Venue: Town Hall, Cullompton
Contact: Sally Gabriel Member Services Manager
Link: audiorecording
No. | Item | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS To receive any apologies for absence and notices of appointment of substitute.
Minutes: 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.
Minutes: Hon. Alderman Mrs Linda Holloway referring to all applications stated:
S106 obligations between the three applications:
· Will the officers’ apportionment be negotiable by the 3 applicants? · Can an applicant refuse or challenge the apportionment? · If they can, what assurances will officers give us that there will be no further dilution of the S106 requirements? Recommendations to approve each application:
· To ensure S106 is delivered for the whole of phase 1, shouldn’t permission be conditional on all 3 agreements being signed simultaneously after apportionment, to prevent any reneging and jeopardising the whole package?
Footway from the site to St George’s View:
There is a long section alongside an extremely tall wall adjacent to the highway at St George’s Well House. The wall received retrospective planning permission but only after DCC Highways insisted on a sloping narrow kerb as a buffer that could not be walked on, to comply with safety issues. Construction of a full width footway was considered not safe for pedestrians.
· Have safety requirements changed? Full Application - national space standards:
· Why is it deemed acceptable to approve 8 Leicester houses 2 square meters below national space standards? · Why are 39 Anmouth houses each 10 sq meters less than the required national standard being compromised on? A terrace of 4 houses has only 3.5 meters garden depth to a wall, below the adequate amenity space.
· They all fall short of national standards, so is this not a compromise too far to be included in ‘planning balance’ when people will have to live in these conditions? The report describes ‘awkward parking arrangements’ in one section · Why are you saying this is alright? Several committee members will remember a previous Head of Planning telling us that we should not be satisfied with the ordinary, with standard housing and development, but we should insist on the best.
· Why are members being recommended to approve what the report says is a ‘standard layout and standard house type’ just because the developer cannot make a better development viable? · Don’t we deserve better? Adam Powell stated:I live midway between Cullompton and Honiton. I guess from the number of large historic listed buildings and the width of the market high street that Cullompton was originally the richer town. It certainly was a fine market town, built on local wealth by local labour. Of course local people need homes to live in and be proud of. My question isto ask the people in this room, will this development give us that, or will it give us a housing estate tacked onto the edge of an expanding dormitory town that one simply passes through?
I am specifically concerned about the following:
· Significantly below minimum delivery of affordable housing (10% proposed, 35% recommended) with no re-statement of a definition of ‘affordable’. What are the average selling prices of these affordable houses predicted to be? · No delivery of good quality social housing to rent · No delivery of sheltered housing for the elderly · A cursory mention of carbon neutral building ... view the full minutes text for item 136. |
|||||||||
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.
Minutes: The following interests were reported:
|
|||||||||
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (00-19-46) PDF 201 KB Members to consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 3 April 2019. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 3 April 2019 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. |
|||||||||
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (00-20-34) To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
Minutes: The Chairman reminded Members of the Committee that the next meeting would take place on Tuesday 23 April 2019. |
|||||||||
To receive a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration considering the overarching S106 package between the three planning applications currently under consideration, which together constitute the first phase of development at the NW Cullompton urban extension. Minutes: The Committee had before it a * report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration considering the overarching S106 package between the three planning applications currently under consideration.
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the whole of the site and the 3 individual application sites and their relationship to the adopted masterplan. She provided a list of the S106 package and with them the masterplan trigger points and explained that it was proposed there would be 10% affordable housing across the whole of phase 1 with phase 2 being at a higher percentage. The affordable housing contribution had been reduced because of the high infrastructure costs and the contribution to the relief road. She highlighted the route for the link road which would be cross 2 of the 3 application sites and informed the meeting of the proposed offsite highway works to include footways and cycleways, sports pitch, play area and multi-use games area, the provision of upgraded public rights of way and health garden at Culm Valley Health Centre and financial contributions towards education, special educational needs and the expansion of the doctors surgery. She also outlined the financial contributions and obligations being proposed for phase 2 of the development.
The total package of the S106 agreement would be apportioned between the 3 applications, if 1 or 2 did not come forward, there would be a need to re-priortise.
The Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration then responded to questions posed in public question time:
· With regard to the apportionment across the 3 applications, there would be a need to negotiate as the applications did differ. There had been no equalisation agreement between the applicants, so apportionment would take place via the S106 agreement. The applicants could of course challenge the S106 agreement during its negotiation or if there was a dilution of the agreement, the issue would be returned to the Planning Committee. · With regard to some of the dwellings being below the National Space Standards on the Persimmon application, this formed part of the planning balance issue before committee members. With regard to insisting on the best, through negotiation officers had sort to do that. · With regard to the wall at St Georges View, Mr Sorenson explained that it was hoped that this road would have a lesser status when the new road had been achieved and that it was proposed to look at the footpath and traffic management along Willand Road. A safety audit would take place and it was felt that a footpath and a crossing point could be achieved. · With regard to the questions from Mr Powell, the urban extension had a broad range of policies which covered the green infrastructure, phasing and highway works. The adopted Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document set out how the extension would be delivered. The percentage of affordable housing was significantly less that the normal requirements and they would be 50% rent and 50% intermediate. The definition ... view the full minutes text for item 140. |
|||||||||
To receive a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration with regard to this application. Minutes: The Committee had before it * report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application. The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report highlighting by way of presentation the location of the application which identified the sports pitch (which would be delayed until phase 2 of the development), the aerial view of the site, the access onto Willand Road and the land identified for employment use (at phase 2), an illustrative plan, the green buffer zone on the hill top, photographs from various locations looking into the site and visual assessment plans. Consideration was given to: · The view of the representative of the applicant with regard to the work that had taken place to bring the application forward, the masterplanning exercise and the consultation process that had taken place; the delivery of the link road and the provision of land for the school and the delivery of the school. The contribution requested for the Cullompton relief road. The additional costs and contributions had led to the reduction in affordable housing being provided and the further request for the provision of a footway on Millenium Way. · The view of the Ward Member with regard to: the Millenium Sluice which was built by the Environment Agency to divert water in times of flood. Unfortunately, in practice it has behaved as somewhat of a dam and Cullompton Mill Leat has been starved of its previous level of water supply for many years. No amount of complaints to EA, MP or Ministers by either the Leat Board or Town Council have ever been able to resolve the problem. Currently St Georges Well stream feeds into the leat downstream from this sluice. Because the water supply to the leat is now so poor, the water which enters from St Georges Well catchment is quite precious in assisting to maintain the water level, flow and the amenity and ecological value of the leat. The reports are all concerned with prevention flood risk, which is absolutely as it should be. However the other side is not considered and she would like an assurance that steps will be taken to ensure that the current flows into the leat from St Georges Well stream catchment will not be reduced and also flows further upstream which contribute to the Spratford Stream. she wondered what effect all the ponds would have on the amount of water getting through to the watercourses which frequently already flow at very low levels?
She referred to
Page 39 – culvert to reduce flooding on B3181 Page 51 – did this mean we will continue to have flooding issues north of Willand Rd/Millenium Way roundabout? Surely land ownership issues can be overcome if it’s infrastructure which is needed to prevent flooding on this road? Page 59 – pleased to see an inspection regime for the attenuation pond construction, from problems we have had in the past this is really important.
Concern with regard the 10% affordable housing proposed, ... view the full minutes text for item 141. |
|||||||||
To receive a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration with regard to this application. Minutes: The Committee had before it * report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application. The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report highlighting by way of presentation the location of the proposal to the southern section of the site; this was a hybrid application which also considered a full application for part of the site containing the road link into the neighbouring land parcel over the existing bridleway, and the Pegasus bridleway crossing over the new link road. The latter was provided in detail to ensure alignment with the adjacent section of the road, where it crossed into a separate application site. She highlighted the illustrative plan and provided photographs from various location looking into the site. Consideration was given to: · Whether there would be any ransom strips and whether the road would join up, the officer stated that non-ransom provisions were to be included within the S106 agreement, it was intended to build the road all in one go and the road would be 6.5 metres wide. · Whether the link road would be accessible from the estate · Maintenance issues · The views of the Town Council with regard to the houses facing onto the link road in the illustrative diagram: this would be addressed within the reserved matters · The view of the applicant with regard to the delivery of the road.
