Skip to main content

Decision details

Cabinet Report - 15 September 2016

Decision Maker: Council

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decisions:

 

The Leader presented the report of the special meeting of the Cabinet held on 15 September 2016

 

Arising thereon:

 

1)        Local Plan Review (Junction 27 and any associated housing need)

 

Councillor Mrs J Roach MOVED in accordance with Procedure Rule 19.4:

 

THAT the vote in respect of all three MOTIONS before the Council shall be by Roll Call”

 

This was AGREED

 

The Head of Planning and Regeneration was invited to give a presentation to Members:

 

She stated that before the meeting today was the issue of land allocation and that Council were not being requested to determine any particular scheme by the land promoter or an application by the land promotor. She also clarified that business rate revenue was not a material planning consideration and should not form part of consideration of an allocation. She outlined the history of the site and the various plan options and representations made over many years, the agreement for the new area of growth identified east of Cullompton and that a new settlement limit option north of Willand was not pursued; the proposed submission plan of 2014 that had omitted J27 as allocated land and the work that had taken place to date to address the issues raised in 2014.

 

She identified the site by way of presentation, highlighting the elements of the allocation and the land ownership evidence. In reply to a question posed at public question time with regard to previous planning on the site, there was still an outline permission for a road side services area which was still capable of being developed out which included a 350 sqm shop, a rest area, a tourist information centre, parking and service yard.

 

The tourism and leisure opportunity would be supported by a retail facility in the form of a designer outlet village. She addressed the work that had taken place by the Council’s Retail Consultant and the issue of trade draw which had been highlighted during public question time, it had been suggested that there would be some trade draw impact but that this would be offset by comparison goods expenditure growth. Consultant advice was that overall impact of trade draw was not considered significant.

 

She also explained the “Duty to Cooperate” consultation that had taken place with surrounding local authorities and highlighted the issues raised by representatives from North Devon Council earlier in the meeting with regard to  the impact on local retail and the search for other sites within certain drive times, which could be extended if requested.  There was some comparison goods expenditure leakage out of the district and it was thought that allocation of land at J27 could clawback some of the spend into the district.  Although some concerns had been raised with regard to the impact on retail, an allocation was still thought to be sound.

 

The officer addressed the housing issue identified during public question time. An updated assessment for the whole of the Local Plan had resulted in an additional 400 houses as the result of finalisation of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. It was felt that the additional dwellings could be met within allocated sites taking into account permissions granted.  The National Planning Policy Framework acknowledged the importance of ensuring housing numbers and employment opportunities were considered in tandem. There was a need to allocate additional land to accommodate 260 dwellings in the vicinity of Junction 27 if the land were to be put forward.

 

Again referring to questions posed in public question time  with regard to unemployment rates, this was 3% in Mid Devon, 3.9% across the south west against 5.2% nationally.

 

She highlighted a table of potential sites that had previously been consulted on. There was a need to consider sites that had a geographical relationship with J27.  Because the main focus of growth within the Local Plan review would be directed to Cullompton and additional infrastructure improvements would be required before this land could come forward, the housing allocation in question at Cullompton would not be added to, Crediton and the western villages had been discounted due to distance, Hartnoll Farm on the outskirts of Tiverton had also been discounted because of its size, land at Hemyock had already been granted planning permission for 22 dwellings, land at Kentisbeare had received objections from the Parish Council and additional development in Willand had raised highway concerns. Therefore the land at Blundells Road, Tiverton and Higher Town, Sampford Peverell had been supported by the Cabinet. The site at Sampford Peverell would be for 60 dwellings allowing for part of the land to be used to mitigate against the access and landscaping issues.

 

Referring again to public question time and the questions referring to the allocation of land at Sampford Peverell, this had not been included in the emerging plan as the additional number of houses was not felt to be required at that time.  The Highway Authority had no issues with regard to the creation of a safe access and that discussions were ongoing with regard to additional infrastructure on the A361 in the area of J27.

 

The tourism study and tourism policy were also highlighted, it was felt that there was an identified tourism need and that the allocation would make a significant contribution to tourism in the area meeting certain themes within the study.  Extensive discussions were taking place with Devon County Council Highway Authority and Highway England with regard to junction improvements should the allocation be approved.  Landscaping and ecology issues were also addressed including the need for appropriate assessment.

 

She addressed issues raised with regard to the timescale for submission of the Local Plan Review upon which advice had been sought from the Planning Inspectorate.  Without the inclusion of J27 the plan could be submitted in November of this year with a possible adoption date of July 2017.  With the inclusion of land at J27, there would be an additional 6 week consultation period with the plan being submitted by the end of March 2017 and possible adoption in October 2017; she also addressed the financial implications of  making a J27 allocation.

 

Referring again to the questions posed at the beginning of the meeting, she felt that she had addressed the issues with regard to previous applications at J27, possible time delays, business rates, further consultation, the physical character of the Sampford Peverell site, the duty to cooperate and weight to be given to objections; any proposals regarding a school at J27 had not been put before the planning authority. The need for additional evidence collection for the allocation at Junction 28 was the reason why the plan had been delayed.  Any constraints with regard to infrastructure at Sampford Peverell would be dealt with at the application stage.  With regard to flooding issues, this was not a high risk area and mitigation against any possible flooding could take place.  With regard to the possible migration of workers, 1100 jobs on the site could reclaim some of that migration.  Liaison between the land promoters and the Local Planning Authority had taken place as part of pre-app discussions. There was nothing to prevent this taking place, these were totally separate matters; further with regard to pre-app discussions being confidential, the authority did ask that the developer consult with the public and she believed such public consultation sessions had taken place.  It would be unusual for a proposal of this scale to not have pre-application discussions. With regard to planning restrictions on any retail development at J27, planning restrictions could be progressed via conditions or Section 106 agreements. It was not unusual for a Local Authority to have issue with a 5 year land supply.

