Decision details

The Committee had before it an *  implications report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application; Members at the meeting on 5 September 2018, were minded to refuse planning permission, but a final decision was deferred pending consideration of an implications report.

 

The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report highlighting the proposed reasons for refusal identified at the previous meeting.  The meeting viewed a presentation which highlighted the proposed site for 125 dwellings outside the settlement limit of Willand, an aerial view which identified the affordable housing being built on Silver Street and the site by the Esso garage which had recently been to appeal.  She presented an indicative concept plan for the proposal of 125 dwellings and showed photographs from various aspects of the site.

 

In respect of the questions posed in public question time, she provided the following responses:

 

Cllr Warren asked:

 

1)    Whether para 2.2 was really addressing all the issues. He advised that size and scale of the proposal and the impact on the character of the village should include consideration of the cumulative impact on facilities and infrastructure. He was concerned that officers were attempting to ‘water down’ the reasons given by members to make it less likely to defend an appeal and wondered whether one reason for refusal was robust enough. 

Officers would comment that: we are here to provide professional advice to members for them to consider in the decision making process. It would be remiss of officers if we didn’t give professional advice on the likely success or otherwise at appeal nor remind members of the need to ensure that reasons for refusal are well-reasoned and robust to prevent cost being awarded at appeal. The cumulative impact on services and facilities are not dismissed but considered later in the report. Members have the ability to add further reasons for refusal if necessary but these should focus on the main issues rather than be a raft of reasons which would not stand up at appeal. More reasons for refusal does not make a scheme more likely to be dismissed at appeal but it can lead to an increased likelihood of costs being awarded against the council for unreasonable behaviour.

2)    Why officers are not using policies COR17 and 18 as reasons for refusal.

Officers would comment that: Page 93 of the report (starting with the third para up from the bottom) sets this out clearly and states that the proposal for the 259 dwellings WAS in conflict with COR17 and COR18 but in the para immediately below, it also states that as these are policies which were contributing to the lack of a 5 year housing land supply, the Inspector afforded them LIMITED weight. In the appeal for the 30 dwellings on the garage site, the Inspector refers to the conflict with policies COR17 and COR18 but in applying the tilted balance, he states that he will treat the most important policies accordingly and refers to them being out of date in the light of the councils housing supply. Therefore officers do not consider that sufficient weight can be attached to policies COR17 and 18 and would advise members against referring to these in any reason for refusal.

3)    Why officers left out reference to the proposal being contrary to policy COR12.

Officers would comment that: COR12 is a policy relating to the distribution of housing and given that the authority cannot demonstrate a 5 yhls, it must carry limited weight. However, it does set out the Councils strategy for promoting the vitality of the main urban areas and therefore accords generally with the NPPF which seeks to promote sustainable development. Therefore if members feel that COR12 should be included in the reason for refusal set out at para 3.0 of the report, then officers consider they may do so without prejudicing the authorities case at appeal

 

Cllr Grantham asked:

 

1)    For a clear definition of ‘prior to commencement’ as there are projects in the planning stage now so money in 2 or 3 years time may not be of help.

Officers would comment that: ‘prior to commencement’ can mean anytime until the moment the first trench is dug in the ground. Bearing in mind that this is an outline application, which if approved would still need to be subject to a reserved matters application which needs to be submitted within 3 years of the outline permission and then developers have 2 years to commence work after the RM has been granted, it may be some years before the developer is required to pay the s106 contributions. However, members must be mindful of the fact that s106 obligations are there to mitigate the impacts of a development and therefore it is not in fact until residents start to occupy the dwellings that the impact of the development on services and facilities will be felt, and mitigation required. The applicants have however agreed to some wording in the s106 that if the WHCC project does not go ahead, the contribution can be used for an alternative community project.

2)    If it’s appropriate for the applicant to approach DCC and the school and ask them to send correspondence to the committee.

Officers would advise that there is nothing which prevents them from doing so and the correspondence received has been posted on the public access system

3)    If it’s appropriate for the developer to ask for the description of the access proposal to be changed at this stage

Officers would advise that: this was to ensure that the development proposal was clear and unambiguous, having listened to the concerns that committee expressed at the meeting on 5^th Sept. The description has been amended and the ward members and parish council were advised of the change

4)    If its right that the monies for the school come from this development due to failings of DCC over a number of years

Officers would advise that: DCC were clear to advise that they can only seek contributions from developers where the development would lead to a school being oversubscribed. They have advised that this is not the case with Willand Primary School. The s106 obligation to fund the project for a new school studio arose from discussions with the ward members and parish council where it was felt this was a priority for the village. It will be for members to decide today whether the development with those s106 obligations is acceptable

 

Mr Marrow asked:

1)    In recent appeals there has been no appointment of planning consultants and why should this case be any different

