Skip to main content

Agenda item

THE PLANS LIST (01:02:50)

To consider the planning applications contained in the list.

 

Minutes:

The Committee considered the applications in the plans list *.

 

Note: * List previously circulated; copy attached to the signed Minutes.

 

a)    No 1 on the Plans List (17/01359/MOUT – Outline for the erection of 60 dwellings and construction of new vehicular access onto highway to the west of the site, along with 3 pedestrian/cycle access points to serve the site, with all other matters to be reserved – land and buildings at NGR 302469 114078, Higher Town, Sampford Peverell)

 

The Group Manager for Development commenced his presentation by making reference to the updates included in the update sheet. This included a revision of condition 26 to include reptiles along with badgers since the efficacy of the applicant’s own survey had been undermined by the repeated removal of the refugia on site. As such the amendment to condition 26 now negated the need for condition 27. Natural England had issued Standing Advice to assist Local Planning Authorities and developers in deciding whether there was a reasonable likelihood of protected species being present on a proposed site. The crossing and pedestrian access points on this site were the least likely areas for potential harm to reptiles, however the revised condition stipulated that any approved development could not commence until a repeat survey for the presence of badgers and reptiles had been carried out.

 

The second update related to the Council’s five year housing land supply figures which had been updated based on the most recent statistics. This had increased from 4.15 years to 4.45 years which was seen as positive but was still short of the 5 year land supply.

 

In relation to the questions posed at public question time the Group Manager for Development stated that evidence within either the report or the update addressed many of the concerns raised including reference to COR18, the suggested undemocratic process and the weight given to SP2. It was the officer’s opinion that the assessment in relation to public benefit versus public harm had been accurate. In relation to the question posed about the 35% affordable homes the officer explained that this figure was correct. Questions relating to the ‘sub-standard’ crossing and water run off had also been addressed within the report.

 

The contents of the report were outlined by way of presentation highlighting, through the use of photographs, the indicative layout of the site, the proposed access arrangements, its geographical position in relation to the canal and its position in relation to surrounding buildings which included a listed building and non-listed heritage assets such as a wall which was of particular local interest. It was also explained that the site was outside the settlement limit as identified in the Local Plan. The Local Plan was currently under review and the fact that this site was a part of that review was a material consideration. Reference was made to the NPPF which stated that there should be a presumption in favour of development unless significant adverse harm outweighed the public benefit.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         Concerns regarding speed limits following a recent site visit. The representative from the Highways Authority stated that there would be some decrease in the speed limits around the site should it be approved.

·         School numbers and the need for a more thorough investigation into the number of potential places needed and whether this was achievable within the Sampford Peverell education provision.

·         Housing supply figures being adjusted because of persistent under delivery.

·         Concerns regarding visual impact and the topography of the site meaning that whilst the properties would have extensive views the properties themselves could also been seen for miles. The Group Manager for Development explained that there had been a discrepancy with the information provided by the LVIA. The Council’s professional had had a different interpretation of the assessment and their methodology but had confirmed that ‘visual impact’ was not unacceptable.

·         The number of allocated sites currently without planning permission.

·         A decision regarding proposals for J27 was still outstanding and with the Inspector at the current time.

·         Highways concerns and the resultant traffic through Halberton.

·         The sustainability of the site.

 

RESOLVED that Members were minded to refuse the application and therefore wished to defer the application for consideration of an implications report to consider reasons for refusal to include:

 

·         Visual impact

·         Highway safety

·         Sustainability

 

(Proposed by Cllr B A Moore and seconded by Cllr Mrs G Doe)

 

Notes:

 

(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 in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing in Planning Matters as they had all received correspondence regarding this application.

 

(ii)          Cllr F W Letch declared a personal interest as he knew some of the objectors and had a close friend who lived nearby.

 

(iii)         Cllr R F Radford declared a personal interest as his brother lived in Battens Cross, Sampford Peverell

 

(iv)         Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as he had worked with a resident at Higher Town.

 

(v)          Mr Jamie Byrom (objector) spoke.

 

(vi)         Mr Ian Adlington (Sampford Peverell Parish Council) spoke.

 

(vii)        The following late information was reported:

 

10th July 2018

The Applicant following a request from the Authority undertook a reptile survey on the area highlighted within the Ecology report submitted with the application. The survey commenced on site in the region of the junction of Higher Road and Turnpike at Sampford Peverell.  The survey efficacy has been undermined by the repeated removal of the refugia placed on site and as such no definitive results can be relied on to determine the presence or not of reptiles.

Therefore it is considered prudent in this case to include reptiles along with badgers within condition 26, this will also negate the need for condition 27 which can be removed. Conditions following to be re-numbered

The new condition will read

26.        No site works comprised in or arising from the development nor any part of the development hereby approved (including but not limited to site or boundary clearance, ground investigations, site survey works, temporary access construction works, pegging or marking out operations, archaeological investigations or the erection of fencing or hoardings on or around the site) shall be carried out unless and until a repeat survey for the presence of Badgers and Reptiles on the site and within those habitats adjoining the site which are identified in the extended Phase 1 Ecological Appraisal of January 2018 as being suitable for such species, has been carried out in the appropriate season and survey reports submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The submitted surveys shall detail the likely impact upon and disturbance of those species arising from the development hereby approved and include, where necessary, a scheme of mitigation and/or compensation measures to address such impact and/or disturbance, including a timetable for such mitigation and measures.  The surveys and scheme of mitigation and/or compensation measures shall, if approved, be implemented and maintained in full accordance with the details of the said surveys and scheme.

