Skip to main content

Agenda item

THE PLANS LIST (00-49-09)

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 20/01174/MOUT – (Outline for the erection of up to 179 dwellings, including the conversion of Tidcombe Hall and outbuildings to 12 dwellings, a shop, café, an open sided shelter, community allotments, community orchards, public open space, associated infrastructure and access with all other matters reserved)  - Tidcombe Hall, Tidcombe Lane, Tiverton

 

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location plan, the proposed site area and the area outlined in Policy TIV13 (the contingency site within the Local Plan) for 100 dwellings on 8.4ha, an aerial photograph of the site, an illustrative indicative masterplan of the proposal which included the area of green infrastructure, the proposed access and pedestrian and emergency access.  Individual plans were also shown of the access points and photographs were supplied indicating the main access to Tidcombe Hall, the location of the proposed access, views from Tidcombe Bridge looking into the proposed access, Tidcombe Hall itself and the outbuildings, the 2nd access point from Warnicombe Lane, views down the lane and from various locations looking into the site.

 

The officer then outlined her recommendation for refusal and highlighted the 4 additional letters of representation and the response from the applicant as shown on the update sheet.

 

Referring to the questions raised in Public Question Time – with regard to the flooding issues, the Lead Local Flood Authority had confirmed that the discharge from the site could be managed appropriately to prevent increased flood risk elsewhere and that the detailed drainage scheme could be managed by conditions; the low carbon element proposed a 75% improvement upon current Building Regulations; the vehicle charging points were in line with policy DM5 (1 charging point per 10 dwellings) and could be controlled by condition;.  With regard to the highway issues, these had been surveyed and modelled and included a safety audit, Highways had felt that the proposal was acceptable; the 4 schools had not been consulted, but one had commented.  With regard to the number of letters of objection received, 412 letters had been received from 293 different contributors.  With regard to the issues raised by the CPRE, the Local Planning Authority had to consider all applications that it received – it could not choose which applications to determine.

 

The following questions were posed by members of the committee:

 

·         Issues with regard to the Environmental Impact Assessment and the process which involved the Secretary of State and the pre application process which had been covered by the applicant providing a technical note.

·         The proposed closure of Tidcombe Bridge and the fact that the Highway Authority would have to close it by way of a Traffic Regulation Order

·         Human ashes were scattered on the site (when the hall was a hospice), had there been a designated area on the site which had been recorded – the case officer was unaware of this.

·         The protection of trees on the south bank of the canal – would those trees be protected by the Tree Preservation Orders on the site – the trees in the Conservation Area had some protection and conditions could include a tree protection plan.

·         Reason for refusal 4 – the lack of a S106 agreement – had the authority not entered into an agreement with the developer and if the application went to appeal, could a S106 agreement be submitted at that stage – the case officer stated that because the recommendation was one of refusal, a S106 agreement had not been progressed, however such an agreement could form part of an appeal.

·         The impact of the proposal on the setting of the historic building (Tidcombe Hall) and whether any architectural works had been undertaken – this was referred to in reason for refusal 2. It was believed that the hall had at one point been listed, but had been delisted but was still a non-designated heritage asset.

·         The statement of the Secretary of State with regard to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) – this was to do with the EIA Regulations, rather than the determination of the planning application.

·         With regard to the highways assessment, had there been any impact assessment of the proposal and had a route plan for traffic been considered – a survey had taken place following objection and traffic flows had been predicted with regard to impact and capacity on the road network.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The views of the objector with regard to the number of objections received for the application; the impact of closing Tidcombe Bridge which would generate a number of detours for traffic through residential development and the risk to the school children in the area on safety grounds; one of the routes was crossed by the barge horses for the canal and who would be accountable if someone was hurt by the increased traffic on those routes; the flood risk of the proposal and the impact on Glebelands with examples of flooding issues in North Devon following a particular development and the willingness to fight an appeal.

·         The views of the agent for the application with regard to the unique opportunity for development in this area, the low carbon scheme which would provide an exemplary development.  The community benefit of the scheme with regard to the canal park land, the green infrastructure, the renovation of Tidcombe Hall and the community facilities that would be provided which were highlighted in the indicative masterplan.  The fact that the applicant sought to enhance Tidcombe Hall, this was high quality sustainable development and had the support of the Highway Authority.