 

Consideration was then given to the subject by Members of the Council:

 

·         The additional period of consultation

·         Why the components of the allocation were highlighted in the presentation

·         Land availability within the proposed site

·         The additional housing required

·         The reduction in the size of the site  and why the area north of the A38 was no longer included

·         The planning performance agreement as part of the pre-app discussions

·         Concerns of local residents and the consultation process

·         The impact on local trade

·         Inward investment and the regeneration of Mid Devon

·         Employment for young people in the area

·         The need for tourism attractions in the district

·         How other areas have thrived following the creation of tourist attractions

·         The impact of the delay in submission of the plan and the possibility of the continuation of 5 year land supply problems

 

a)    The Leader MOVED seconded by Councillor P H D Hare-Scott

 

THAT the recommendation of the Cabinet as set out in Minute 62 (a) be ADOPTED

 

Those voting FOR the MOTION: Councillors: Mrs E M Andrews, Mrs H Bainbridge, Mrs A R Berry, Mrs J B Binks, K Busch, Mrs F J Colthorpe, D R Coren, W J Daw, R M Deed, Mrs G Doe, J M Downes, C J Eginton, P H D Hare-Scott, P J Heal, T G Hughes, Mrs B M Hull, F W Letch, B A Moore, R F Radford, F J Rosamond, C R Slade, Miss C E L Slade, Mrs E J Slade, T W Snow, J D Squire, Mrs M E Squires, L D Taylor, Mrs N Woollatt and R Wright.

 

Those voting AGAINST the MOTION: Councillors R J Chesterton, R J Dolley, R Evans, S G Flaws, Mrs J Roach, J L Smith and R L Stanley.

 

Those ABSTAINING from voting; Councillor Mrs C A Collis.

 

Upon a vote being taken, the MOTION was declared to have been CARRIED.

 

b)    The Leader MOVED seconded by Councillor C R Slade

 

THAT the recommendation of the Cabinet as set out in Minute 62 (b) be ADOPTED

 

A roll call of Members present at the meeting was then taken:

 

Those voting FOR the MOTION: Councillors: Mrs E M Andrews, Mrs  Bainbridge, Mrs A R Berry, Mrs J B Binks, K Busch, Mrs F J Colthorpe, D R Coren, W J Daw, R M Deed, J M Downes, C J Eginton, P H D Hare-Scott, P J Heal, T G Hughes, Mrs B M Hull, F W Letch, B A Moore, F J Rosamond, C R Slade, Miss C E L Slade, Mrs E J Slade, T W Snow, J D Squire, Mrs M E Squires, L D Taylor, Mrs N Woollatt and R Wright.

 

Those voting AGAINST the MOTION: Councillors: R J Chesterton, Mrs C A Collis, Mrs G Doe, R J Dolley, R Evans, S G Flaws, R F Radford, Mrs J Roach, J L Smith and R L Stanley

 

Following discussion and upon a vote being taken, the MOTION was declared to have been CARRIED.

 

c)    The Leader MOVED seconded by Councillor P H D Hare-Scott

 

THAT the recommendation of the Cabinet as set out in Minute 62 (c) be ADOPTED

 

A roll call of Members present at the meeting was then taken:

 

Those voting FOR the MOTION: Councillors: Mrs H Bainbridge, Mrs A R Berry, Mrs J B Binks, K Busch,  R J Chesterton, Mrs F J Colthorpe, D R Coren, W J Daw, R M Deed, Mrs G Doe, C J Eginton, R Evans, P H D Hare-Scott, P J Heal, T G Hughes, Mrs B M Hull, F J Rosamond, C R Slade, Miss C E L Slade, Mrs E J Slade, J D Squire, Mrs M E Squires, R L Stanley and Mrs N Woollatt

 

Those voting AGAINST the MOTION: Councillors: Mrs E M Andrews, Mrs C A Collis, R J Dolley, J M Downes, S G Flaws, F W Letch, B A Moore, R F Radford, Mrs J Roach, J L Smith, T W Snow, L D Taylor and R Wright.

 

Following discussion and upon a vote being taken, the MOTION was declared to have been CARRIED.

 

The Council had before it questions * submitted by Councillor Mrs J Roach in accordance with Procedure Rule 13.2(1) together with responses from the Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration.

 

Notes:

 

(i)            Councillor P H D Hare-Scott made the following statement: “I have sought advice from the Monitoring Officer over whether I have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in terms of my pension from Friends Life (who are associated with Eden Westwood).  As this decision is about whether or not to allocate land at J27 as a major modification to the Local Plan, which could be implemented by any developer and is not a decision on proposals from Eden Westwood, I have been advised that I do not need to make any declaration” 

 

(ii)           Councillor R L Stanley also stated that he had a pension with Friends Life;

 

(iii)          Councillor Mrs H Bainbridge declared a personal interest as she owned a small holiday complex

 

(iv)         It was noted that all Members had either received correspondence, telephone calls and/or attended public exhibitions

 

 

 

Publication date: 26/09/2016

Date of decision: 22/09/2016

Decided at meeting: 22/09/2016 - Council

Accompanying Documents: