Agenda item

To receive the minutes of the Cabinet Meeting on 21 November which will include a recommendation with regard to the Lcoal Plan Examination – Main Modifications.

 

The Leader presented the report of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 21 November 2019; he highlighted minute 86 (Local Plan Examination – Main Modifications) and the importance of members approving the main modifications so that a sound or legally compliant plan could be achieved.

 

Arising thereon:

 

1.    Local Plan Examination – Main Modifications

 

The Leader MOVED, seconded by Councillor G Barnell

 

THAT the recommendation of the Cabinet as set out in Minute 86 be ADOPTED.

 

The Cabinet for Planning and Economic Regeneration addressed the Council highlighting the importance of the recommendation before Council, the proposed 55 main modifications which had followed the inspector’s advice in his post hearing advice note in order for the plan to be found safe and the process that would follow any decision of the council.

 

The Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration was invited to provide answers to questions posed in public question time.

 

She outlined the history of the plan and the journey to date including the Inspector’s advice note following the examination hearings in May 2019 and his concern for the housing trajectory in the early years of the plan and that the plan could be unsound without main modifications.  Within his advice note he clearly set out a series of mitigation measures that could address the shortfall: 1. Bringing forward allocated sites restricted by time for not good reason which included Policy SP2 (Higher Town, Sampford Peverell). 2. Bringing forward the  contingency sites  Policy CU11 (Colebrook Lane, Cullompton) and TIV 13 (Tidcombe Hall, Tiverton). 3. Extending existing allocations or increasing their densities or 4. Allocating a new, large site not constrained by the link road to come forward quickly.  The main modifications sought to address the shortfall in supply through the first two measures (Colebrook contingency site only, not Tidcombe Hall) to reduce risk and delay, taking a steer from the Inspector.

 

With regard to policy SP2, many of the issues raised by members of the public present had already been the subject of detailed representations put before the inspector at the examination hearing; he had looked at the need, the numbers, highway safety, J27 connection, the site selection, the impact on heritage assets including the canal conservation area and had considered the policy criteria, highway safety and pedestrian access.  He had also visited the site.  The outcome of those considerations were received in the inspector’s advice notes of October 2018 and May 2019.  He did not share the view that the site selection was flawed and was content with the Council’s conclusion that the development could take place with very little or no harmful impact on the setting or significance of the canal conservation area was not an unreasonable one and proposed that the tie to J27 could be severed.  It was the officer’s view that the main modifications must go forward to allow the plan to be sound or legally compliant, modifications could not come forward for any other reason.  The deletion of any policy at this stage was not available.

 

With regard to the sustainability appraisal for policy SP2, the inspector had considered this and the heritage assets had been discussed at the examination hearings.  With regard to the outcome of the planning application, it was for Council this evening to consider the planning policy not the planning application.  By removing Policy SP2, the plan would become unsound.  The inspector had been informed with regard to the decision of the planning committee on the application.  She explained that the methodology used to ascertain how the site could be delivered within specific timescales had been approved and delivery rates for the site assumed that no planning application had yet been submitted.  She reiterated the point that a further consultation process on the main modifications would take place and that representations would be received by the inspector.

 

With regard to Junction 27, the inspector had been satisfied with the allocation and required no changes to the policy. No main modification recommendations had been made by him.

 

With regard to Tidcombe Hall, the site was not part of the main allocations, it was a contingency site and would only come forward if the housing numbers were not delivered.  The emerging development proposals at this site were at a pre-application stage, the issues raised would be considered if the planning application was forthcoming.  With regard to speculative development at the Tidcombe Hall site, with a sound plan, there would be a housing land supply which provided greater defence against speculative applications, the lack of a plan made the authority more vulnerable.

 

The Chairman informed the meeting that 4 amendments had been presented and that he would take each one individually.

 

a)    Councillor G Barnell submitted the following AMENDMENT, seconded by Councillor L D Taylor

 

“that the policy map for the contingency site CU21 at MM35 be amended to reflect the revised settlement limit (map circulated)”?

 

The Chairman MOVED in accordance with Procedure Rule 19.4

 

‘THAT the vote in respect of this MOTION shall be by Roll Call’

 

A roll call of Members present at the meeting was then taken:

 

Those voting FOR the MOTION: Councillors: G Barnell, E J Berry, W Burke, J Cairney, R J Chesterton, Mrs C A Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, D R Coren, L J Cruwys, N V Davey, Mrs C P Daw, W J Daw, R M Deed, R J Dolley, J M Downes, C J Eginton, R Evans, Mrs S Griggs, Mrs I Hill, B Holdman, T G Hughes, D J Knowles, F W Letch, E G Luxton, B A Moore, Miss J Norton, D F Pugsley, R F Radford, C R Slade, Mrs M E Squires, R L Stanley, L D Taylor, Miss E J Wainwright, B G J Warren, A White, A Wilce, Mrs N Woollatt and J Wright.

 

Those voting AGAINST the MOTION: None

 

The AMENDMENT was declared to have been CARRIED.

 

b)   Councillor A Wilce submitted the following AMENDMENT, seconded by Councillor B G J Warren:

 

That this Council, in accordance with its’ duty in respect of maintaining the health and well-being of Mid Devon residents, RESOLVES not to proceed with the recommendation contained in MM35 to remove any conditions relating the prior construction of the Cullompton Town Centre Relief Road, so as not to exacerbate the issue of poor air quality in an area already designated as Air Quality Management Area.

