Retirement living apartments at School Playing Field, Exeter

What was proposed

The application proposed a three-storey building containing 36 retirement apartments, parking, landscaped grounds and a permissive path.

“Description of development Erection of a three-storey building for 36 retirement living apartments, 20 one-bed and 16 two-beds, with associated communal lounge, internal refuse and recycling store, electric buggy/bike store and house managers office.”

“Creation of paths, landscaped grounds and a permissive path between Homefield Road and Goldsmith Street, with garden with seating.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The former school playing field is a 0.5-hectare tree-bordered site within and beside the Heavitree Conservation Area.

“Description of site The site on Homefield Road was a playing field of the former Bramdean School. Homefield Road bounds the site to the west, Park Place to the south, and Goldsmith Street to the east. To the north the site is bounded by the gardens of residential properties. Park Place is narrow with no pavement on the north side and is one way…”

“The site lies within the Heavitree Conservation Area, and the site is identified as a ‘positive site’, valued for its openness, tranquillity, and mature tree boundaries within an otherwise densely developed townscape.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to a legal agreement and conditions because housing and other public benefits were judged to outweigh heritage and other harms.

“REASON APPLICATION IS CONSIDERED BY COMMITTEE. The Service Lead City Development considers the application to be a significant, controversial and/or sensitive application that should be determined by the Planning Committee in accordance with the Exeter City Council Constitution.”

“On that basis, the application is recommended for approval, subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement and the conditions set out in this report.”

Officer report

What residents said

Most representations opposed the development because of green-space loss, heritage, ecology, traffic, parking, design, amenity and doubts about retirement-housing need.

“Representation form ECC Ward Cllr Lucy Haigh. Objects to the proposed development. Key concerns include parking provision, given car ownership levels among residents and frequent visits from carers, healthcare professionals, and family members. This is expected to worsen existing parking, congestion, and road safety issues on surrounding streets.”

“Loss of a long-standing greenfield / playing field and permanent reduction in local open space • Conflict with the Exeter Plan, Local Plan, and green infrastructure policies • Loss of community amenity and informal recreation space for children, families, and schools • Missed opportunity for alternative community uses (park, playing field, allotments, orchard, garden, woodland) • Harm to biodiversity, wildlife habitats, and ecological corridors • Presence of protected…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A ward councillor and a local resident spoke against the application, while a representative supporting it addressed housing need, design, access and mitigation.

What members debated

Members debated the development’s planning impacts and whether determination should wait for the community’s Asset of Community Value process.

“while deferring the application may appear positive from a public perception perspective, legal advice indicated that the outcome of the Asset of Community Value (ACV) process would not be materially affected by whether planning permission was granted or deferred; • the ACV process was separate and would proceed and be determined on its own merits regardless of the planning decision; • there were concerns on planning grounds including the scale and massing of the…”

“the application was already beyond the statutory determination period and that an agreed extension of time had been in place and was due to expire at the current committee meeting; • if no decision were made, the applicant would have the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds of non-determination, in addition to any appeal against a decision made by the Council; • an appeal for non-determination could be submitted by the applicant immediately, as the…”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted unanimously in favour of deferring the application to allow the Asset of Community Value process to be determined.

“Following the debate, the Chair moved the matter to a vote on the motion to defer the application to allow the Asset of Community Value (ACV) process to be determined. Members voted unanimously in favour of deferral.”

Minutes

What the committee decided

The committee deferred determination, with the application to return for a decision regardless of whether an appeal was submitted.

“The Planning Committee noted that the application would return to committee for…”

Minutes