Skip to main content

Agenda item

THE PLANS LIST (0.28.16)

To consider the planning applications contained in the list.

 

Minutes:

The Committee considered the applications in the *Plans List.

 

Note: *List previously circulated and attached to the minutes.

 

a)    Application 20/01263/MFUL - Erection of 22 dwellings with parking, landscaping and construction of new access at Allotments, Tumbling Field Lane, Tiverton.

 

The Area Team Leader outlined the application by way of a presentation detailing the site location plan, site layout, accommodation and tenure, elevations and photographs of the site and the access.

 

In response to questions asked by the public she explained:

 

·         Members had not undertaken a site visit due to current Covid 19 restrictions

·         The Highways Authority had been consulted and had confirmed there had been no incidents since 2015 and that the visibility splay was adequate and recommended a number of conditions

·         Protected species are afforded protection under The Habitat and Species Regulations and therefore it is the applicant’s responsibility as much as the LPA to ensure protection. An Ecological Survey had been commissioned and harm had also been mitigated by way of conditions to specifically rehome reptiles prior to any development. The application was supported by an Ecological Survey which advised that if scrub land was to be removed on site then a European Protected Species Licence would be required. The competent authority was therefore required to undertake 3 tests of the development

·         Condition 18 protected ecology

·         Policy S10 was not considered relevant as the site was outside of the settlement boundary

·         Policy S14 was relevant and allowed development outside of the settlement if it provided predominately affordable housing

·         The site was considered as it was a rural exception site which allowed development of affordable housing in the open countryside

·         The previous allotments were privately owned and rented to Tiverton Town Council. As they were not owned by MDDC they were not classed as statutory allotments

·         Planners did not have control over internal finishes to ensure fire safety

·         Four units would be wheelchair accessible

·         Building regulations would be required but that was a post decision process

·         The report detailed why Planning Officers had considered the development to be appropriate

·         The footpath would remain in place and if diverted in the future would need permission from Devon County

·         The site was in flood zone 1 with the access only being within flood zone 3 and conditions stipulated full drainage details be provided to alleviate risk of flooding

·         The Highways Authority stated the visibility was adequate for the site

 

The Area Team Leader confirmed that the Planning Committee at its meeting of 9th September 2020 agreed to bring the application to Committee if officers were minded to approve the application.

 

The officer explained that the application was for 22 units, 12 of which would be affordable housing. The applicant had submitted a viability assessment and the Local Planning Authority had commissioned an independent assessment which had agreed with the proposal.

 

The S106 agreement would outline who could accommodate the units and applicants would need to apply through legal channels to prove local links to the area.

 

The development was not in the conservation area and officers felt that the affordable housing benefit outweighed the loss of pastureland.

 

She provided responses to Members questions as follows:

 

·         The LPA only had limited powers to ensure that the developers was complying with the Ecological Survey but it was conditioned in such a manner that as many reptiles as possible would be captured and rehomed before development commenced

·         Members were being asked to consider an application for 22 units, 12 of which were to be affordable. The applicant was an affordable housing provider who had secured funding for 12 of the units to be affordable. Nevertheless, the applicant was hopeful to provide all 22 units affordable

·         The access road would be adopted by the Highways Authority and would be maintained by them

·         40 car parking spaces would be provided

·         There was a condition to undertake further assessment if any contaminated land was apparent on the site and this was a means of protection for future occupants

·         If bat roosts had been found on the site it was a legal requirement that the bats be rehomed before development. The site did not have bat roosts but harm the potential for harm to bats was mitigated by the imposition of a condition to control outside lighting

·         The Housing Needs Survey was up to date and had indicated that there was a real need for affordable housing in the area

·         The affordable housing consisted of 7 social rented units and 5 shared ownership and would be available to only those with a local connection

·         Policy S10 did not apply as the site was outside of the settlement and its excellent connectivity to the town would encourage walking which was favourable

