Following an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against non-determination; to consider a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration requesting that members advise how they would have determined the application.
Minutes:
The Committee had before it a *report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration following the submission of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against non-determination, the report requested members to advise how they would have determined the application.
The Area Team Leader outlined the application and the allocation within the Local Plan Review and the fact that the contingency status of the site had been removed within the emerging plan. She provided by way of presentation the site location plan, the illustrative masterplan for development and photographs from various aspects of the site.
The officer then provided answers to questions posed in public question time:
Cllr Gordon Guest had referred to the wish of Cullompton Town Council to see an additional access off Colebrooke Lane. The application had been deferred at committee on 5th June for officers to investigate this option. The comments from various consultees and the applicant were clearly set out in members agenda papers today.
Cllr Gordon Guest had also referred to the fact that Colebrooke Lane floods regularly and increasingly. He referred to having walked the Cole Brook with a representative of the EA about 3 years ago who identified obstructions and overgrown vegetation at that time. He commented that since that time no widening or clearing had taken place. The Town Council were concerned that developing the application site could result in the existing problem being made worse.
She was aware of correspondence between Cllr Guest and the Environment Agency just before Christmas. The EA make it clear that it is the responsibility of the landowner of the watercourse to ensure that water can flow unhindered and that DCC or MDDC may have powers to serve notice on the owner of the watercourse or carry out clearance works themselves. Members are advised that this is not a power under the Planning Acts but officers can write to DCC and MDDC on behalf of the Planning Committee if that is members’ wish. She made it clear that the Environment Agency and the Local Lead Flood Authority were satisfied that surface water from the development could be dealt with and that what has been referred to was an existing problem which should not be exacerbated by the development, but solutions could be explored to try to resolve the existing problem, as set out previously.
Cllr Gordon Guest also referred to the proposed attenuation ponds which were proposed to deal with surface water from the development only and were not there to deal with the existing problem. This is correct. We cannot require a developer to deal with an existing flooding problem, only to mitigate against the development they are proposing.
Mr Harper felt that his issues and concerns had largely been dealt with by Cllr Guest before him and she was not aware that he raised a separate point which I need to address.
Mr Harris was concerned that the questions he asked at the committee in June last year have not been answered to date. His concerns related to the inadequacies of Siskin chase, being only 3.55m wide at one point and the restricted visibility at the junction with Swallow Way. Whilst Mr Harris considers that his points haven’t been specifically addressed, Members will recall that Mr Sorenson from DCC Highways was at that meeting and spoke to answer members questions. The minutes of the meeting clearly show that members’ consideration of the application included ‘the views of an objector who felt that the development was not sustainable and that the access point through Siskin Chase was not wide enough to support additional traffic flow.
Mr Sorenson has previously advised on these points as follows:
“The narrowing in Siskin Close is a standard speed reducing feature utilised on residential estates and is a standard detail in the Devon design guide and the retention of this feature is seen as a safety benefit rather than a safety concern. The access has been tested through the transport assessment and is suitable to cater for the volumes of traffic generated by the development and the existing estate road traffic, it has been looked at through a stage 1 safety audit by the developer and not found wanting”.
Mr Harris went on to ask what measures were intended to make the road safe. The plans do not include any measures on Siskin Chase and the Highway Authority do not refer to the need for any in their consultation response.
Mr Harris referred to an access from Colebrooke Lane rather than Siskin Chase which she had already referred to. Finally, he referred to the allocation in Local Plan Review and referred to this appearing to have already been agreed as its set out in the policy CU21. This was the emerging policy and again the policy position was set out in members agendas.
Mr Jones spoke and referred to a notification neighbours have received relating to the second application. Whilst she understood the confusion, the letter clearly referred to a different application number than the one members were considering today.
The officer then referred to the update sheet and the amended resolution with regard to the required S106 agreement following the receipt of viability information.
Discussion took place regarding:
· The road narrowing arrangements in Siskin Chase and the Manual for Streets
· Additional traffic from the site would have to go through the town prior to the construction of the relief road and the air quality issues that may bring
· The contribution required from the development for the relief road
· The percentage of affordable housing proposed for the development
· The views of one of the objectors with regard to local concern about the access to the site via Siskin Chase, the narrowness of the road and road safety issues, the parking that already takes place in the road in the evenings and weekends. The air quality issues that the development would have on the road network of the town.
· The views of one of the Ward members with regard to the need for a second highways outlet from the site, the pinch point in Siskin Chase, the flooding issues in Colebrooke Lane and a response he had received from Devon County Council Highways with regard to landownership.
· The emerging planning policy within the Local Plan review
It was RESOLVED that had the committee had the opportunity to determine the application then it would have refused the application for the following reason:-
The tilted balance in paragraph 11 of the NPPF applies to the determination of this application. The application should be approved unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF, taken as a whole. In considering this application, the LPA are of the view that the proposed point of access from Siskin Chase is not considered suitable for the additional increase in traffic anticipated from the proposed development of 105 dwellings. Siskin Chase is a cul-de-sac which was designed to accommodate those vehicles attracted to the housing it currently serves and incorporates features to narrow the road such as a chicane. The increase in car ownership since the development was built has led to an increasing number of vehicles being parked on the public highway. The use of Siskin Chase as the sole access to the proposed development of 105 new dwellings is not considered acceptable and would lead to conflict between existing and proposed residents and would interrupt the free flow of vehicles, particularly emergency vehicles. In the opinion of the LPA this identified harm significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies in the NPPF, taken as a whole and is considered to be contrary to policies COR1 and COR9 of the Local Plan Part 1 ( Core Strategy) and policy DM2 of the Local Plan Part 3 ( Development Management).
(Proposed by Cllr L J Cruwys and seconded by Cllr Mrs C A Collis)
As part of the procedure required for the appeal there was a need to agree a S106 agreement prior to the Inspector’s determination of the appeal,
It was therefore
FURTHER RESOLVED
i) That delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee and the local Ward Members to secure the necessary s106 requirements with the provision of a financial contribution towards the Cullompton Town Centre Relief Road being prioritised at £7,500 per dwelling (£787,500) and the provision of affordable housing being between up to 20% ( figure to be confirmed by verification of applicants viability submission) with a split of 75% affordable rent and 25% shared ownership;
ii) Financial contribution of £7,500 per dwelling towards the provision of the Cullompton Town Centre Relief Road
iii) Implementation and monitoring of a Travel plan
iv) Provision of public open space, allotments and play areas on site.
v) The transfer of an area of land to the north of the site to DCC or MDDC to ensure that unencumbered access may be provided in future to the land to the north, if required.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Notes:
i) Cllr B G J Warren declared a personal interest as one of the objectors was a former colleague;
ii) Mr D Harris spoke in objection to the application
iii) Cllr E J Barry spoke as Ward Member for Cullompton South;
iv) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe requested that her vote against the first decision be recorded
v) The following late information was provided:
1) A letter from the agent has been received as follows:
Section 5.0 on pg75 states as follows:
“Consultation responses from Devon County Council Highway Authority and MDDC Public Health do not raise an objection to the application, however this is based on it making financial contribution towards the delivery of the relief road. The traffic assessment provided with the application indicates the additional traffic generation that is expected to arise as a direct result of this development including additional traffic movements between the site and the M5 motorway junction 28 and the town centre. The development will therefore increase traffic through the town centre, the impact of which on air quality will be mitigated via financial contribution towards the relief road in accordance with the policies set out above.”
The text highlight above is factually incorrect and is misleading.
Neither County Highways nor MDCC Public Health have requested a contribution towards the relief road.
The Public Health response (copy attached) confirms that air quality impact form the scheme is not significant. Moreover, it has been agreed with County Highways that no off-site infrastructure improvements are required to make the development acceptable in Highway terms and it is also agreed that the proposed development could come forward in terms of capacity and safety, in accordance with the Planning inspectors decision relating to Increased traffic set out in relation to application 16/01811/OUT and Appeal decision APP/Y1138/W/17/3172380 without the Town Centre Relief Road (para 5.3 of the attached SoCG refers).
