To receive an implications report of the Head of Planning Economy and Regeneration following discussions at the previous meeting where Members were minded to refuse the application.
Minutes:
The Committee had before it a * report of the Head of Planning Economy and Regeneration following discussions at the previous meeting where Members were minded to refuse the application.
The Chairman informed the meeting that the application to appeal the decision for non-determination had not been validated by the Inspectorate as the appeal was outside the time limit. The application therefore had to be determined by the Committee.
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation providing a site plan and an indicative layout of the proposal and provided photographs from various aspects of the site.
She provided answers to questions posed in public question time:
With regard to why the application had taken so long to come to Committee:
The application for 259 houses on the adjacent site went to appeal and that start date for the appeal was 17th July 2017.
The current application which was the subject of this implications report was received on 24th April 2017 with a 13 week determination target of 24th July.
Appeals can be costly processes, requiring lots of officer resource and sometimes the use of outside consultants. Applicants also incur costs in the appeal process and have the ability to make cost applications to the Planning Inspectorate to recover some or all of their costs where the LPA has been found to act unreasonably. Officers felt that it was reasonable to delay determination of the application before Members today and to await the outcome of the appeal on the adjacent site as the Inspectors decision was very likely to provide guidance on the level of development which may be considered acceptable on the site.
I think I’m right in saying that the Cabinet Member was advised of this approach but I’m not aware of the Parish Council or Ward Members being formally advised but we would have advised them of this approach if asked.
Cllr Grantham’s questions regarding exception sites and the Local Plan: The 35 dwellings permitted under the exception policy were not required to contribute towards any infrastructure due to the delicate balance of financing such projects. The LPR sets out that development of the site for 42 dwellings will require that the developers provide affordable housing, landscaping and other mitigation, a transport assessment and enhancement of a public right of way. They will also be required to provide POS (or a contribution) and other financial contribution such as AQ and education where there is felt to result a deficiency in provision as a result of the development. Similarly the proposal Members are considering today need to make provision towards affordable housing, air quality and public open space. The cumulative number of dwellings, being 107 is still far less than half of the proposal considered by the Inspector at appeal.
Cllr Glover’s questions relating to the Inspector’s decision: It is correct that the Inspector found that 259 dwellings at Willand did conflict with development plan policies where they were relevant to ‘scale and distribution of housing in Mid Devon. However, he also makes it clear that this is very much on the basis of the number of dwellings involved as he also makes the point that (at para 13) it is reasonable to conclude that there is a vast gulf between the scale of development proposed and what the development plan envisages for villages such as Willand. He also makes the point (at para 16) that in order for the Council to meet its aspirations for development it has allocated land outside the settlement limit as not all development can take place within the existing built confines of the settlement.
Mrs Leach’s question regarding the car mechanics site, the coop and the pavements: Your officers understand that whilst the car repair business has moved from the application site recently, the premises are still there. Yes the co-op had not been built on site but the co-op have been seeking to discharge conditions to enable start on site. With regards to the footways, Mrs Leach is also correct that there is only a footway at the very start of the Old Village which disappears but the fact remains that the majority of services within the village are capable of being accessed by footways. Public safety is a consideration and is considered by the Highway Authority too in their consideration of the application and no improvements are sought as a result.
Mr Marrow’s questions regarding the consideration of the adjacent site: This application must be considered on its own merits. If approved, it will be necessary for officers to consider this application in the determination of the 125 dwelling application but Members cannot predetermine another application which is in the system and currently the subject of public consultation.
