Agenda item

To receive a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration requesting  Members to consider the implications to the Local Plan of making a major modification to the Local Plan Review to allocate land at J27 of the M5 for a leisure/retail/tourism and employment development.

The Cabinet had before it a * report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration requesting it to consider the implications to the Local Plan of making a major modification to the Local Plan Review to allocate land at J27 of the M5 for leisure/retail/tourism and employment development.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration outlined the contents of the report stating that before the meeting today was the issue of land allocation and that the Cabinet were not being requested to determine any particular scheme by the land promoter or an application by the land promotor. She also clarified that business rate revenue was not a material planning consideration and should not form part of consideration of an allocation. She outlined the history of the site and the various schemes that had come forward over many years, the agreement for the new area of growth identified east of Cullompton and that a new settlement limit option north of Willand was not pursued; the proposed submission plan of 2014 that had omitted J27 as allocated land and the work that had taken place to date to address the issues raised in 2014.

She identified the site by way of presentation, highlighting the elements of the allocation and the land ownership evidence. The tourism and leisure opportunity would be supported by a retail facility in the form of a designer village outlet. She addressed the work that had taken place by the Council’s Retail Consultant and the issue of trade draw which had been highlighted during public question time, it had been suggested that there would be some trade draw impact but that this would be offset by expenditure growth and was not considered significant.  She also explained the “Duty to Cooperate” consultation that had taken place with surrounding local authorities and although some concerns had been raised with regard to the impact on retail, the allocation was still thought to be sound. However objection from certain Duty to Cooperate partners was still expected.

With regard to the movement of people who chose to shop outside Mid Devon, it was anticipated that such an allocation would have the potential to claw back some expenditure leakage.  The officer addressed the housing issue identified during public question time. An updated assessment for the whole of the Local Plan had resulted in an additional 400 houses as the result of finalisation of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. It was felt that the additional dwellings could be met within allocated sites taking into account permissions granted.  The National Planning Policy Framework acknowledged the importance of ensuring housing numbers and employment opportunities were considered in tandem. There was a need to allocate additional land to accommodate 260 dwellings in the vicinity of Junction 27 if the land were to be put forward. Potential sites were then outlined; with regard to the site at Sampford Peverell and the questions posed in public question time: the suggestion that the site was fairly prominent meant that the density would be lowered to allow for areas of landscaping to be progressed, there were also issues with regard to level differences at the access to the site, a portion of land would be required to deal with that issue.

The tourism study and tourism policy were also highlighted, it was felt that there was an identified tourism need and that the allocation would make a significant contribution to tourism in the area meeting certain themes within the study.  Extensive discussions were taking place with Devon County Council Highway Authority and Highway England with regard to junction improvements should the allocation be approved were ongoing.  Landscaping and ecology issues were also addressed including the need for appropriate assessment.

The officer then outlined the submission timetable for the Local Plan review with or without the allocation of land at J27.  It was likely that the inspector would require further consultation to the adjustments made within the plan following submission or that this could take place prior to submission.

Referring again to the questions posed at the beginning of the meeting, she felt that she had addressed the issues with regard to trade draw; additional housing was required if the allocation was supported as outlined in national planning policy. There would be a delay in the estimated adoption date of possibly 3 months.  The additional local housing would need to be agreed alongside the allocation of J27 as stated in national planning policy.  The site at Sampford Peverell would be for 60 dwellings allowing for part of the land to be used to mitigate against the access and landscaping issues.

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Regeneration referring to  the concerns from Cullompton Town Council with regard to its Neighbourhood Plan, stated that he would look into the matter with the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

Consideration was given to:

·         The low unemployment rates in the area and whether there was a need for the additional employment on the site

·         The fact that local people would continue to use local services

·         Whether additional consultation was required prior to submission of the Plan

·         Whether any delay in submission would have a long term impact

·          Supporting local business, tourism and employment were all core objectives of the Council

·         The allocation of land would be of benefit to local business in nearby towns

·         Allocation of land  for housing at Blundells Road would make good use of derelict land

·         Whether the site would be developed one way or another.

RECOMMENDED to Council that:

(Proposed by the Chairman)

Notes:-

(i)            Cllr P H D Hare-Scott made the following statement: “I have sought advice from the Monitoring Officer over whether I have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in terms of my pension from Friends Life (who are associated with Eden Westwood).  As this decision is about whether or not to allocate land at J27 as a major modification to the Local Plan, which could be implemented by any developer and is not a decision on proposals from Eden Westwood, I have been advised that I do not need to make any declaration”  Cllr R L Stanley also stated that he had a pension with Friends Life;

(ii)          Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge declared a personal interest as she owned holiday cottages;

(iii)         Cllr Mrs E M Andrews declared a personal interest as a Member of the Cullompton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group and as a Town Councillor;

(iv)         Cllr Mrs J B Binks declared a personal interest as she had been in discussions with the land proposers and objectors;

(v)          Cllr Mrs A R Berry declared a personal interest as she had made contact with both sides.

(vi)         * Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.