·         The views of the Ward Members with regard to: the application being in the wrong location, the impact of the development on local residents, the additional traffic, the burden of traffic on Tidcombe Lane, the impact on the canal, concerns with regard to heavy rainfall and the impact of this on the homes below the hill, the application was not compliant with the Local Plan and the preservation of the green space should be a priority.  The setting of Tidcombe Hall and the views from the canal, the impact on the original street scene in the areas, the impact of the traffic travelling through the Wilcombe estate and the parking problems in that area; air quality issues for residents of Wilcombe, and  the disturbance to the natural habitat.  Further concerns with regard to flooding caused by heavy rainfall from the hills surrounding the site, the indicative plans provided, the maintenance of the retention ponds proposed, the impact of the closure of the bridge, the lack of space for a second bridge.

 

Further consideration was given to:

 

·         The traffic being diverted through high development housing estates

·         The closure of Tidcombe bridge

·         The contingency site as set out in the Local Plan

·         The number of objections to the application

 

It was therefore 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 B G J Warren)

 

Reason for the Decision – as set out in the report

 

Notes:

 

    i.)        Cllrs Mrs F J Colthorpe, G Barnell, E J Berry, S J Clist, L J Cruwys, Mrs C P Daw, C J Eginton, P J Heal, F W Letch and B G J Warren made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had all received correspondence with regard to the application;

 

   ii.)        Cllr F W Letch declared a personal interest as an active member of the National Trust;

 

  iii.)        Cllr Mrs C P Daw stated that she was a member of Tiverton Town Council and the Grand Western Canal Joint Advisory Committee;

 

 iv.)        Cllr G Barnell stated that he had visited the site but retained an open mind on the application;

 

  v.)        Mr Welchman spoke as an objector;

 

 vi.)        Mr Chick spoke as the agent on behalf of the applicant;

 

vii.)        Cllrs Mrs S Griggs, Mrs C P Daw and L J Cruwys spoke as Ward Members;

 

viii.)        The following late information was provided:

 

·         Since the officer report was finalised a further 4 letters of representation have been received. However it is not considered that these raise any issues that are additional to those already summarised within the representations section of the report.

 

·         The applicant has also submitted a further letter (dated 21st June 2021) which queries the number of letters of objections that have been received. The figures that are referred to in their letter are taken from the Council’s website, these do not take account of where more than one letter has been received from one member of the public, for example where a further representation has been made following submission of further information. To clarify, at 21st June 412 letters of representation have been received from 293 contributors.

 

·         The other matters raised in the applicant’s letter include;

 

-The applicants have undertaken extensive pre-application discussions and a comprehensive public consultation exercise

-Positive discussions were had in relation to how the site could act as a show case for low carbon place making

-The scheme includes significant community benefits including the canal parkland, green infrastructure and renovation of Tidcombe Hall which should be given substantial weight

-The location of the access was agreed with the Highway Authority at pre-application stage

-Issues from the Tree Consultant and Landscape Consultant have been raised late in the day and were not previously raised by the Council.

 

 

b)   Application 21/00128/MFUL – (Erection of 86 dwellings to include public open space, landscape planting, pedestrian, cycle and vehicular links; and associated infrastructure at land at NGR 298634 113714 (Braid Park), Uplowman Road, Tiverton.

 

The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report explaining that the application formed part of the Eastern Urban Extension development, the details of the approved outline application and that the current application sought to make changes with the introduction of a further 18 units.  Members viewed the site location plan and the existing development to the west of the site, the illustrative framework plan of the urban extension, the aerial view of the site, the proposed site layout which included the road infrastructure, the building plots, the attenuation ponds and the dwelling mix.  The officer explained the difference in the current application from the reserved matters application and that the application accorded with the NPPF with regard to the increase in the number of dwellings.  The presentation outlined the material plan, the landscape details, access points, elevations of house types, sections and street scenes and photographs from surrounding areas looking into the site. The officer further explained the S106 contributions required and the deed of variation

 

Questions were then raised by members of the committee with regard to:

·         The location of the gypsy and traveller site and the speed limits in the area

·         The detail of the deed of variation compared to the original S106 agreement and the sums involved with the amendment to the number of dwellings

·         The formula used for the education contributions

·         The design principles for the development

·         Biodiversity on the site

·         The timing of the phases and the need for a phasing plan to be received

·         The number of amended drawings and the delay in loading them to the public access site

·         Consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority

 

The views of the agent for the applicant were heard which included information with regard to the re-planned areas, the success and popularity of the site, the rebranding exercise that had taken place with a greater mix of housing, the trigger for the gypsy and traveller site and the submission of a phasing plan.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that: subject to the prior signing of a deed of variation S106 agreement to include:

 

·      Affordable housing off-site contribution: £80,000 (£40,000 per dwelling).

·      Community facilities contribution: £13,811 (£1,973 per dwelling).

·      5 Custom and self-build plots

·      3 Gypsy and Traveller pitches to be provided prior to the occupation of the two hundredth and ninety third (293) open market dwelling within the wider site of 13/01616/MOUT

·      Education contribution:

Primary School Land: £3,773 (£539 per dwelling)

Primary School Education: £12,453 (£1,779 per dwelling)

Secondary School Education: £10,717 (£1,531 per dwelling)

Special Education: £3,584 (£512 per dwelling)

Early Years: £1,750 (£250 per dwelling)

          NHS contributions: £3,654 (£522 per dwelling)

·         Pro rata increase in prior financial contributions in the original S106 agreement to reflect the uplift in the number of dwellings

 

Planning permission be granted as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration with an additional condition to state:

 

First occupation of any dwelling in any agreed phase of the development shall not take place until details of the fencing to be provided alongside the boundary with No. 18 Uplowman Road has previously been submitted to and approved in writing by Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be thereafter installed prior to the occupation of any dwelling in any agreed phase of the development and shall be permanently retained and maintained thereafter. 

 

REASON: To ensure a good standard of residential amenity and security for residents.

 

(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr E J Berry)

 

Reason for the Decision – as set out in the report

 

Notes:

 

i)             Cllrs Mrs F J Colthorpe, G Barnell, E J Berry, S J Clist, L J Cruwys, Mrs C P Daw, R J Dolley C J Eginton, P J Heal, F W Letch and B G J Warren made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had all received correspondence with regard to the application;

 

ii)            Mr Matthew spoke on behalf of the applicant;

 

iii)           The following late information was reported:

 

1.Background

 

The number of additional units that will be generated by this application will be seven (7) and not six (6) as detailed in the report. The number of additional units arises through the calculation from the affordable housing on the original outline planning application. The outline planning application (13/01616/MOUT) granted planning consent with a signed S106 for 330 dwellings. All contributions agreed through the S106 were calculated according to the construction of 330 dwellings. The outline application required 21.5% affordable housing contribution:

21.5% of 330 = 70.95 = 71 affordable housing units

This translates into the following number of additional housing units in terms of calculating financial contributions for this application (21/00128/MFUL) as follows:

330 units (Outline Planning application 13/01616/MOUT) – 180 units (the number of units south of Uplowman Rd, Reserved Matters Application 18/00133/MARM) – 86 (the number of units north of Uplowman Road sought through this application, 21/00128/MFUL) – 71 units (the number of affordable housing units to be constructed south of Uplowman Road, 13/01616/MOUT) = 7 additional units.

 

On this basis, the report needs updating as follows:

• Page 63 (reports pack): Recommendation. Bullet point 2: Amend to £13,811. (£1,973 / dwelling)

• Page 63 (reports pack): Recommendation. Bullet point 4: 3 Gypsy and traveller pitches to be provided prior to the occupation of the two hundredth and ninety third (293) open market dwelling within the sites of the 13/01616/MOUT.

• Page 63 (reports pack): Recommendation. Bullet point 5:

Special Education: Amend to £3,584 (£512 per dwelling)

• Page 95 (reports pack): para 10.4: Amend text to: 71 affordable dwellings.

• Page 95 (reports pack): para 10.5: Amend text to: 71 affordable housing units.

• Page 95 (reports pack): para 10.5: Amend text to: this equates to 337 units, 7 dwellings in excess of the outline planning permission.

• Page 95 (reports pack): para 10.6: Amend text to: 7 additional units.

• Page 95 (reports pack): para 11.1: Amend text to: 7 dwellings in excess.

• Page 95 (reports pack): para 11.2: Amend text to: two hundredth and ninety third (293).

• Page 96 (reports pack): para 12.3: Amend text to: 7 units in excess of the outline planning application.

• Page 96 (reports pack): para 12.4: Amend text to:

Bullet point 2: £13,811. (£1,973 per dwelling).

Bullet point 4: 3 Gypsy and traveller pitches to be provided prior to the occupation of the two hundredth and ninety third (293) open market dwelling within the sites of the 13/01616/MOUT.

Bullet point 5: Special Education: £3,584 (£512 / dwelling)

 

2. During the course of the application process a number of revised drawings have been submitted. The following drawing numbers referenced in the report need amending:

Page 87. Para 3.6: Amend Drawing Number GL0735 19E to GL0735 20D

Page 89. Para 3.12: Amend Drawing Number 1931 1111 Rev D to 1931 1111 Rev F

Page 89. Para 3.14: Amend Drawing Number 1931 1100 Rev G to 1931 1111 Rev I

Page 90. Para 3.17: Amend Drawing Number 1931 1114 Rev C to 1931 1114D

Page 90. Para 3.17: Amend Drawing Number 1213 PL03 to 1213 PL04 and 1214 PL03 to 1214 PL04

Page 93. Para 7.4: Amend Drawing number GL0735 19E to GL0735 19D

Page 99. Condition 11. Amend drawing number 1203 PL04 to 1203 PL03 and 1204 PL03 to 1204 PL02

 

Updated New Condition

 

First occupation of any dwelling in any agreed phase of the development shall not take place until details of the fencing to be provided alongside the boundary with No. 18 Uplowman Road has previously been submitted to and approved in writing by Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be thereafter installed prior to the occupation of any dwelling in any agreed phase of the development and shall be permanently retained and maintained thereafter.

 

REASON: To ensure a good standard of residential amenity and security for residents.

 

 

c)    Application 20/01483/TPO – (application to shorten the lowest branches on the south and south east side of 1 oak tree by 2m and reduce regrowth from previous pruning back to old pruning points, protected by Tree Preservation Order 99/00002/TPO) 4 Cornflower Close, Willand.

 

The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the location of the tree in question, the aerial view of the location of the tree and photographs from various locations.  He outlined the proposed works and reported that the application had been justified by the tree consultant.

 

Consideration was given to the timing of the works.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that: the application be approved as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.

 

(Proposed by Cllr E J Berry and seconded by Cllr S J Clist)

 

Reason for the Decision – as set out in the report

 

 

d)   Application 20/01484/TPO – (application to shorten the lowest branches overhanging the garden(s) on the south side of 1 oak tree to give approximately 4m clearance above ground level; reduce the canopy over the garden(s) by 2-3m and reduce branch on north side by 1-2m protected by Tree Preservation Order 88/00004/TPO) 9 Hawthorne Road, Tiverton

 

The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the location of the tree and providing photographs from various aspects looking towards the tree which also highlighted the footpath clearance that was required.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that: the application be approved as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.

 

(Proposed by Cllr E J Berry and seconded by Cllr  R J Dolley)

 

Reason for the Decision – as set out in the report

 

 

 

e)    Application 21/00678/TPO – (application to reduce overhanging branches by 1.5m and 2m of 1 Oak Tree protected by Tree Preservation Order 88/00004/TPO) east of 7 Jasmine Close, Tiverton

 

The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the location of the tree and providing an aerial view along with photographs from various locations looking towards the tree. He outlined the proposed works and reported that the application had been justified by the tree consultant.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that: the application be approved as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.

 

(Proposed by the Chairman)

 

Reason for the Decision – as set out in the report

 

 

f)     Application 20/01825/TPO – (application to fell 1 Ash and 2 Oaks and remove deadwood/limbs from 2 Ash and 2 oak trees protected by Tree Preservation Order 96/00006/TPO – land at NGR 305855 112143 (Woodland East of Harvesters), Uffculme.

 

The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the location of the trees in question and the works proposed and provided photographs from various locations looking towards the trees.  He then explained the views of the tree consultant and that he was proposing a split decision on the application and outlined the reasons for refusal and those of approval.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The initial works that had already taken place which involved unsympathetic pruning

·         Possible enforcement action

·         The detail of the  tree consultant’s report

·         The views of the Ward Member (statement read by the Chairman) who had called in the application to committee – which included the history of issues on the site and the need to protect the surrounding woodland.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that:

 

i)             Consent be refused for the proposed felling of trees T3, T4 and G2

ii)            Consent be granted for the proposed felling of tree T1 Ash in the application and for the removal of deadwood from the trees referred to as G2 and the proposed pruning of T5, Ash and T6, Oak to remove branch stubs (subject to informative notes)

 

(Proposed by Cllr B G J Warren and seconded by Cllr G Barnell)

 

Reason for the Decision – as set out in the report

 

Notes:

 

i)             Cllrs S J Clist and B G J Warren made declarations made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had received correspondence with regard to the application;

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: