Agenda item

Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration requesting consideration of suggested modifications to the proposed submission local plan and to make appropriate recommendations to Council.

The Cabinet had before it a report* of the Head of Planning and Regeneration  requesting consideration of suggested modifications to the proposed submission Local Plan and to make appropriate recommendations to Council.

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Regeneration outlined the contents of the report highlighting the consultation process that had taken place in 2015, following the consultation additional technical work was required prior to submission to the Secretary of State to ensure that the position was robust.  The additional technical evidence had resulted in a delay in submitting the plan.  The external technical work, reliant on statutory consultees’ involvement, had taken longer than anticipated to complete.  Agreement on the flood modelling work for Junction 28 of the M5 at Cullompton was now expected to coincide with the proposed further round of consultation commencing in January 2016.  Also since the last round of consultation in 2015 the Council had proposed to allocate land in the Local Plan for tourism, leisure and retail use at Junction 27 of the M5 and related residential allocations.  This had resulted in making the necessary amendments to the plan to reflect this decision, there was also a need to consider changes to Government guidance, updated permissions, completions data and additional evidence.

He outlined the decisions already made by Council in December 2014 and the additional decision in September 2016 to allocate land at Junction 27 and the masterplanning exercise north west of Cullompton.  Therefore it was only the modifications to the plan that required approval.

He then provided a list of changes which had been highlighted by track changes within the Cabinet report.

With regard to the additional housing sites required in connection with the proposed allocation at Junction 27, he reported that the Planning Policy Advisory Group had requested that officers give further consideration to whether there was a need to allocate land at Higher Town, Sampford Peverell (SP2).As Members noted that the proposed allocation at Blundells Road, Tiverton (TIV16) was for 200 houses only; whereas the adopted Local Plan allocation was for 200 dwellings together with 7,000 square metres of employment floorspace.  Members therefore wished to understand whether there was scope to increase the housing numbers since the employment floorspace was not proposed to be included in the new policy. Officers had reviewed the Blundells Road proposed allocation, if increased to 260 dwellings, the density would rise to approximately 43 dwellings per hectare.  The allocation as a whole included land subject to flooding, increasing the number of houses above that proposed would give less flexibility in the design of the flood mitigation measures and would be likely to position housing closer to areas that would remain subject to flooding. A higher residential density could also lead to a less satisfactory residential environment and leave less land available for a sustainable urban drainage system. Importantly development of the site must also safeguard a strategic road route through the site to serve as a road access for future development needs beyond the plan period and that would require land. Officers were of the view that they could not recommend increasing housing numbers on the Blundells Road, Tiverton site.  Accordingly it was considered that the proposed allocation at Sampford Peverell should remain.

With regard to the North West Cullompton Phasing Policy CU6; this policy was proposed to be revised in order to align the phasing with that agreed in the adopted masterplan SPD for the site. 

With regard to the land proposed for allocation at Sampford Peverell he felt that there was a need to consider protecting the site to just 60 dwellings and asked officers whether it was possible for it to become a contingency site or whether the number of windfalls would mitigate having to allocate the site.  The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that there was a need to submit a sound plan and that it meet objectively assessed housing need.  She confirmed that the plan would need to demonstrate flexibility and that no allowance had been made within it for windfall sites in order to provide for this.  She also confirmed that contingency sites were only released in set circumstances and so did not figure in the plan’s housing supply figures.  A contingency site approach would not deliver the required housing numbers and she therefore could not recommend either that approach or taking into account windfall housing.  Policy SP2 did make reference to low density, good design and that the highest part of the site should remain undeveloped.

Consideration was given to sites coming forward at Copplestone and Hemyock and whether those sites could be included in the housing need or whether the design of the dwellings proposed in the allocation at Blundells Road could be in line with Popham Close with regard to the height of the dwellings.

Further consideration was given to

·         The latest Government guidance with regard to policy DM7 – Traveller sites.

·         Pedestrian access to Tiverton Parkway Station from the proposed allocation at Junction 27.

·         The type of retail development at Junction 27.

·         Whether the requirements and criteria within the allocation at Junction 27 was clear.

·         Policy S1 – sustainable development priorities.

·         Policy DM8 – rural works dwellings

·         Policy DM6 and a possible amendment to (b) to state “each house” and to amend the wording to consider the Local Authority’s cascade system.

RECOMMENDED that:

(Proposed by the Chairman)

(Proposed by the Chairman)

(Proposed by Cllr R J Chesterton and seconded by Cllr C R Slade).

Notes:

(i)            Cllr P H D Hare-Scott declared a personal interest with regard to his pension with Friends Life (in line with his statement at the previous meeting when Junction 27 was discussed).  He also stated that he lived near proposed sites in Crediton but that this did not affect him directly;

(ii)          Cllr R L Stanley stated that since the previous meeting his interest with regard to Friends Life was no longer relevant;

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