·         Policy S14 was specific for sites which were outside of the settlement and as the site was outside of the settlement boundary Policy S14 did apply

·         Safety was part of the planning process and therefore the Area Team Leader had undertaken a site visit to view the access for herself. The Highways Authority had not insisted on a footpath but if they had, this could have been considered

·         The landscaping management plan would be for the lifetime of the development and the condition could be amended to specify this if necessary

·         Planning Officers felt that the development complied with Policy DM5 and that the parking arrangements were adequate. Electric car charging points were provided

·         The flood evacuation plan was for pedestrians not vehicles

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The views of the objector who stated that because the LPA did not have a Tree Officer it was not known if there were TPO’s on the site. Any houses would disturb the wildlife and more houses would mean more dogs on the footpath. The applicants reputation for dealing with tenants was not good

·         The views of the agent who stated that their client was an affordable housing company which was actively investing in Mid Devon. They were seeking to secure funding from Homes England to make all 22 units affordable. The proposal had been refined during discussions, the site was in flood zone 1 and was in a sustainable location

·         The views of the Town Council who strongly objected to the proposal as it was over development in a green area. The land was wet and not suitable for development

·         The views of a Ward Member who strongly objected to the proposal as it was an historic site on the Exe Valley Way and was outside of the settlement area. The LPA already had 5 sites allocated to affordable housing and felt that this site was not required. That there were deer, badgers and foxes on the site and emergency vehicles would have difficulty servicing the development. That there was a disabled resident living in accommodation next to the site who would have difficulty entering and exiting because of the development

·         The views of another Ward Member who stated that any development would lead to ribbon development down Deymans Hill and that he was surprised that no archaeological material had been found on the site. That the area was already cramped with parking and the entrance was in flood zone 3

·         The views of Members who felt that Policy DM6 did not apply and that Policy S10 was more appropriate as it was designed to protect the site

·         The views of Members who felt that Planning Officers were not interpreting Local Plan Policies as they were designed

·         The views of Members who felt that the Housing Needs Survey did not demonstrate that affordable housing was needed in this area

·         The views of Members who felt that Councillors were entitled to interpret Local Plan Policies as they saw fit

·         The views of Members that the development was contrary to Policy DM5

·         The views of Members who felt that there was not a need for affordable housing on this site

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that: 

 

Members were minded to refuse the application and therefore wished to defer the application for an implications report to consider the proposed reasons for refusal that of:

 

Policy DM6 was not applicable, Policy S10 was applicable and the Housing Needs Survey was inadequate.

 

(Proposed by Cllr G Barnell and seconded by Cllr S J Clist)

 

Reason for the decision: No decision was made as the application was deferred for an implications report

 

Notes:

 

    i.)        Cllrs Mrs F J Colthorpe, G Barnell, Mrs C P Daw, L J Cruwys, C J Eginton, S J Clist, F W Letch, D J Knowles, R F Radford and B G J Warren made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had received correspondence from objectors

   ii.)        Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe requested that her vote against the decision be recorded

 iii.)        Mr Frost spoke as the objector

 iv.)        Miss Stoate spoke as the agent

   v.)        Cllr W Burke spoke on behalf of Tiverton Town Council

 vi.)        Cllrs Mrs C P Daw and L J Cruwys spoke as Ward Members

vii.)        The following late information was reported:

 

A few questions have been put forward by members and include the following:

 

Query regarding the application call in.

It is understood that at the Committee meeting of the 9th September 2020, Cllr Daw considered the application should go to the planning committee for consideration given the public comments that had been received. This was agreed by Cllr Cruwys and Knowles.

 

A site visit was discussed, but given the constraints of lockdown has not been able to take place.

 

The weight concerned with draft Tiverton Neighbourhood Plan

The plan is still within draft format, and as such, only limited weight can be applied to it.

 

Report or advice from Emergency planners regarding flood risk and access

The updated Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) 17 Feb confirms that emergency vehicles will still be able to reach site is access road (in FZ3) is flooded during 1:100 year event (plus climate change). In addition the evacuation routes plan SK009 also submitted 17 Feb shows alternative pedestrian and vehicular access routes for emergency vehicles.

 

Limited detail of Waste Audit Statement

The Officer would advise that there is a comprehensive planning conditions associated with the application that requires this further detail to be submitted. Currently within the report as Condition 7. An email from the 18th February to the Case Officer confirms that DCC are content for the information to be given by condition.

 

Housing Standards and Layout

The concerns raised by the Housing Officer relate to internal changes within the properties. Planning permission is not required for internal alterations and as such there is limited control on this aspect.

Nevertheless, the majority of plots allow for safe fire access, and that of Plot 15 has a means of fire escape via the first floor window. In any case, this would be a matter for building regulations.

 

Completion of s106 Heads of Terms

There is currently a recommendation to approve the application subject to the conditions and the signing of the s106 with the proposed HOT. As such, this has not yet been completed and will not be until there is a resolution to grant consent.

 

Other matters

The applicant has requested amendments to the pre-commencement conditions and has sought removal of proposed condition 4. This stated:

“No materials shall be brought onto any part of the site or any development commenced, until the developer has erected tree protective fencing around all trees, hedges or shrubs to be retained on that part of the site, in accordance with a plan that shall previously have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The fencing shall be in accordance with Figure 2 of BS 5837 2012. The developer shall maintain such fences to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority until all development has been completed. The level of the land within the fenced areas shall not be altered without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. No materials shall be stored within the fenced area, nor shall trenches for service runs or any other excavations take place within the fenced area except by written permission of the Local Planning Authority.”

 

The officer has agreed to remove this condition subject to it being incorporated into Condition 18 which currently reads:

The development shall not commence until full details of hard and soft landscape works, including an implementation and management plan, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Details of soft landscape works shall include [retention of any existing trees and hedges; finished levels/contours; planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate. The hard landscape works shall include means of enclosure; boundary and surface treatments; vehicle and pedestrian/cyclist circulation; proposed and existing service lines. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the implementation plan and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved management plan.

 

It is proposed that this condition is amended to include tree protection and would read as follows:

The development shall not commence until full details of hard and soft landscape works, including an implementation and management plan, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

 

Details of soft landscape works shall include retention of any existing trees and hedges; finished levels/contours; planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate. All retained trees and hedgerows will be protected by tree protective fencing, in accordance with a plan that shall previously have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The fencing shall be in accordance with Figure 2 of BS 5837 2012. The developer shall maintain such fences to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority until all development has been completed.

 

The hard landscape works shall include means of enclosure; boundary and surface treatments; vehicle and pedestrian/cyclist circulation; proposed and existing service lines. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the implementation plan and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved management plan.

 

The applicant has also sought to remove condition 3 concerning the need for a reptile mitigations strategy. The Officer however has explained why this is necessary and the applicant has now agreed.

 

Ecology matters

The application is supported by an Ecological Survey which advises that if scrub land is to be removed on site then a European Protected Species Licence will be required. The Competent Authority is therefore required to undertake 3 tests of the development and this is appended to this update sheet.

 

Objections

A further 16 objections have been received since the report was written including a signed petition.

Emails have also been forwarded on from Cllr Chris Daw concerning a further 8 objections to the scheme.

The objections received raise concerns regarding the following:

Wheel chair access and roads. – the objector has asked for their objections to be read out.

Wildlife protection

Climate change and carbon emissions

Concern over increased flooding

Parking and traffic

Concern over increased noise in the area.