The factual position seems to be correctly recorded at para 2.1 of the report which states as follows:
“Since the application was last considered by Planning Committee, the Council has produced its proposed main modifications which were approved for public consultation by Council on 4th December 2019. Within that document (MM35 and MM36), it proposes that the contingency status of the site has been removed in response to the Inspectors Post Hearing Advice Note, with the site instead becoming an allocation. In addition, Devon County Council has advised the timing of the development of the site is not dependent on the Cullompton Town Centre Relief Road coming forward as long as financial contributions are made towards the delivery of the relief road. As a result of this document being approved for public consultation by Council, some weight can be attributed to the document as a material consideration in the determination of this application.”
Section 5.0 of the report should be corrected to reflect the factual position.
1) Photos have been received from a resident (forwarded to members of the planning committee by email) showing Colebrooke Lane after a period of rain
S106 UPDATE:
Officers have had the viability information submitted by the applicant, independently assessed and this has included the services of a Quantity Surveyor. They are satisfied that the case put forward by the applicants is robust. On this basis, the scheme cannot viably support 35% affordable housing and the £1.8 million s106 package set out on page 69 of the agenda.
The applicants have put forward 3 proposed s106 packages as follows:
a) No affordable housing and the full £1.8m financial package
b) 28% affordable housing ( which is emerging policy compliant) and £318,015 OR;
c) 20% affordable housing and £660,030
Members will be aware that MDDC have received Housing and Infrastructure Funding (HIF) for the provision of the Cullompton Town Centre Relief Road (TCRR). The terms of the funding include that MDDC ‘use all reasonable endeavours’ to recover the cost of the road from development. Therefore Officers have requested that the applicant puts forward a s106 package which includes £787,500 (£7500 per dwelling) towards the TCRR with a lower percentage of affordable housing provision. On this basis, there would be no provision for the development to contribute towards items iii) – vii) as set out on the agenda ( which includes education provision, bus service improvement and NHS funding)
The Planning Inspectorate have set a deadline of 13th February for the submission of a signed s106.
REVISED RECOMMENDATION:
2) That delegated authority is given to the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration to secure the necessary s106 requirements with the provision of a financial contribution towards the Cullompton Town Centre Relief Road being prioritised at £7,500 per dwelling (£787,500) and the provision of affordable housing being between up to 20% ( figure to be confirmed by verification of applicants viability submission) with a split of 75% affordable rent and 25% shared ownership
NOTE: Members are advised that as a result of the revised recommendation set out above, the items from page 69 of the agenda would no longer form part of the s106 agreement are highlighted red below, those items which will form part of the s106 are highlighted green and those items amended but included in the s106 are highlighted blue, as follows:
i) 35% affordable housing in accordance with a scheme to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority
ii)Financial contribution of £7,500 per dwelling towards the provision of the Cullompton Town Centre Relief Road
iii) A financial contribution towards delivery of the new primary school of £4004.75 per dwelling, (equating to £420,498.00 for 105 dwellings).
iv) A financial contribution towards secondary education facilities of £345,255.00 (based on 105 dwellings and the DfE extension rate of £21,921 per pupil).
v) A financial contribution towards Early Years provision for 2, 3 and 4 year olds of £26,250 (based on 105 dwellings at £250 per dwelling).
vi) A financial contribution of £135,000.00 towards the maintenance/provision/improvement of the bus service
vii) A financial contribution of £1457.32 per dwelling to the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust towards maintaining service delivery during the first year of occupation of each unit of the accommodation in the development.
viii) Implementation and monitoring of a Travel plan
ix) Provision of public open space, allotments and play areas on site.
x) The transfer of an area of land to the north of the site to DCC or MDDC to ensure that unencumbered access may be provided in future to the land to the north, if required.
vi) *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
Supporting documents: