Exeter City Council Planning Committee decided with eight to two votes to follow the officer’s report recommendation to:
‘A) DELEGATE TO THE HEAD OF CITY DEVELOPMENT TO GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETION OF A LEGAL AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED) TO SECURE THE FOLLOWING:
• Laying out of landscaping of Grace Road Fields,
• Ongoing management of Grace Road Fields,
• Securing Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) of 57%, and management for 30 years,
• A carbon descent plan to secure ongoing reduction of fossil fuel use, and decrease in carbon
intensity of supplied heat, and monitoring thereof,
• Employment and skills plan to secure benefits locally.’
Keith Lewis as Chair of Exeter Civic Society presented a joint statement from the Society and Chris Pope, an interested Exeter resident, as opposers, which you can read under: https://exetercivicsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Statement-to-ECC-Planning-Committee-4-August-2025-v3.docx . Keith got a good number of follow-up questions, but our positions ultimately were not taken onboard. Our main point was to defer the decision so the applicant could submit additional information and disclose the Carbon Descent Plan to the Committee.
Paul Barker from 1Energy spoke on behalf of the developer as supporter. He stressed that a plant on this site would enable a transition to low Carbon energy heating, the site would be necessary to future-prove such a transition. Heat generation from water heat pumps, which the company had already built in Bristol, alongside the use of excess heat from the Waste to Energy plant were next steps. He added that a timeline for eventually removing the gas boilers could not be presented and that moving away from gas would need to be affordable. In a talk we had with him before the meeting started he pointed out that he thought the GRID would be improved by 2028-9 to supply sufficient energy to run all air source heat pumps. This then would mean 25% gas use as annual average, before any other heat sources would be brought in. Mr Barker also explained to us that 1Energy had tried to locate the plant closer to the railway line, but that this had been turned down by the Environmental Agency due to increased flood risks at the adjacent railway line.
After a focussed presentation by the planning officer the councillors had a good debate, which was followed by a concluding statement by the Director of Space, Ian Collinson. He pointed out that the area would count as modified grassland at the moment, and be used mainly by dog walkers. The project would mean to maximise the use of the space for residents and nature, with considerable nature net-gains. As the site had not been used as sport fields in the last 12 years, Section 106 contributions to reinstall playing fields were not possible. It has to be added that since sport use ended the field has been neglected by ECC and screened off for many years which has prevented public access. Exeter Civic Society would like to see the remaining part of the site developed with local people to find the best uses. Ian Collinson also stressed that 1Energy chose the site, not the City Council and that the sequential tests (which really only were estimating the flood-risk) had been run robustly and sufficiently. He concluded that this development now was a unique opportunity to move towards net zero.
The meeting showed clear improvements: the new order of speakers and the increase from 3 to 5 minutes for opposer and supporter, followed by an increased time for questioning provides better opportunities for input at this late stage. Together with an improved audio-video system in the Rennes Room it was easier for the audience to follow the proceedings.
As follow-up from the decision, Exeter Civic Society plans to contact the two Alphington councillors on the Committee together with Paul Parker to investigate positioning the building closer to the station despite the Enviromental Agency recommendation. As we pointed out in our statement, we think flood mitigating efforts have not been considered as much as they could have been. It would also be good to give the population of Exeter a more active role in the development of the public space of the site. We think ponds will be an unsafe option for this location – thinking of the child recently drowning in the canal.