Overlooking

Loss of farmland

Loss of the public walkway

Overdevelopment

Setting of a president for more development

Lack of affordable housing proposed

Impact on visual amenity

Loss of the allotments

 

Some questions have been raised in respect to the development from one of the objectors:

Question 1

The Mid Devon Local Plan Review 2013-33 adopted by full Council on 9 July 2019 and the Tiverton Central Area Local Plan Review map shows the land the subject of this planning application is outside the settlement area. Furthermore, Local Plan Policy S10 states amongst its principles retention of “the green setting provided by the steep open hillsides, particularly to the west and south of the town”. This development is precisely the type of development which Policy S10 was written to protect. I believe the recommendation to approve fails to have due regard to the strategic context of this site on the setting and settlement limit to the south of the town. Will the committee please explain why breaching the settlement limit and failure to demonstrate adherence to Policy S10 are not material considerations in determining this application?

 

Policy S10 is not relevant as outside settlement boundary. As such Policy S14 applies where affordable housing is allowed and rural exceptions policy. The application is therefore subject to separate policy consideration as outlined in the report.

 

Question 2

The Mid Devon Local Plan makes provision for 17% more housing than required presumably based on the current settlement limit of the town. 74% of the required dwellings for Tiverton have either been completed or committed with still 12 years of the Local Plan to run. The Local Plan states “a significant proportion of the towns outstanding housing needs will be delivered as part of the Eastern Urban Extension”. Will the committee please explain why it believes that the delivery of the proposed 22 dwellings on this recreational space cannot be delivered elsewhere within the existing settlement limit?

As above.

 

Question 3

The land subject to the application is described as allotments and by officers as ‘former MDDC allotments”. The land is therefore subject to the provisions of Planning Policy DM26 (previously DM24). Will the committee please confirm that an assessment of need prior to disposal was undertaken, when the site disposal took place and who approved the disposal? Will the committee further confirm whether or not the allotments were afforded protection under the 1925 Allotment Act which requires permission from the Secretary of State before development can take place?

 

Email from Officer to Chris Daw 12th April:

Dear Cllr Daw

Thank you for your email. The site in question formally contained allotments. The allotments were privately owned and rented to the Tiverton Town Council.

In March 2006 the Town Council was given 12 months’ notice to vacate the site. The site was vacated in March 2007.

The site is not ever known to be under the ownership or control of Mid Devon District Council.

On the basis of the above officers do not consider that the former use of the site as allotments to fall within the definition of ‘statutory allotments’ and therefore an assessment under the Policy DM24 of the MDDC Local Plan is not required for the purposes of this planning application

Question 4

Three years after the tragedy of Grenfell Tower it seems hard to comprehend that fire safety is not a material consideration when considering a planning application. The officer report and recommendation to approve makes no comment on the concerns raised by Housing Standards regarding the fire safety design of some plots. This is of concern if, for no other reason, because 4 dwellings will be wheel chair accessible. If minded to approve the application, will the committee consider it being a condition of approval that full plans will have building control approval?

Not inside the control of planning. Building regulations are a separate requirement which will happen without the need for condition.

 

NHS

It is considered on this occasion that the NHS contribution sought on the application does not meet the CIL 122 test given the nature of the development proposed.

 

It is a rural exception site where affordable housing is largely proposed and there is already a Viability Appraisal submitted with the scheme which suggests it is already bordering on unviable even with the 12 affordable units proposed. Furthermore, any S106 agreement would require only those with a local connection to apply for the affordable housing, which means there will not be a significant addition on the NHS capacity in the area.

 

Please also see the Ecological Assessment (attached)

 

Letter has been received from PCL Planning Ltd on behalf of Rotolok (Holdings) Ltd.- planning officer’s response to points raised:

 

The owner/occupier of Tumbling Field House was sent a standard notification letter on 8 August 2020.  The access to the property is also past the entrance to the site where the site notice was posted.

 

In respect of point 4.  Historic England (HE) require consultation on development likely to affect the site of a scheduled monument (Cranmore Castle).  DCC Historic Environment Team were consulted and on 20 October advised that proposed development will not have impact on known heritage assets.  On this basis a consultation with HE was not deemed necessary. 

 

In respect of the points 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 these are addressed in the report. 

 

In respect of the ownership query the Council do not hold those records; it would be for the developer to advise.

Supporting documents: