Agenda item

To consider the planning applications contained in the list.

 

The Committee considered the applications in the *Plans List.

 

Note: *List previously circulated and attached to the minutes

 

a)     Application 22/00040/MARM - Reserved Matters for the erection of 60 dwellings and construction of new vehicular access onto highway to the west of the site (with access reserved) following outline approval 17/01359/MOUT at Land and Buildings at NGR 302469 114078, Higher Town, Sampford Peverell.

 

The Area Team Leader outlined the application by way of a presentation which highlighted the site location plan, aerial view, site layout, affordable housing layout, street scenes, housing types, green infrastructure, play space design, cross sections, road hierarchy, cycleway details and photographs of the site.

 

The officer explained that the application before Members was Reserved Matters following outline approval 17/01359/MOUT granted by the Planning Inspectorate on 7^th April 2021. He explained that a decision had been deferred by Committee so that further information set out in the minutes of the meeting on 29^th June could be provided. As a result the applicant had submitted information which addressed the 13 specific concerns of Members. 71 documents had been added since the meeting on 29^th June.

 

In response to public questions and to the additional questions received (as detailed in the update sheet) the officer detailed the responses from the applicant which directly dealt with the concerns of objectors. He also provided detailed responses to specific questions raised regarding:

 

·         Drainage

·         Design Review Panel

·         Removal of Permitted Development Rights

·         Allotment

·         Infrastructure pressures

·         Documents available on the planning portal

·         Further reduction of land levels

·         Additional planting

·         Trim trail

·         Gradients

·         Open Space specification and Management companies

·         Site capacity for electrical consumption

·         Solar Panels

·         Archaeological mitigation

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         That a desire by some Members to remove permitted development rights to the new properties was not felt to be reasonable by officers

·         That the Council would enforce the Management Plan if this became necessary in the future

·         The number of electric vehicle charging points provided was above the required level detailed in the adopted policy

·         Plots 57 and 58 where over 40 meters away from the nearest property and would not need to be lowered to prevent overlooking

·         The views of the DCC Highways Officer who stated that the site was hilly and that they had worked with the developer to achieve the best possible solution to the cycleway

·         That there was no adopted policy which could force the developer to make the site electricity only and that information from the electricity distribution company was that they current supply to the site would not facilitate this as there was not enough capacity

·         The views of the objector who stated that there was dodgy data used for the drainage and there was significant overlooking of existing properties. That the insulation proposed had not been independently checked, there were concerns with the separate site construction access and the location of the self-build plots. That the application should be refused due to poor layout and the cycle way gradients.

·         The views of the applicant who stated that they had responded to all of the concerns raised by Members. There was no maximum gradient allowed for cycle ways and that the LEAP had been redesigned. Plots 47 and 48 had been lowered as requested. That the lighting plan was part of the discharge conditions and that the residents would take over the management plan after 10 years. That the electricity distribution company had confirmed that there was not the capacity to make all of the homes electricity only so they had used a fabric first approach to make the homes more energy efficient

·         The view of the Parish Council who were concerned about road speeds and that gas boilers were to be installed

·         The views of the Ward Members who felt that residents’ concerns should be listened to and addressed. That the green infrastructure should be protected and that no play equipment should be sited on it. That there was no need for a trim trail

·         Separate access for 3 self build plots

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Development Management Manager.

 

(Proposed by B A Moore and seconded by P J Heal)

 

Reason for the decision: As set out in the report

 

·         Cllrs Mrs C Collis, S J Clist and B G J Warren requested that their votes against the decision be recorded

·         Cllrs C J Eginton, F W Letch and B Holdman requested that their abstention from voting be recorded

·         Jamie Byrom spoke as the objector

·         Tim Smale of Edenstone Homes spoke as the applicant

·         Cllr David Cutts spoke on behalf of Sampford Peverell Parish Council

·         Cllrs J Norton and Mrs C Collis provided statements as Ward Members

·         Brian Hensley spoke on behalf of DCC Highways Authority

·         Cllr C J Eginton left the meeting at 16.38pm

·         The following late information had been received:

 

Consultee Responses:

 

Sampford Peverell Parish Council – 15th August 2022

 

The documents concerning this Reserved Matters application which have been added since June have been studied by all Members of Sampford Peverell Parish Council.  We appreciate the continuing efforts that have been made to improve and clarify the application and feel that the overall plans are much better now.  The plans for refuse collection are clearer, with public waste bins marked, and the open space specification is better, for instance specifying minimal use of herbicides and hedge-cutting.  However we still have a few concerns:

 

Road speed around the area.  We appreciate that changes to speed limits are controlled by DCC, but we suggest improved signage or gateway markers at the corners of the site could make it much clearer to drivers that they are entering the village. We would be happy to talk to Edenstone about our ideas.

 

We are very concerned about the effect of climate change, as evidenced by the recent heatwave, and like the district and county we want to reduce carbon emissions in the area.  The changes in building regulations that took effect in June urge developers to install electric heating systems combined with renewable energy sources such as photovoltaics.  The email from the developers’ agent states “Unfortunately, the power company have advised that there is not sufficient power available to service the site as an ‘electricity-only’ development and they have no programme at the moment to upgrade the system. It is not, therefore, possible to propose an alternative system to that currently put forward”.  We contacted Western Distribution who could not tell us exactly what was said in this case, but they assured us that Sampford Peverell has no limit on the amount of electricity that can be used here, and there is also no limit on the number of houses that can have solar panels installed.  Could the developers please explain the statement in their email?  At the very least they could install solar panels, which are common in the village, and which are now well designed to fit in almost invisibly into new roofs.  As the attached photograph shows, it is perfectly possible to build new houses (to the right) in the style of much older houses (to the left) with the most modern installations included (solar panels built into the roof structure). We expect a convincing explanation why this cannot be done for this development at a time when carbon footprint is of foremost concern.

 

We are happy that the LEAP for young children is now in the heart of the housing, with trim trail equipment provided to the north for teenagers and adults, we would, however like to see details of the equipment to be provided in both areas, and assurance that the trim trail equipment will not allow the overlooking of nearby houses. 

 

The road hierarchy document does make it clear which roads are to be at an adoptable standard, but it was previously stated that they would not actually be adopted.  We would like to be clear who will maintain these roads, collect rubbish from them, install and maintain the lighting along them, and what it means for, say, visitor parking.

 

We would still like to see a lighting plan.  Item 20 in the list of planning conditions from the Appeal Inspector said that “no street and/or external lighting of public areas shall be installed on site except in accordance with a sensitive lighting plan that shall have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority”.  We have not yet seen such a plan.  The email from the agent says “This will be dealt with through the discharge of the outline condition (Condition 20 of planning permission 17/01359/MOUT) and this further detail remains within the MDDC’s control”.  This missing plan is a requirement, as lighting is part of ‘Appearance’ in Reserved Matters.

 

We know parishioners who live near the site have other concerns regarding privacy, or the type and size of landscaping or planting near their homes.  They are making their own objections and we hope their concerns will be dealt with. 

 

Lead Local Flood Authority (D.C.C) – 18th August 2022 (response to concerns over drainage raised by Mr Byrom on 15th August 2022).

 

‘I responded to Jamie (response contained on page 7 of Jamie’s letter). I responded to Jamie’s further email this week stating the following:

 

The northern and southern connections of the eastern footpath are considered negligible and we consider that the highway drainage should be able to manage this (I am not aware that my Highways colleagues have raised concerns with these areas).

 

The south western footpath connection has been left to drain onto the highway (this is not uncommon). The flows would either drain west or south and I have not been made aware of any concerns with the drainage systems in these roads (only the systems draining eastwards down Higher Town and Turnpike).

 

We are content with the proposals.’

 

Local Highway Authority – 26th July 2022 (response to concerns raised by objectors to gradients)

 

‘The gradients within the site for the footway have indeed already been agreed with the Highway Authority at 8% so the further reduction to 7% will of course help.

 

I should point out that the guidance for gradients are a guidance and if these cannot be met, it would down the Highway Authority to agree on whether steeper gradients would be acceptable.  And this is the case for many developments throughout Devon as a whole due to the topography of the County.  The Developer has spoken to the Devon County Council Agreements Officer and gone through the proposal of what can be achieved regards the footway and proposed landing points, which has been agreed.

 

As you know this development is not being put forward for adoption and therefore the County Highway Authority would be asking for the development to be built to an acceptable standard, under the APC (Advanced Payment Code) of The Highway Act 1980.  And the gradients proposed would be an acceptable standard.’

 

Objections received further to the revised information submitted.

 

Further to the writing of the officer report which is prepared just over two weeks in advance of the planning committee, 7 additional letters of objection have been received to the earlier 4 letters referred to. In summary the additional grounds of objection are:

 

·         Failings of the drainage design for the development

·         Concerns of the Design Review Panel and how they assessed the proposal

·         Requirement of a condition to remove permitted development rights

·         Concerns to the position of the allotment shed

·         Note that residents object to the proposed oak tree which could be relocated opposite the cemetery

·         The erection of 60 dwelling will add to infrastructure pressures

·         The Council is withholding documents with comments referred to in the committee report from Highways and Natural England which are not viewable on file

·         Land levels need to be reduced further to protect amenity to residents of 42-46 Higher Town

·         Additional planting is required to screen harmful effects of the development

·         The Trim Trail along the cycleway should not be allowed

·         Objection to the proposed gradients which are not in accordance with guidelines

·         Concerns over a Member briefing and that residents should be included

·         Concerns in respect to the Open Space Specification and Management Companies

·         Evidence required for site’s capacity for electrical consumption needs to be made public

·         The site could take a number of years to build and should include solar panels

·         Evidence required of no specific archaeological mitigation in accordance with Policy

·         There is no detail of drainage runoff onto Higher Town and how it will be dealt with

 

On the matters of objections received throughout the planning process, complaints have been received that the correct number of objections have not be referred to within the committee report. Members should be aware that there have to date been 61 letters of objection received (all viewable on file), which are from 24 individuals residing at 18 properties. In some instances individuals have written in multiple times and the public access website links these objections together in providing a total for objections.

 

b)     Application 21/01420/FULL - Erection of an agricultural building, polytunnels and raised beds, septic tank and provision of new vehicular access at Land at NGR 289870 116865, Stoodleigh Cross, Stoodleigh.

 

The Area Team Leader outlined the application by way of a presentation which highlighted the site location plan, aerial image, block plan, plans and elevations, access plan and photographs of the site.

 

The officer explained that a decision had been deferred by the Committee for a site visit to take place which had now occurred.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         That the removal of the existing containers could not be conditioned as they were not part of the application

·         Enforcement action would have to take place if the containers were not removed

·         The closest property was 500 metres away from the site

·         The views of the Parish Council who stated that their objections still existed and there was anxiety and suspicion about the development. That if permission was granted, that conditions were enforced.

·         The views of the Ward Member who felt that the development did not comply with policies DM20 or S14. That there were concerns over the proposed septic tank and that permission should be refused

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Development Management Manager subject to an amendment to condition 1 to read:

 

1.         The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 12 months from the date of this permission

 

(Proposed by B A Moore and seconded by B G J Warren)

 

Reason for the decision: As set out in the report

 

Notes:

 

·         Cllr S J Clist requested that his abstention from voting be recorded

·         John Widdowson spoke on behalf of Stoodleigh Parish Council

·         Cllr R J Stanley provided a statement which was read out by the Chairman