Consideration was given to:
· The views of the Ward Members with regard to the number of houses approved and those proposed within the village and those outlined within the emerging Local Plan and that the site failed the sustainability test
· The loss of employment opportunities within the village
RESOLVED that the application be refused on the following grounds:
1. The application site is outside the current settlement limit boundaries of the village of Willand and is in a countryside location. Policy COR18 of the adopted Mid Devon Core Strategy (Local Plan Part 1) seeks to strictly control development outside settlement limits and a development in this location of the scale as proposed would not be permitted under criteria a - f of this adopted policy. Neither is the site proposed to be allocated for housing within the Councils Local Plan Review 2013 -2033. The Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate that it has an adequate five year supply of housing land as required by the National Planning Policy Framework, and therefore Policy COR18 should be afforded limited weight and accordingly the application should be determined against the provisions of Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework. When tested against Paragraph 14 of the Framework the Local Planning Authority consider that the adverse impacts of the proposed development in terms of the loss of community facilities and the poor form of development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole as well as being contrary to Policy COR1 of the Mid Devon Core Strategy (Local Plan Part 1) and Policy DM1 of the Mid Devon Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies).
2. The proposed application requires the demolition of commercial and retail buildings amounting to 420sqm comprised of garage and shop, hairdressers, restaurant and car mechanics. Whilst the proposal includes the provision of a replacement facility of 340sqm this represents a short fall of 80sqm along with the loss of the petrol filling station and car sales which are considered to be community facilities as set out in Policy DM25. In a community which has been identified as having a ‘somewhat basic and modest level of provision’ [appeal ref: APP/Y1138/W/17/31723], the net loss of community facilities is considered to damage the settlements ability to meet its day to day needs contrary to policy DM25 of the Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies) and results in a development which is considered unsustainable given the economic and social harm which would result.
3. The application site only forms a contiguous boundary with the settlement limit of Willand on its eastern boundary. As a result it is considered to form an isolated, unusual development pattern at the southern end of the village with an essentially stand-alone parcel of residential development which has little or no relationship in terms of built form to the existing village contrary to policy DM2 of the Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies).
(Proposed by Cllr B A Moore and seconded by Cllr Mrs G Doe)
Notes:
(i) Cllrs Mrs G Doe and R Evans made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning Matters as they had been involved in the application as Ward Members;
(ii) Cllrs Mrs G Doe and R Evans spoke as Ward Members;
(iii) Cllrs Mrs G Doe, R Evans and B A Moore would represent the Council if the application was appealed;
(iv) The following late information was reported:
22nd February 2018 - Since the agenda was published, the Planning Inspectorate have written to the agent for the application confirming that the appeal against non-determination was not received by them within the valid timeframe and therefore they are unable to take action on it. As a result, the application falls to be considered by Planning Committee
REASON FOR REPORT: To consider the reasons for refusal proposed by the Planning Committee at the meeting of 31st January 2018 in light of further advice from Officers.
RECOMMENDATION(S)
Grant permission subject to conditions and the signing of a S106 agreement to secure.
1. 35% affordable housing on-site
2. 21 dwellings x £5,218 = £109,578 air quality contributions
3. 5 dwellings x £1,205 = £6,075 open space contributions together with the provision of onsite LEAP and sports facilities to provide for refurbishment (of Chestnut Drive Play Area Willand)
4. £102,390 toward improved primary education facilities ((£3,413 per dwelling)
The phasing of the works to provide for the commercial units prior to demolition of the existing and prior to the occupation of the 5th Market dwelling.
Email received from DCC (Special Projects and School Infrastructure Development Officer) to advise:
Since the county council submitted its education response to the application, the baseline data has been updated. This demonstrates that a contribution towards primary education, as previously requested, would no longer be requested. This is consistent with the response to the recent application in Willand. As such, we wish to withdraw our previous request for a contribution.
As a result of this revised response from DCC, the Officer recommendation has been revised to take account of this
REVISED RECOMMENDATION:
Grant permission subject to conditions and the signing of a S106 agreement to secure:
1. 35% affordable housing on-site
2. 21 dwellings x £5,218 = £109,578 air quality contributions
3. 5 dwellings x £1,205 = £6,075 open space contributions together with the provision of onsite LEAP and sports facilities to provide for refurbishment (of Chestnut Drive Play Area Willand)
4. The phasing of the works to provide for the commercial units prior to demolition of the existing and prior to the occupation of the 5th Market dwelling.
A full copy of the Inspectors Appeal Decision will be available for Members.
Supporting documents: