To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
(a) No 1 on the Plans List (18/00214/MFUL – Erection of 14 dwellings with associated roads, garages and parking – land at NGR 310280 114261 Hunters Hill, Culmstock).
The Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the location of the site and the first phase of development which was nearing completion, the improvement to the footpath into the village and access details. She explained the site layout and roof plan, the street elevations and the position of the bungalows, the drainage strategy, tree protection and boundary treatments and showed photographs from various aspects of the site. She highlighted the concerns of the Parish Council with regard to the footpath and its impact on the village green stating that this was a legal matter which could be addressed through further discussion.
Consideration was given to:
· Whether the drainage system was satisfactory
· The maintenance of the attenuation ponds
· The impact of the trees outside the site on the development
· Whether the highway would be adopted
· The concerns of the Parish Council with regard to whether the development was sustainable and whether there was a need and whether the school could continue to be expanded to accommodate additional children
· The views of the Ward Member highlighting the concerns of local residents and the weight of objections
· The tenure mix of the affordable dwellings
· The provision of affordable housing on the site and whether rented accommodation or discounted open market dwellings were appropriate
· The steepness of the footpath
· The possible increase in traffic in the area
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration and the signing of a S106 agreement in respect of:
1. Provision of 4 affordable dwellings (2 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed).
2. A financial contribution of £18,484 towards access to public open space at Colliers Meadow, Culmstock; and
3. A financial contribution of £106,778 towards primary, secondary and early years education and school transport costs.
4. The provision of footpath improvements between the site and the primary school.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge)
i) Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as Cabinet Member for Housing;
ii) Cllr Bass (Culmstock Parish Council) spoke;
iii) Cllr F J Rosamond spoke as Ward Member;
iv) Cllrs Mrs C A Collis, B A Moore, R F Radford and R L Stanley requested that their vote against the decision be recorded;
v) The following late information was reported:
One additional letter of representation has been received raising the following points:
• Question 24 on the application form states the site cannot be seen from public land.
• The site is not highly visible at the moment as it is a green field, but if development takes place it will be clearly visible from Hunters Hill, the Community Garden, the minor road leading to Pitt Farm and Culmstock Beacon.
• The suburban nature of the existing development already has a huge visual impact, MDDC should visit and observe the site from viewpoints in the surrounding area.
• Should the development be approved, the roofs should be constructed of brown tiles and grey slates, with brick and stone walls to blend in with Culmstock village. Orange tiles and white render are not in keeping with the surrounding area.
A map has been sent by the Parish Council, identifying the designated village green (attached) forming part of the area proposed for footpath improvements, the details of which are to be agreed as secured by condition and in the S106.
The numbering of the reasons for conditions on page 42 and 43 is incorrect, below condition 5 on page 42 there is a reason without a number, all other reasons to be adjusted by 1. There are no reasons missing.
(b) No 2 on the Plans List (18/00283/OUT – Outline for the erection of a dwelling and alterations to vehicular access – Jaspers Green, Uplowman).
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the history of planning applications in the local area and the results of various appeals, the site location, the proposed block plan and photographs from various aspects of the site.
Consideration was given to:
· The views of the agent who reminded Members of the application on the adjacent site which had been approved and had also been infill, the suitability of small scale development in the village, there had been no letters of objection and the Parish Council had not objected.
· The recent appeal decision for 8 dwellings which had been dismissed and the reasoning for dismissal and a further appeal for a single dwelling which had also been dismissed
· The risk of an accumulation of single dwellings coming forward in the village in the event of approval.
RESOLVED that the application be refused as recommended by the Head of Planning Economy and Regeneration for the following reasons:
1. The Local Planning Authority does not consider Uplowman to be a sustainable settlement in that it lacks the day to day facilities that make it suitable for housing growth. Uplowman has only one of the three essential services that the Local Planning Authority considers necessary for even a limited level of new housing development. Whilst Uplowman does have an education facility, it does not have a shop or public transport service (one bus a week). Accessibility to a wide range of services is poor and there would be a high dependency on the usage of the private car. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposal would not amount to sustainable development and therefore conflicts with the sustainability objectives of the NPPF. The harm caused by this conflict is considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development in providing new housing in the District.
The proposal is considered to be contrary to policies: COR1, COR9, COR12 and COR18 of the Mid Devon Core Strategy (LP1) and the sustainability objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.
2. There is a hedgerow along the boundary of the site with the road. The application is silent on whether all or part of the hedgerow would need to be removed to facilitate the new access and visibility splays. The hedgerow is considered to contribute towards the rural character of the lane and the visual amenities of the area and its removal would be detrimental to the rural quality of the area. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policies COR2 of the Mid Devon Core Strategy (LP1), DM2 of the Local Plan 3 Development Management Policies and the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.
3. The application provides no details of the foul drainage proposals for the dwelling. Policy DM2 of the Local Plan 3 Development Management Policies requires appropriate drainage to be provided including SUDS, and connection of foul drainage to a mains sewer where available. No justification has been provided that the dwelling could not be provided with a connection to the main sewer for foul drainage or that a SUDS scheme or soakaway could not be provided on site, contrary to policy DM2 of the LP3 DMP.
