Venue: Phoenix Chamber, Phoenix House, Tiverton
Contact: Sally Gabriel Member Services Manager
APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
To receive any apologies for absence and notices of appointment of substitute.
There were no apologies.
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.
Note: A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.
Mr Sauer referring to item 10, Silverdale, stated that I am the owner of the land next to Silverdale. To enable the development of the neighbourhood plan, Silverdale, the Parish Council made requests for land with potential for housing and I presume this included affordable housing. I was asked by the person co-ordinating the plan to send in details of land a Silverdale. This land was subsequently refused because I had sent in a scanned copy of the documents and it became too late. However, my question is how do Silverton Parish Council and Mid Devon District Council, who are both committed to providing affordable housing, intend to satisfy the requirement for affordable housing in Silverton which was identified by the housing needs assessment as significant and supported by 86% of the parishioners who responded to the Neighbourhood Plan request?
Mr Campbell stated in relation to item 10, Silverdale, If this proposed plan was approved it would be a major development where there is no development planned for within the adopted plan or the emerging plan. So why would it even be considered?
Mrs Campbell also referring to item 10 stated that I think you can see from the people behind me that have come from Silverton how strongly we feel about this. If members refuse the application as they were minded to do last month and the Mid Devon Local Plan is adopted between now and any potential appeal can you confirm which polices the appeal, would be determined against? It is my understanding that when the local plan is adopted that any potential appeal would be refused because the site is outside the settlement area.
Mr Berry referred to the development at Post Hill in item 9 and stated in principle I have nothing against the use and it would fit well in that location however, I am very concerned that Post Hill has a particular character and is visible for a long way heading east up Blundells Road to Post Hill with houses set well back from the road and a green corridor vista up to the tree top of Post Hill. From what I can see of the application houses 1 and 2 will stick out from a long way up Blundells Road and will be completely at odds with the local character that currently exists. I was minded to have a quick look at the design guides, specifically for this area, and I’ll quote page 27, some of the natural features that inform the design guide include:
a. Existing site boundaries
b. Vistas towards the North from the North East; and
c. A sensitive edge treatment between development landscape
Page 37, this is achieved by adhering to the structure imposed by the existing landscape considering the topographical constraints and upholding qualities and characteristics of the rich landscape setting to the east of the town.
Page 54, to this end the…… existing characteristics should be designed as a green boulevard the highest hierarchical new street typology. ... view the full minutes text for item 76.
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT
Councillors are reminded of the requirement to declare any interest, including the type of interest, and reason for that interest at each item.
Members were reminded of the need to declare any interests when appropriate.
Members to consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 23 October 2019
Subject to replacing the word ‘not’ with ‘nor’ in the resolution under Minute 70 (a), the minutes of the meeting held on 23 October were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (00-21-18)
To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
The Chairman welcomed Mrs Maria Bailey (Interim Group Manager for Development) to the meeting.
The Chairman indicated that she intended to take Item 10 (Silverdale, Silverton) as the next item of business, this was AGREED.
At the Planning Committee meeting on 23rd October 2019, Members advised that they were minded to refuse the above application and invited an implications report for further consideration.
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 ... view the full minutes text for item 81.
DEFERRALS FROM THE PLANS LIST
To report any items appearing in the Plans List which have been deferred.
There were no deferrals form the Plans List.
To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
a) No 1 on the Plans List (19/00718/MOUT – Outline for the erection of 26 dwellings – land at NGR 270904 112818 (The Barton), Belle Vue, Chawleigh).
The Area Team Leader informed the meeting that the application had been considered at the previous meeting and it had been resolved to defer the application to allow officers to negotiate with the developer with a view to reducing the number of dwellings on the site to 20 in total. Officers had met with the applicant who did not wish to amend the number of dwellings sought and thereby wished the application to be determined on the basis of 26 dwellings.
He outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation identifying the site location plan, the access to the site and the indicative layout of the proposed dwellings and provided photographs from various aspects of the site. He highlighted the Highways Authority’s updated view within the update sheet with regard to the number of dwellings being proposed for the shared highway surface. He explained the allocation of the site within the emerging Local Plan, the lack of objection from the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Highway Authority and the need for affordable housing in the village.
Further consideration was given to:
· The views of the applicant with regard to the allocation within the emerging Local Plan for a minimum of 20 dwellings on the site with 30% affordable housing, the lack of objection from consultees and that the internal layout of the site would be dealt with under reserved matters.
· The views of the Parish Council with regard to the number of dwellings proposed on the site and that 20 dwellings had been agreed with the Parish Council, however there had been no further dialogue with regard to the increase in the number of dwellings.
· The views of the Ward Member with regard to the increase in the number of dwellings on the site above the number within the allocation and whether this would set a precedent across the district.
· The proposed project within the parish for the public open space contribution.
· Any reserved matters application would deal with the detailed proposals.
· The allocation had outlined a minimum of 20 dwellings on the site.
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that the application be deferred to allow a site visit to take place by the Planning Working Group to consider:
· The impact of the traffic from the 6 additional dwellings
· The site access
· Possible road safety issues
· The impact of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring properties
· The impact of the development on heritage assets
(Proposed by Cllr F W Letch and seconded by Cllr Mrs C A Collis)
i) Cllr C J Eginton made a declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning Matters as he had been ... view the full minutes text for item 83.
List attached for consideration of major applications and potential site visits.
The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a list * of major applications with no decision.
It was AGREED that:
Application 19/01839/MOUT (Colebrook Lane, Cullompton) be brought before committee for determination
Application 19/01836/MOUT (Higher Town, Sampford Peverell) be brought before committee for determination
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to the Minutes
To receive for information a list of recent appeal decisions.
The Committee had before it and NOTED a list of appeal decisions * providing information on the outcome of recent planning appeals.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to Minutes.
To receive a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration providing the Committee with information on the performance of aspects of the planning function of the Council for Quarter 2 of 19/20.
The Committee had before it and NOTED a *report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding information on the performance of aspects of the planning function of the Council for Quarter 2 2019.
The Interim Group Manager for Development outlined the contents of the report stating that targets were being met with some areas outperforming the targets. There had been a backlog of applications that required decisions but this was being dealt with.
Consideration was given to the enforcement statistics and questions raised with regard to whether any monies had had to be repaid due to being determined beyond the 26 week period allowed and how many appeals there had been for non determination in the statutory time and if they were related to the applications for return of fees. The Interim Group Manager for Development stated that she did not have that information to hand but would find out and report back to the committee.
Note: *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.