Agenda item

To consider the planning applications contained in the list.

 

The Committee considered the applications in the plans list *. 

 

Note:   *List previously circulated; copy attached to the signed Minutes.

 

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)

 

Notes: 

 

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 involved in discussions with the Parish Council, the applicant and objectors to the application;

 

ii)            Cllr B G J Warren made a declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning Matters as he had received a letter from the agent

 

iii)           Mr Turner (Applicant) spoke;

 

iv)          The Chairman read a statement on behalf of the Chairman of Chawleigh Parish Council;

 

v)            Cllr C J Eginton spoke as Ward Member;

 

vi)          A proposal to grant permission was not supported;

 

vii)         The following late information was reported:

 

Highway Authority - 15^th November 2019

 

The above application was deferred by the planning committee for a review of the development, and the applicant has requested that the Highway Authority clarify its position in relation to the quantum of Housing being proposed from a shared surface road. In the initial response the Highway Authority commented on the delivery of 28 dwellings, but referred to the Design guide numbers and the previously agreed figures with the Parish council. The applicant subsequently reduced these numbers to 26. The design guide recommends 25 from a straight Cul-de-sac and turning head and up to 50 for a crescent. The application combines a straight Cul-de-sac (the existing) with a crescent (proposed). The Highway Authority advised that the 25 figure was flexible.

Therefore the Highway Authority would raise no objection to the provision of 26 units on top of the existing from a shared surface road given the combination of the two types and the minimal increase above the lower figure. This position is subject to the conditions previously recommended.

Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY,HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

 

b)            No 2 on the Plans List (17/02020/MFUL – Erection of building comprising 44 retirement apartments with associated communal lounge, manager’s officer, guest suite, rechargeable electric buggy store, car parking, substation and landscaping – Astra Printing and Crown Works site, Willand Road, Cullompton).

 

The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation explaining the site location plan which highlighted that the site was outside of the conservation area, the site was currently covered with existing buildings and that there was a full demolition programme due to take place.  She identified the surrounding houses and explained that the current access to the site would remain and that parking would be retained to the north of the site.  She outlined the proposed floor plans for the development, the proposed elevations and photographs taken from various aspects of the site.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The lack of a Section 106 agreement

·         The views of the agent with regard to the local need for retirement accommodation in the town, the NPPF which outlined the need to provide retirement accommodation, the pedestrian crossing which was part of the application which would give access to the bus stop, the release of family homes in the town, employment opportunities and new homes on a brownfield site.

·         The sensitive design which was thought to be in keeping with the surrounding area

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.

 

(Proposed by Cllr Mrs C A Collis and seconded by Cllr L J Cruwys)

 

Notes: 

 

i)             Mr Bendinelli (Agent) spoke;

 

ii)            The following late information was provided:

 

Please note the following amendment:

 

a)     The description should read 43 apartments not 44 – this is the case also where reference is made in the report to 44 apartments, this should be 43

b)     The number of parking spaces is 41 not 39

c)      No update to the drainage information has been provided but given that the LLFA satisfied that an ‘overall improvement to the surface water drainage system is being proposed’ it is considered that this can be dealt with via condition

d)     The balancing summary on page 69 should be amended to delete ‘That benefit would be added to here by an off-site monetary contribution to affordable housing in the district’

e)     Local finance considerations on page 70 should be amended so that it reads ‘With the introduction of the Localism Act 2011, the receipt of New Homes Bonus is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications although it carries limited weight.’

f)       Condition 10 should be amended so that the last sentence reads, ‘The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details’

g)     The reason for Grant of Consent  should be amended so that it reads, ‘The proposal would provide 43 additional apartments, thereby contributing appreciatively towards the supply of housing in an accessible location which is well positioned, with good pedestrian access to local shops, services and public transport links. As such, the Council attach significant weight to this consideration in the overall balance.

 

The proposed development would provide specialist accommodation for older people, for whom, according to the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), the need to provide housing at a national level is ’critical’. Evidence of a need for additional housing for older people in Cullompton has been

presented by the applicant and the Council have no sound basis to challenge this. The Council is also mindful that the occupation of apartments would also free up a mix of housing for others. Therefore, the Council attribute significant weight to the benefits of providing housing to meet current and future demographic trends.