 

For the removal of doubt, Policy CU21 paragraph b) should read ‘The development shall not commence until the Town Centre Relief Road has been provided;’

 

And the following paragraphs should have their letter identification amended to follow on from b).

 

And paragraph 3.149 should be amended to read:

 

 ‘Development in this location has the potential to place pressure on the capacity of both the strategic and local road network. Any application for development must undertake an assessment of the impact of the proposal on both the capacity of the local road network and Junction 28 of the M5 and permission will only be granted where there are no adverse impacts. The site is expected to contribute to off-site highways infrastructure.  Development in this location would increase traffic through the town centre, so would not be permissible until the Town Centre Relief Road has been provided, offering an alternative route.

 

The mover of the motion outlined his concerns with regard to development taking place at Colebrook Lane/Siskin Chase without the need for the Town Centre Relief Road being in place prior to the commencement of development.  He outlined air quality issues in the town and the health and wellbeing of residents.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The number of dwellings proposed for Cullompton

·         The impact on local residents

·         The inspectors post hearing advice note and the clear steer that had been given

·         The lack of Public Health or the  local Highway Authority’s concerns

·         The need for a sound plan to proceed

 

The Chairman MOVED in accordance with Procedure Rule 19.4

 

‘THAT the vote in respect of this MOTION shall be by Roll Call’

 

A roll call of Members present at the meeting was then taken:

 

Those voting FOR the MOTION: Councillors G Barnell, R J Dolley, B G J Warren and A Wilce.

Those voting AGAINST the MOTION: Councillors: E J Berry, W Burke, J Cairney, R J Chesterton, Mrs C A Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, D R Coren, L J Cruwys, N V Davey, Mrs C P Daw, W J Daw, R M Deed,  J M Downes, C J Eginton, R Evans, Mrs S Griggs, Mrs I Hill, B Holdman, T G Hughes, D J Knowles, F W Letch, E G Luxton, B A Moore, Miss J Norton, D F Pugsley, R F Radford, C R Slade, Mrs M E Squires, R L Stanley, L D Taylor, Miss E J Wainwright, A White and J Wright.

 

Those ABSTAINING from voting: Councillor Mrs N Woollatt.

 

The AMENDMENT was declared to have FAILED.

 

c)    Councillor Mrs C A Collis submitted the following AMENDMENT, seconded by Councillor Miss J Norton:

 

In the event that (a) the Inspector recommends the adoption of the Local Plan Review including policy SP2 (with or without main modifications) and it is so adopted and (b) planning permission is refused by an Inspector for reasons which go to the principle of development of the site on the scale envisaged by policy SP2, that an early review of policy SP2 takes place in line with the Council’s own Local Development Scheme.

 

The mover outlined her concerns with regard to the allocated site (SP2) and the concerns of local residents with regard to the substandard roads and road safety concerns, she felt that when the inspector had agreed to sever the link with J27 then the site should have been deleted.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The planning application that had been refused and would now be considered at appeal stage by the planning inspectorate

·         The need to keep the allocation in the plan

·         Support for the amendment

 

The Chairman MOVED in accordance with Procedure Rule 19.4

 

‘THAT the vote in respect of this MOTION shall be by Roll Call’

 

A roll call of Members present at the meeting was then taken:

 

Those voting FOR the MOTION: Councillors: G Barnell, E J Berry, W Burke, J Cairney, R J Chesterton, Mrs C A Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, D R Coren, L J Cruwys, N V Davey, Mrs C P Daw, W J Daw, R M Deed, R J Dolley, J M Downes, C J Eginton, R Evans, Mrs S Griggs, Mrs I Hill, B Holdman, T G Hughes, D J Knowles, F W Letch, E G Luxton, B A Moore, Miss J Norton, D F Pugsley, R F Radford, C R Slade, Mrs M E Squires, R L Stanley, L D Taylor, Miss E J Wainwright, B G J Warren, A White, A Wilce, Mrs N Woollatt and J Wright.

 

Those voting AGAINST the MOTION: None

 

The AMENDMENT was declared to have been CARRIED.

 

d)   An amendment proposed by Councillor Miss J Norton was not moved.

 

The Chairman indicated that he would MOVE the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION:

 

1.            The Council requests the Inspector to recommend main modifications to the Mid Devon Local Plan Review, under section 20(7c) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, in order for it to be made sound and legally compliant.

 

2.            The following documents are published for a minimum 6 week period of public consultation:

 

a)            Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Mid Devon Local Plan Review (Appendix 1 with amended Main Modification MM36 to show the deletion of the penultimate sentence to paragraph 3.149 in the Local Plan) subject to the policy map for the contingency site CU21 at MM35 being amended to reflect the revised settlement limit (map circulated)?

 

b)            Schedule of Additional (Minor) Modifications to the Mid Devon Local Plan Review (Appendix 2)

 

c)            Addendum to the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix 3),

 

d)            Addendum to the Habitat Regulations Assessment (Appendix 4), and

 

e)            Addendum to the Equalities Impact Assessment 2017 (Appendix 5)

 

3.            Following this consultation the documents listed in recommendation 2, excluding 2(b) are submitted to the Planning Inspectorate together with the consultation responses received on them.

 

4.            In the event that (a) the Inspector recommends the adoption of the Local Plan Review including policy SP2 (with or without main modifications) and it is so adopted and (b) planning permission is refused by an Inspector for reasons which go to the principle of development of the site on the scale envisaged by policy SP2, that an early review of policy SP2 takes place in line with the Council’s own Local Development Scheme

 

 

Upon a vote being taken the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was declared to have been CARRIED.