Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies.

To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.

Cllr Warren (Willand Parish Council)  stated that:

This question relates to item 4  (Local Plan Review) of your agenda.

I find it of considerable concern that it is necessary to ask this question but it has been asked twice before at public meetings and has not been answered.

It is not directed at paid officers as the assumption is made that they are acting on the instructions of elected Members.

It is directed at those Cabinet Members who in 2014 and 2015 voted not to include land at Junction 27 in the Emerging Local Plan yet since that time have persisted in activities which have caused us to be where we are today.

What has happened to bring you to change your position or did your earlier vote not show your true views?

The second part of my question relates to the whole process for the inclusion of land at Junction 27 into the plan. A very comprehensive document has been prepared by officers of over 600 pages on the Local Plan yet after publication of the agenda and report on 16 November 2016 your Members Services Manager had to send out amendments to pages 551 and 552 in relation to the revised policy in relation to Junction 27.

We keep getting told that this is about the allocation of land in the plan at Junction 27 yet every presentation and document has the Eden Westwood vision and proposals all over it, which makes it virtually impossible for another developer/visionary to meet the criteria.

How long are you going to continue to show a lack of respect for the intelligence of Parish/Town Councils and our communities by persisting in this myth that none of this is to do with Eden Westwood?

The following answer was provided by the Head of Planning and Regeneration during the debate: she felt that the first part of the question was directed at the Cabinet Members and therefore she would leave them to answer.  With regard to the supplement with amendments to the Junction 27 policy after the agenda had been published: a meeting had taken place with “Duty to Cooperate” partners and strategic consultees with regard to cross boundary issues, concerns had been raised regarding the level of control in respect of retail aspects of the policy, because of these concerns, together with similar expressed by the Planning Policy Advisory Group, the policy had been amended.

With regard to the proposed policy within the plan and whether other developers could meet the criteria, there was a need to strike a balance between control in order for the Council’s aspirations for the site to be met, , whilst ensuring that the development within the allocation could be delivered by a range of developers.  She gave examples of where components of the proposed policy had been delivered elsewhere by other developers.

The Leader stated that he had indeed changed his mind since 2014, when the original decision had been made the housing numbers were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

To receive the minutes of the meeting of 27 October 2016 (attached)

The minute of the previous meeting held on 27 October were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration requesting consideration of suggested modifications to the proposed submission local plan and to make appropriate recommendations to Council.

The Cabinet had before it a report* of the Head of Planning and Regeneration  requesting consideration of suggested modifications to the proposed submission Local Plan and to make appropriate recommendations to Council.

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Regeneration outlined the contents of the report highlighting the consultation process that had taken place in 2015, following the consultation additional technical work was required prior to submission to the Secretary of State to ensure that the position was robust.  The additional technical evidence had resulted in a delay in submitting the plan.  The external technical work, reliant on statutory consultees’ involvement, had taken longer than anticipated to complete.  Agreement on the flood modelling work for Junction 28 of the M5 at Cullompton was now expected to coincide with the proposed further round of consultation commencing in January 2016.  Also since the last round of consultation in 2015 the Council had proposed to allocate land in the Local Plan for tourism, leisure and retail use at Junction 27 of the M5 and related residential allocations.  This had resulted in making the necessary amendments to the plan to reflect this decision, there was also a need to consider changes to Government guidance, updated permissions, completions data and additional evidence.

He outlined the decisions already made by Council in December 2014 and the additional decision in September 2016 to allocate land at Junction 27 and the masterplanning exercise north west of Cullompton.  Therefore it was only the modifications to the plan that required approval.

He then provided a list of changes which had been highlighted by track changes within the Cabinet report.

With regard to the additional housing sites required in connection with the proposed allocation at Junction 27, he reported that the Planning Policy Advisory Group had requested that officers give further consideration to whether there was a need to allocate land at Higher Town, Sampford Peverell (SP2).As Members noted that the proposed allocation at Blundells Road, Tiverton (TIV16) was for 200 houses only; whereas the adopted Local Plan allocation was for 200 dwellings together with 7,000 square metres of employment floorspace.  Members therefore wished to understand whether there was scope to increase the housing numbers since the employment floorspace was not proposed to be included in the new policy. Officers had reviewed the Blundells Road proposed allocation, if increased to 260 dwellings, the density would rise to approximately 43 dwellings per hectare.  The allocation as a whole included land subject to flooding, increasing the number of houses above that proposed would give less flexibility in the design of the flood mitigation measures and would be likely to position housing closer to areas that would remain subject to flooding. A higher residential density could also lead to a less satisfactory residential environment and leave less land available for a sustainable urban drainage system. Importantly development of the site must also safeguard a strategic road route through the site to serve as a road access for future development needs beyond the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration requesting consideration of the Draft Community Infrastructure Levy and associated policies for recommendation to Council.

The Cabinet had before it a report* of the Head of Planning and Regeneration requesting consideration of the Draft Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and associated policies.

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration outlined the contents of the report  highlighting the previous decision in January 2015 and informing the meeting that because of the time delay the  proposed rates had now been reviewed  Having taken account of the viability update and review and the representations received,  the Consultant had considered no changes were proposed to the draft charging schedule levy rates.

Some minor changes were proposed to give greater clarity to the document, also an Instalments Policy for larger schemes, and a “Payment in kind” policy statement had now been included. 

Following the Council decision on 22 September to include an additional strategic allocation at Junction 27 in the Local Plan it was suggested that, as with the other strategic allocations, that it should be included in Zone 1.  This would result in a zero CIL charge for the Junction 27 development, with infrastructure improvements sought through Section 106 agreement.  This approach was considered by officers to be entirely appropriate given the nature of the development and the scale of infrastructure improvements required.  Owing to this change it was recommended that a further round of CIL consultation be undertaken alongside the Local Plan consultation.

(Proposed by Cllr R J Chesterton and seconded by Cllr Mrs M E Squires)

Note: Report * previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.

Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration proposing a revised timetable for the review of the Local Plan in the Local Development Scheme for Mid Devon.

The Cabinet had before it a report* of the Head of Planning and Regeneration proposing a revised timetable for the review of the Local Plan in the Local Development Scheme for Mid Devon.

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Regeneration outlined the contents of the report stating that as the plan moved towards submission there was a need to update the timetable.

(Proposed by Cllr R J Chesterton and seconded by Cllr P H D Hare-Scott)

Note: *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.