4. Policy AL/IN/3 requires that new residential proposals will contribute to the provision of public open space of at least 60sqm of equipped and landscaped public open space per market dwelling, within the local area. In this case there is a requirement for the provision of £1205 to be provided towards improvements to sporting facilities at Crossways Playing Field, Uplowman
(Proposed by Cllr B A Moore and seconded by Cllr P J Heal)
i) Cllrs: Mrs H Bainbridge, Mrs C A Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, Mrs G Doe, P J Heal, D J Knowles, F W Letch, B A Moore, R F Radford, J D Squire and R L Stanley made declarations on accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing in Planning Matters as they had all received correspondence regarding this application;
ii) Cllr R F Radford declared a personal interest as it had been suggested that he had pre-determined the application (which he rejected), however he would listen to the debate and abstain from voting;
iii) Cllr J D Squire requested that his vote against the decision be recorded;
iv) Cllr R F Radford requested that his abstention from voting be recorded;
v) Mr Culshaw (Agent) spoke;
vi) The following late information was reported:
A further representation :the report to members failed to mention the recent approval of a dwelling located adjacent to this site by the committee on the 4th October 2017 plans list no 3 application number 17/01108/OUT. The application was submitted to committee to consider with an officer recommendation for refusal. The committee considered the application the aspects considered were whether the proposal was defined a s infill, the school, public house and post office in the village, whether there was any physical harm using the land for development of one dwelling, planning policy with regard to development in unsustainable villages, Repercussions of allowing such a site to be developed, previous appeal decision, and concluded that the proposal is considered to be acceptable in that it falls to be in accordance with the provisions of NPPF paragraph 14, the benefits of the provision of a single dwelling that respects the existing development pattern of Uplowman and has no unacceptable impact on highway safety, visual amenity and amenity of neighbouring residents, are considered to outweigh the harm caused by new residential development in a countryside location that is considered to be unsustainable in planning policy terms. The proposed was recommended for approval with conditions to be delegated to the Planning Manager.
Appeal Decision recently received ref APP/Y1138/W/17/3189570 The Beeches, Road from Stag Mill Cross to Lowman Cross, Uplowman EX16 7DW
The proposal was for the creation of 8 dwellings, the application 17/00033/OUT; dated 8th January 2017 was considered and refused on the 19th May 2017.
The application was submitted in outline with access and scale to be determined. A signed and completed unilateral obligation.
The main issue in this case is whether the site would be a suitable location for 8 dwellings having regard to the policies of the development plan and, if harm arises, whether this is outweighed by other material considerations.
The appeal site comprises a field and paddock, along with a large agricultural type building and stables. Access to be off an existing road adjacent to Crosses Farm which serves a small number of dwellings. The dwellings would adjoin Uplowman which is a small settlement, and considered by the inspector as not isolated.
Policy COR1, COR9, and COR17 were all considered by the inspector in this proposal. The applicant put forward a number of arguments to support the proposal, the key points being;
a) Facilities within Uplowman and proximity to Sampford Peverell which have regular bus and train services
b) Accessible location, the village hall and public house are well used
c) The local school has capacity for additional pupils
The inspector concluded the range of services in the settlement is limited with the post office only open 12 hours a week, with no shop and that there is little evidence to suggest the facilities are under threat or that the proposal would enable a shop to open, or public transport to be enhanced.
The inspector concluded that there would be a high probability that residents of the new dwellings would drive into neighbouring settlements. As such the location of the appeal site would generate an appreciable amount of additional car borne travel and associated greenhouse gases.
Uplowman is not defined as a village and that the proposal provides no evidence to indicate that the development would meet the remaining criteria of COR18.
Therefore judged against CS policies COR1, COR9, COR12 and COR18, the proposal would not be a sustainable location.
The planning application referred to in part 1 above was considered in respect of this proposal and the inspector considered this and stated that whilst there are many parallels in relation to the accessibility of the dwellings and the settlement, the scale of the proposal is significantly greater than that permitted.
The inspector considers that due weight should be given to the relevant policies according to their consistency with the framework. The policies are also broadly consistent with Paragraph 55 of the framework which advises that to promote sustainable development in rural area, housing should be located where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.
The proposal would have a limited biodiversity gain. Modest economic benefits, any Council Tax revenue would be offset by the new population to serve and would therefore be a neutral factor.
The conclusion is that the adverse impacts on the housing strategy and of increasing travel by car would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework when taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.
Application 18/00027/OUT has recently been considered for the erection of a single dwelling, previous application have been undertaken at this site ( Large section of garden in connection with Little Chace set to the rear of the property) which have been refused including an appeal. The conclusion was that the proposed residential use of the land would conflict with national and local policy which seeks to restrict residential development in rural areas, unless there is specific justification, and in this case, the Authority has not identified any special circumstances which would outweigh the conflict with the development plan.
Within reason 4 for refusal the Monitoring fee has been included (Along with a monitoring fee of £110.80.) which should be removed from the reason as it is dealt with under separate legislation, and does not form part of the reasons associated with this planning application.
(c) No 3 on the Plans List (18/00002/TPO – Tree Preservation Order for 1 willow tree – 2 Quarry View, Burlescombe).
The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the 2 pine trees that had been removed and the request for the removal of the willow tree which had prompted the request for a Tree Preservation Order. Members viewed the location of the willow tree and various photographs taken from the towpath of the canal.
Consideration was given to:
· To the concerns of the property owner with regard to the impact of the roots of willow tree on the paths surrounding the property, overhanging branch issues and lack of communication from the Tree Officer. The involvement of their aboriculturist in the matter and the need for the property owners to have a discussion with the Tree Officer with regard to a proposed maintenance scheme for the tree.
· The need for the Tree Officer to visit the property.
· The need for the Tree Preservation Order to be confirmed within 6 months from the date it had been made, namely by 6 September 2018.
RESOLVED that the application be deferred to allow the Tree Officer to visit the site and confer with the owners of the property, following this, the application to return to committee for determination.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr J D Squire)
i) Mrs Jennings spoke on behalf of her parents;
ii) A proposal to agree the confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order was not supported at this time.