 

It is accepted by the Council that there is a significant need and policy requirement for the provision of affordable housing. However the applicant has been able to successfully demonstrate that the scheme would be unviable with such contributions.

 

The Framework states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth. The construction of the proposed apartments would generate employment and the expenditure associated with the provision of 43 new units would benefit local shops and services.

 

In addition, paragraph 67 of the Framework also seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing. The Council places some weight on such considerations.

 

The Council have found no harm in respect of the effect of the proposed building on the Conservation Area, nor any material harm to views or the wellbeing of trees which contribute positively to the character of the Conservation Area that could not be mitigated through condition.

 

The benefits the development would bring, including housing for older people can reasonably be considered public benefits, and that these are substantial. The application proposal would accord with the development plan when taken as a whole. Accordingly, in the absence of any other harm, and taking into account all other matters raised, the

application should be granted.

 

c)            No 3 on the Plans List (19/00794/FULL – Erection of dwelling and double garage, formation of vehicular access and associated renewable energy systems and landscaping – land at NGR 308470 112426 (Craddock Lodge), Craddock).

 

The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report explaining that the proposed single dwelling was not within the settlement limit in the Local Plan, the site was also adjacent to the conservation area.  She highlighted by way of presentation the existing and proposed site plan, floor plans, elevations and photographs from various aspects of the site which included the proposed access and highlighted neighbouring properties.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The views of the representative for the objectors with regard to the impact of the development on the neighbouring properties, the site was in the open countryside and there was a need to protect the countryside against development, he felt that the proposed visibility splay was inadequate, there would be an impact on the heritage assets and impact on wildlife and biodiversity.

·         The views of the applicant who was very disappointed with the officers recommendation, he felt that the principle of development should be supported, the settlement limit was out of date and that the proposal would not cause any harm to the setting of the listed building, he felt that the proposal was infill, was of good design and would enhance the collective character of the houses in the area.

·         The view of Uffculme Parish Council who felt that the proposal was an extensive building in the open countryside, there was no link to agriculture and was outside the settlement limit and not in the Local Plan.

·         One of the Ward members stated that this was a proposed retirement home and the applicant was looking to downsize and the proposal was of good design.

·         Caselaw with regard to the term ‘isolated’ infill and the fact that Craddock was not a settlement and that approval would be setting a precedent.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.

 

(Proposed by Cllr F W Letch and seconded by Cllr Mrs C P Daw)

 

Notes: 

 

i)                   Cllr F W Letch declared a personal interest as one of the objectors was known to him;

 

iii)                 Cllrs S J Clist made a declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning Matters he had received emails and phone calls with regard to the application;

 

iv)                 Cllr L J Cruwys made a declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning Matters as he had spoken to the objectors;

 

v)                  Mr Dent spoke in objection to the application;

 

vi)                 Mr Marchmont (applicant) spoke;

 

vii)                Cllr Kingdom spoke on behalf of Uffculme Parish Council;

 

viii)               Cllr T G Hughes spoke as Ward Member;

 

ix)                 Cllrs E J Berry and Mrs C A Collis requested that their vote against the decision be recorded;

 

x)                  Cllr E J Berry left the meeting at this point.

 

xi)                 The following late information was reported:

 

The reason for refusal on page 87 should be amended as follows:

1. National and local planning policy states that local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances to justify an approval. The Local Planning Authority consider the proposals, do not offer a truly outstanding or innovative architectural design, or reflect the highest standards in architecture and result in harm from the development in respect to the local distinctiveness and character of the area,

setting of designated heritage assets including Craddock Conservation Area and immediate listed building. The proposal is considered to represent an unsuitable and unsustainable

development that harms these material considerations, and fails to meet the required economic, environmental and social objectives. On this basis the proposals are considered to be contrary to the following development Policy COR2 of the Mid Devon Core Strategy (Local Plan Part 1), Policies DM1, DM2, DM14 and DM27 of Mid Devon Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies) and the relevant National Planning Policy Framework.

 

 

d)            No 4 on the Plans List (19/00210/MFUL – Demolition of buildings and erection of 18 dwellings and associated works, including vehicular access, garages, parking and landscaping – 36 Post Hill, Tiverton).

 

The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location plan, the inclusion of the site within the Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension, associated Tiverton EUE Masterplan and Design Guide and the sites proximity to the development at Braid Park (under construction). She highlighted an aerial photograph of the site, the existing properties, the established building line, the proposed site plan and preferred vehicular access connecting to Braid Park and beyond.  She also highlighted the junction of the preferred route with Post Hill and the relationship of plots 1 and 2 with Post Hill properties.  She explained that the redundant buildings would be removed and there was a tree removal plan for the site. She also explained the vacant building credit in relation to affordable housing provision, the planting plan for the development and highlighted the elevations for plot 1 which was to be a landmark building designed to turn the corner and plot 2 which did sit forward but did pick up the building line with the existing dwellings in Fairway.  Members were also provided photographs from various aspects of the site.  The officer also stated that answers to questions posed in public question time had been covered in her presentation.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The number of trees to be removed and the general tidying up of the site

·         The access to the site and possible visibility issues when turning right our onto Post Hill

·         The number of parking spaces available in the parking court and their association to the dwellings

·         The location, height and size  for the units on plots 1 and 2

·         The traffic calming in the area

·         The views of the agent who referred to the road, cycle and footpaths link through the site into the wider Eastern Urban Extension, the extant planning permission for a care home on the site, that the site was proposed to be developed to a high quality and would deliver a link to the Eastern Urban Extension.  Plots 1 and 2 were thought to be good urban design and had been proposed in line with the Design Guide.

·         Whether plots 1 and 2 should be set back further into the site

 

RESOLVED that the application be deferred to allow for further discussions between officers and the developer to take place with regard to the siting of plots 1 and 2 and to consider specifically the height of plot 2.

 

(Proposed by Cllr L J Cruwys and seconded by Cllr Mrs C P Daw)

 

Notes: 

 

 

i)            Cllr B G J Warren and R F Radford made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning Matters as they had been contacted by an objector;

 

ii)            Mr Frost (Agent) spoke;

 

iii)           The following late information was reported:

 

Proposed condition:

Condition 18

The occupation of any dwelling in any agreed phase of the development shall not take place until a minimum of two (2) electric vehicle charging points have been installed into two properties. The properties to receive the charging points shall be identified, for approval in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

 

REASON: In the interests of proper planning in compliance with Policy DM8 of the Local Plan Part 3.

 

The report for 36 Post Hill makes reference (Page 105, para 3) to ‘a separating distance of some 25m between No. 26 Mayfair and Unit 1’. Unfortunately this measurement did not take into account the carriageway and pavement of Post Hill road itself. The sentence in the report should read:

‘…a separating distance of some 37m between No. 26 Mayfair and Unit 1’.

The 37m distance takes into account 20.5m (approx.) from the rear elevation of No. 26 Mayfair to edge of carriageway, 5m set back from edge of pavement for Unit 1 and approximately 11.5m for Post Hill carriageway, pavement and verge.  

 

 

e)            No 5 on the Plans List (19/00924/HOUSE – Erection of an extension and alterations to roof to include first floor accommodation and former window – 7 Rackenford Road, Tiverton).

 

The Interim Group Manager for Development outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the existing and proposed plans, the existing and proposed roof plans, proposed floor plans and elevations and photographs from various aspects of the site.  She informed the meeting of the history of the site and that the application before them was much smaller than originally received and that the proposal was virtually within the limits of Permitted Development Rights

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         Whether there were all bungalows in the area of the proposal

·         The dormer was no higher than the ridge

·         The views of the objector who had concerns of overlooking into the principle rooms of another property, the scale and impact of the proposal and whether obscure windows could be added to the dormer.

·         The views of the local Ward members with regard to the impact on No 9 Rackenford Road, there was no lack of housing in the area but there was a shortage of bungalows and whether the garage would be lost

·         What would be allowed under Permitted Development Rights

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.

 

(Proposed by Cllr F W Letch and seconded by Cllr  C P Daw)

 

Notes: 

 

i)            Mr Lavery spoke in objection to the application;

 

ii)       Cllrs R J Dolley and E G Luxton spoke as Ward Members;

 

iii)      Cllrs E G Luxton and B G J Warren requested that their vote against the decision be recorded.