Student accommodation and commercial space at Clarendon House, Barnfield, Exeter

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing commercial building and constructing student accommodation, flexible commercial or community space, public realm and landscaping.

“Application information Number: 25/1082/FUL Applicant Name: Zinc RE UK Ltd Proposal: Demolition of existing commercial building and redevelopment of the site comprising student accommodation with associated amenity space (Sui Generis), flexible commercial floorspace (Use Class E) and/or community floorspace (Use Class F1/F2), public realm and landscaping works, cycle parking, refuse storage, access and servicing, and other associated works.”

Officer report

What people objected to

Seventeen contributors objected, mainly citing excessive height, heritage and townscape harm, student accommodation need, amenity effects, transport safety and poor design.

“Transport, Pedestrian and Cycling Safety Issues • Proposed relocation of pedestrian crossing closer to the roundabout is unsafe. • Heavitree Road and Western Way roundabout considered dangerous for walking and cycling. • Transport Assessment is criticised as misleading or inaccurate (e.g., incorrect crossing information). • Concerns that more student foot and cycle traffic will worsen safety problems.”

“Comments from the Devon Buildings Group are included in the summary above, but their objection is presented under the following 3 headings: the design and scale of the proposed building; the impact of a building of this scale on the wider townscape: not only Conservation Areas but on the cathedral; and the question of the suitability of more student accommodation within the broader matter of Exeter's housing needs.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

A ward councillor and an objector spoke against the application, while the agent spoke in support and defended its design, need and public benefits.

The votes

Members rejected a proposal to defer the application, then approved the substantive motion by six votes to three, with one abstention.

“The Strategic Director of Place advised Members that the proposal constituted an amendment and required a vote. If carried, the application would be deferred and if not, the Planning committee would return to the original officer recommendation. He highlighted that each application must be considered on its own merits.”

“The Chair returned to the substantive motion to approve the application as recommended and on being put to the vote, was CARRIED (6 in favour, 3 against and 1 abstention).”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was delegated for approval subject to a section 106 agreement and conditions, with refusal authorised if the agreement was not completed within six months.

“RESOLVED to delegate to the Head of Service (City Development) to GRANT permission subject to completion of a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure the obligations and conditions as set out in the Planning Committee report and update sheet.”

“RESOLVED to REFUSE permission if the legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) is not completed within six months of the date of the meeting, or such extended time as agreed in writing by the Head of Service (City Development).”

Minutes