Decision Maker: Planning Committee
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
The Committee had before it * a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application which at the Planning Committee meeting on 23rd October 2019, Members had advised that they were minded to refuse the above application and invited an implications report for further consideration.
The Interim Group Manager for Development outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location plan, the proposed access onto the site, the indicative site layout, the highways and access plan which identified the proposed footways and shared surfaces and provided photographs from various aspects of the site. She walked through the implications report highlighting the reasons for refusal that members had identified at the previous meeting:
The Local Plan Review is at an advanced stage and neither the adopted Local Plan nor the Local Plan Review allocate this site which lies outside of the settlement limits of Silverton for housing development.
She explained that the policies within the existing Local Plan were out of date and not in accordance with the NPPF, therefore those policies had limited weight. Limited weight should also be given to the emerging Local Plan as it had not been adopted, therefore the tilted balance had to be applied.
The Council considers that it is able to demonstrate a 7.43 year housing land supply without the development site and there is no need for this further housing.
She explained that the authority did have a 7.43 year housing land supply but that the Local Plan policies were out of date, therefore the tilted balance had to be applied and that limited weight should be given to policies COR3, COR 17 and COR 18. She also outlined the housing need identified within the report.
The development would have an unacceptable visual impact.
She explained that the proposed development site was surrounded by modern development with the western site looking onto open countryside, the presence of the new dwellings would sit within the existing landscape and that it was not accepted that this would impact on the visual amenity.
Unacceptable harm would arise as a result of the proposed access arrangements and traffic generation arising from the development.
She explained that the Highway Authority were the expert consultees and that the Highway Authority did not agree that unacceptable harm would arise as a result of the proposed access arrangements and that the proposal was in accordance with the NPPF.
If granted the development would have an unacceptable cumulative impact with other housing granted in the village.
She explained that 20 additional dwellings in the village was only an increase of 2.2% in dwellings, this was not considered unacceptable.
Providing answers to questions posed in public question time, the Interim Group Manager for Development stated that she had answered the question of the housing need and affordable housing through her presentation, there was no development plans for the site, so therefore the tilted balance within the NPPF would be applied. The letter from the objectors had been distributed to the committee and any appeal would consider which policies to apply. If an appeal took place and the Local Plan had been adopted, then yes the new Local Plan policies would apply. If not then the existing policies would apply and these were out of date. The highway representations had been received from the Highway Authority who were the expert consultees for the application. With regard to the tilted balance within the NPPF, this had been explained.
Discussion took place regarding:
· Within the reasons for refusal at 3.1 of the report, there was no mention of COR17 or COR 18 within the existing Local Plan or policies S13 and S14 within the emerging Local Plan, it was felt that these policies had limited weight and should be included within the reasons for refusal.
· The site was not included in either the existing or emerging Local Plans and that 61 houses were for sale within the village and whether there was a need for the additional housing.
· People were being encouraged to walk or cycle to work, but there was no regular bus service in the village.
· The highway surveys that had taken place.
· The need to identify material planning considerations for any refusal.
· Road safety issues onto the Exeter road.
It was therefore
RESOLVED that the application be refused on the following grounds:
The development is for the erection of up to 20 dwellings outside the settlement limit boundaries of Silverton and represents a major residential proposal on a site for which there is no development planned for within either adopted or emerging policy and for which there is no current need as the Council can demonstrate a 7.43 year housing land supply without this site. The Local Planning Authority consider that the proposed unplanned development would have an unacceptable visual impact, would cause unacceptable harm as a result of the proposed access arrangements and traffic generation arising from the development and would have an unacceptable cumulative impact on Silverton when taking into account other housing granted in the village. 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, COR2 and COR9 of the Mid Devon Core Strategy (Local Plan Part 1) and Policies DM1 and DM2 of the Mid Devon Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies) and policies COR17 and COR18 of the Mid Devon Core Strategy (Local Plan Part 1) and policies S13 and S14 of the emerging Local Plan Review.
(Proposed by Cllr B G J Warren and seconded by Cllr Mrs C A Collis)
i) Cllr Mrs C P Daw declared a personal interest as she was a trustee of a horse sanctuary in the village of Silverton;
ii) A proposal to approve the application was not supported;
iii) Cllrs Mrs F J Colthorpe and D J Knowles requested that their vote against the decision be recorded;
iv) Cllrs Mrs C A Collis, R F Radford and B G J Warren would represent the Council should the application be appealed;
v) *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
Publication date: 26/11/2019
Date of decision: 20/11/2019
Decided at meeting: 20/11/2019 - Planning Committee