Officers would advise that: a decision on whether it is necessary to appoint consultants is taken on a case by case basis. The application for 259 dwellings was the result of a delegated refusal so officers and the highway authority defended the appeal. The appeal for the 30 dwellings at the garage site was a written reps appeal where the appointed members contributed towards the written statement with officer assistance. Whether consultants are appointed to assist with an appeal would depend on issues such as the appeal method ( public inquiry, hearing or written reps) and the technical nature or otherwise of the reasons for refusal. It is therefore correct that members are made aware of the financial and legal implications of the decision they take

2)    Why is the risk of judicial review not raised

Officers would advise that: any decision the council make may be subject to judicial review and therefore it is not necessary to make specific reference that that in the written reports

3)    Have officers put the council at risk of a non-determination appeal

Officers would advise that:  any application is at risk of non-determination appeal where it remains undetermined at the statutory date but where negotiations are ongoing, extensions of time can be agreed. The applicant has not indicated that they would wish to pursue this at this time wishing instead for members to have the ability to consider the implications report in full at committee today.

 

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         How much weight could be given to the emerging Local Plan

·         The details of the S106 agreement

·         The implications of the applicant appealing any decision of refusal

 

It was therefore

 

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the following grounds

 

The development is for the erection of 125 dwellings outside the settlement limit

boundaries of Willand and represents a large-scale residential proposal on a site for which there is no development of this scale planned for within either adopted or emerging policy. The Local Planning Authority consider that the proposed unplanned development would be out of scale with the size of and facilities available in the settlement of Willand to the detriment of its long-term sustainability and social cohesion of the local community. When tested against Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Local Planning Authority consider that the adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole as well as being contrary to Policy COR1, COR9 and COR 12 of the Mid Devon Core Strategy (Local Plan Part 1) and Policy DM1 of the Mid Devon Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies).

 

(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr Mrs J Doe)

 

Notes:

 

i)          Cllrs: Mrs F J Colthorpe, Mrs G Doe, R B Evans, P J Heal, D J Knowles, F W Letch, B A Moore, R F Radford, J D Squires and R L Stanley made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing in Planning Matters as they had all received correspondence regarding this application;

 

ii)         Cllrs Mrs J Doe and R B Evans made further declaration  in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing in Planning Matters as they had had contact with the applicants and objectors as Ward Members;

 

iii)       Cllrs Mrs G Doe, R F Radford and R L Stanley to be available should the applicant appeal the decision.

 

iv)       The following late information was reported:

 

25.09.2018

Members are advised that a further letter has been received since the publication of the original agenda report from the Head teacher at Willand School as follows:

‘Further to the planning application 18/00175/MOUT, I am writing to confirm the position of Willand School with regard to the proposed financial contribution from this development towards the provision of additional space at the school.

 

Willand School has a net capacity of 420 places but there are accommodation deficiencies in some areas, notably with the lack of studio space. The additional studio proposal will support the delivery of the wider curriculum and limit problems of disturbance to neighbouring rooms in the current school. Although primarily to be used for curriculum music teaching to class-size groups, other design features will ensure its versatility for a variety of additional activities, including overspill dining space for the hall, a dance/drama space and small group interventions to support children who need targeted teaching.

 

The proposed studio project secured planning permission in April 2017 and we are ready to go out to tender when funding permits. However there are no funding sources identified for delivery of this project at this time’

 

2/10/2018

 

EMAIL FROM AGENT AS FOLLOWS:

 

Thank you for your email yesterday in respect of the speaking arrangements for the Planning Committee tomorrow; we note that we will still not be able to speak in respect of the main (Outline) application, but it would be possible to speak to the Access (Full) application (which would be considered second out of these two items).  I suspect that we will leave this as things will be covered in your report (including update report) and presentation, but could we maybe reserve the ability to say anything and we will confirm to the committee clerk at the meeting tomorrow?

 

Also whilst writing and having again reviewed the ‘Implications Report’ (for the Outline application), it is noted that the trigger points for S106 Obligations, which we had suggested in advance of the last meeting, are now included in the Heads of Terms that are at the front of the report.  As we specifically noted when submitting our suggestions in advance of the last meeting (my email of 28^th August 2018, attached for ease), these were a starting point for discussion/agreement with the LPA.  Although it seems that Officers are content with these suggestions, there has not been any specific discussion or refinement of these triggers with us to date.  Furthermore, it was apparent from the last meeting that the Parish Council and Local Members had not been able to consider these in advance of the committee meeting, and it is a high priority to them that the appropriate early triggers are agreed.  As such, I would just like to confirm that the applicant would be open to discuss and vary these specific details should any alternative arrangement/priority for the triggers be considered necessary/desirable.

 

iv)    *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.