basement floor. Commercial on the remaining ground and basement floor as a public house and restaurant.”

Officer report

Earlier approval and changes

The applications were previously approved subject to conditions and a legal agreement, and further works had since started on site.

“REASON APPLICATIONS ARE GOING TO COMMITTEE The applications were approved by Planning Committee on 19 January 2026, subject to conditions and the completion of s106 legal agreement. Since then, an Independent Viability Assessment (IVA) of the scheme has been carried out, in accordance with the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).”

Officer report

Viability and contributions

An independent assessment found the scheme could provide specified contributions but not the full affordable housing requirement.

“The independent valuer’s report on the viability of the scheme was received on 15 June 2026. This process was delayed following the acceptance of revised plans and additional information concerning the construction of the scheme in December 2025. It concludes that the scheme cannot provide 35% affordable housing in line with Policy CP7 or the full off-site financial contribution of £2,394,258.82 calculated in accordance with the Affordable Housing SPD.”

“Officers took the applications to Planning Committee before the IVA was completed to obtain a positive resolution and political support for the scheme, thus supporting the developer in this particular case.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended listed building consent with the amended condition protecting the Well House during further works.

“Prior to removal of the in situ Well House roof details of temporary measures to protect the existing fabric of the Well House during the duration of the work shall be submitted in writing to, and be approved by, the Local Planning Authority. The measures shall include details of protection and methodology of protection works and removal. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details at all times.”

“Prior to any further development works continuing on the site after the date of this listed building consent, details of temporary measures to protect the existing fabric of the Well House during the duration of the work shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures shall include details of protection and methodology of protection works and removal.”

Officer report

Contributions and controls

Officers supported fixed contributions, payment at 90% occupation for two contributions, and a clause allowing future variation requests to be considered.

“Regarding the contributions payment trigger, it has already been agreed that the habitats mitigation must be paid prior to first occupation of the apartments. Officers have also agreed to delay payment of the affordable housing and GP surgeries contributions to 90% occupation instead of 50%. This provides more time to generate value from the scheme, whilst the developer is still active on-site.”

“Planning Practice Guidance states that affordable provision in build-to-rent schemes should by default be in the form of affordable private rent (on-site) and 20% is generally a suitable benchmark for the level of provision, maintained in perpetuity.”

Officer report

Questions and answers

The Assistant Service Lead explained the viability assessment, contributions, review mechanisms, heritage challenges and construction controls.

Members’ debate

Members welcomed the development and heritage design but discussed value for money, the reduced contribution and the need to progress the scheme.

“During the debate, the following points were made:”

“the development was welcomed, but there was a need to consider value for money; • it was clear that the figure of ~£2.4 million was not a realistic figure, but the independent figure of £344,637 was considered to be sound; • there was concern that the developer would try to reduce the contribution in the future; • a Member commented that they were impressed with the bespoke way in which the developer worked, and how the design was in keeping with the heritage; • the…”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to approve the listed building consent application was carried unanimously.

“The Chair moved, seconded by Councillor Anne Jobson, that application 25/0896/LBC be approved in accordance with the recommendation in section 3.0 of the Planning Committee Report, which following a unanimous vote was CARRIED.”

Minutes

The decision

Listed building consent was approved in accordance with the officer recommendation, subject to the amended conditions.

“DELEGATE TO HEAD OF SERVICE – CITY DEVELOPMENT TO GRANT LISTED BUILDING CONSENT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS ADDED TO THE 19 JANUARY 2026 UPDATE SHEET AT APPENDIX 2 EXCEPT CONDITION 3 TO BE AMENDED AS SHOWN IN THE BODY OF THIS REPORT ABOVE”

Officer report