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to: the prior signing of a Section 106 agreement and conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning Economy and Regeneration. (Proposed by the Chairman) Notes i) Cllr Smith (Cullompton Town Council ) spoke;
ii) Mr Turner, the applicant spoke;
iii) Further response from South West Water dated 12th April 2019
As a result of changes to our charging policy introduced in April this year which has increased the connection charges in relation to new developments any improvements required to upgrade our infrastructure are to be funded by South West Water and not developers.
In view of this the request for planning conditions as stated in my response to the application are no longer required as improvements to the foul drainage network will be delivered by South West Water to ensure the development can be supported without detriment to the public foul drainage systems.
Condition 25 should therefore be deleted.
Condition 20: At the request of the applicant, the first line of the condition should be amended as follows:
“No dwelling The Highway Authority has agreed this change and your officers consider this amendment to be reasonable.
Condition 22: At the request of the applicant, the condition should be amended as follows:
No
development above slab level shall take place |
|||||||||
To receive a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration with regard to this application. Minutes: The Committee had before it * report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application. The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report stating that this was a full application which wrapped around the existing health centre on Willand Road. She identified the layout of the site, the location of the spine road, the parallel parking bays, footway and cycle routes, the site of the attenuation ponds, the houses orientated across the site, the school site, the tree line that would be protected and the community orchard and health garden. She highlighted the road access and the priority road changes proposed, the detail of the retaining walls, the street elevations, the layout of the dwellings, site sections, house types, garages and bin stores and provided photographs from various aspects of the site. Consideration was given to: · The management plan for the attenuation ponds · Disappointment with regard to the need for quality design to a specific standard which was not the case · Lack of provision of renewable energy, ie solar or carbon saving schemes · Concern with regard to the size of the “Almouth” house design and the size of the gardens · Electric car charging points · The views of the applicant with regard to the layout and topography of the site, the access to the sites and detail of the attenuation ponds · The view of the Town Council with regard to concerns for access to the school site and traffic issues at busy time and whether there would be parking provision at the school · The view of the Ward Member with regard to the parallel parking spaces on the roadside, were these within the curtilage of the 6.5m road width or in addition? If within the 6.5m road width this was not acceptable we would end up with another Kingfisher Reach with the width of the road diminished by parked cars when we have said all along this road needs to be to the standard of a distributor road. Would there be tree preservation orders on the trees on site? Would there be a condition with regard to preventing netting to stop bird nesting. 47 of the 200 homes were below the national space standard that was 23.5%. Do we want to see a development of rabbit hutches on this site? Small living spaces have an impact on wellbeing and quality of life and can impact on mental health and family relationships. Certainly those that are 10 square metres below standard were not acceptable. NSS should be a minimum requirement. She expected better from a company which made more than £1billion in profit last year and declared on its website that it “places great importance on the contribution the company makes to the communities it serves”. 10% affordable housing delivery was not good enough and neither were substandard house sizes. · The concerns of the adjacent Ward Member with regard to the lack of renewable energy on the site, she felt that the community health ... view the full minutes text for item 143. |
|||||||||
S106 MATTERS, APPLICATIONS COMPRISING PHASE 1 OF DEVELOPMENT AT NW CULLOMPTON URBAN EXTENSION, RELATING TO APPLICATIONS 17/01170/MOUT, 17/01178/MFUL AND 17/01346/MOUT Minutes: Following consideration of the 3 applications on the site, Members (as mentioned in minute 140) further considered the S106 package.
Discussion took place regarding the offsite highway works, the unacceptable level of affordable housing across the site, the need for design issues to be addressed, the viability of the site and the need to include the Ward members and Cabinet Member for Housing in further discussions.
It was therefore RESOLVED that the item be deferred for further negotiation over the overall S106 package for applications 17/01170/MOUT, 17/01178/MFUL and 17/01346/MOUT to take place in terms of viability, costings, inclusions and in particular the percentage of affordable housing and the inclusion of a footpath/cycleway along Millennium Way. Delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration to undertake the negotiations in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of Planning Committee, Ward Members and the Cabinet Member for Housing.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr D J Knowles)
|
|||||||||