Forward Planning – update note

11th July 2018

Housing Land Availability Summary 2018 – Five year housing supply

The Council’s five year housing land supply figures have been updated based on the most recent statistics. These are summarised below and will be published in detail on the Council’s website.

The level of available housing land required to provide a 5 year supply (for the period 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2023) is based on the adopted Core Strategy, Exeter Housing Market Area SHMA (Strategic Housing Market Assessment) and cumulative housing completions since 2006.

A

Core Strategy annual requirement 2006-2013

390

B

Total requirement 2006-2013 (A*7)

2730

C

SHMA annual requirement 2013 onwards

380

D

Total requirement 2013-2018 (C*5)

1900

E

Requirement to date 2006-2018 (B+D)

4630

F

Completions to date 2006-2018

4036

G

Shortfall to date 2006-2018 (E-F)

594

H

5 year requirement 2018-2023 (C*5)

1900

I

5 year supply requirement 2018-2023 (G+H)

2494

J

20% buffer (I*0.2)

499

K

TOTAL REQUIREMENT (I+J)

2993

 

Supply

 

Unconsented allocations

392

Consented allocations

1249

Consented windfalls

764

Windfall allowance

258

TOTAL SUPPLY

2663

 

Against the requirement of 2993 dwellings, Mid Devon’s housing supply currently stands at 4.45 years[1].

The approach used has been based on the findings of ‘Uffculme Road, Uffculme’ (April 2016) appeal and the published Local Plan Review (2017) which considers 380 as the appropriate annual housing target based on the Strategic Housing Market Assessment Report Final Report 2015. It also uses Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment methodology for the Exeter housing market area, the ‘Sedgefield’ approach that requires the inclusion of any housing shortfall to be delivered within the first five years of the plan, and applies a 20% buffer where there is persistent under delivery.

b)    No 2 on the Plans List (18/00133/MARM – Reserved Matters application, pursuant to Outline application 13/01616/MOUT, for the construction of 248 dwellings, 3 Gypsy and Traveller pitches, public open space, landscape planting, pedestrian, cycle and vehicular links; and associated infrastructure – land at NGR 298618 113487, Uplowman Road, Tiverton)

 

The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way pf presentation highlighting the location of the site through photographs from various vantage points. An aerial view of the site was shown illustrating the northern and southern land parcels as well as the location of the gypsy and traveller site. The affordable housing would come forward as a separate application. The character areas within the proposed development were described and a ‘fly-through’ of the development was shown.

 

With regards to the questions posed in public question time the Area Planning Officer confirmed that the scheme did provide for a mix of age groups with the intention of creating a balanced community. There was a mix of density and a mix of house heights. There was a low density of development near neighbouring properties. A question was asked about a new access point into the development site. It was stated that the Planning Authority had an approved outline application and a signed S106. This had dealt with the points of access therefore this had already been agreed.

 

The representative from the Highways Authority addressed the question posed about the slip road and advised that to provide access into the site from the A361 would result in lane closures (including through the summer period) and a breach to the newly constructed acoustic fence. He did expect Chettiscombe Trust to come forward with their link road and stated that they would be going out to tender this summer.

 

A question had been asked in relation to the loss of the Devon Bank and the density of development. The Area Planning Officer responded by stating that the outline application had allowed for up to 15 units but the Reserved Matters scheme only proposed 13 units. The proposed development did retain 2780m of hedgerow and efforts had been made by officers to retain as much of this and the Devon Bank as possible.

 

In response to the question concerning the shifting of the turning point eastwards off Uplowman Road it was stated that this had been given consideration by swapping the house and garage of plot 175. However, this would have resulted in a greater loss of hedgebank. It was hoped a link through to the NHS site would be forthcoming soon, this would secure additional access up to the boundary. However, this could not be moved forwards at the current time as the NHS site was in separate ownership.

 

In response to the question asked about moving the turning head further east, the Highways representative confirmed that technically this was possible but could result in the loss of the garage. It would also mean that the footway/ cycleway at the end of Uplowman Road would need to be shortened.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         What guarantees were in place to ensure that the required number of affordable housing units would come forward? It was stated that the Planning Authority was already in receipt of a signed S106 to ensure that this would happen but that a separate developer would deliver that housing.

·         A management plan had been received confirming that the attenuation ponds would be managed by a private company.

·         Detailed construction plans had been submitted with the DCC flood risk team having signed off the elements in relation to water run off.

·         Concerns in relation to the siting of the show homes and associated parking as currently proposed.

·         Concerns regarding the loss of hedgebank and particularly Devon Bank parts of which were over 100 years old.

 

RESOLVED that Members were minded to approve the application but wished to defer final determination to allow for further consideration of the following issues:

 

·         The possible repositioning of the turning head.

·         The detrimental impact on the Devon Bank and whether this could be lessened.

·         Repositioning of the show homes and associated parking to allay traffic concerns.

 

(Proposed by Cllr B A Moore and seconded by Cllr D J Knowles)

 

Notes:

 

(i)            Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as the Cabinet Member for Housing and Director of 3 Rivers Developments Limited and left the meeting thereon and did not take part in the discussion.

 

(ii)          Cllr D J Knowles declared a personal interest as he knew some of the objectors.

 

(iii)         Cllr R F Radford left the meeting for part of the discussion and therefore did not take part in the vote.

 

(iv)         Dr Chris Bell (objector).

 

(v)          Cllrs D J Knowles and C R Slade spoke as Ward Members.

 

(vi)         The following late information was reported:

 

9th July 2018

 

Delete Conditions 11 and 12.

Condition 15 of Outline Planning Consent (13/01616/MOUT) confirms that no development shall take place on-site until the off-site highway works from the site access to Post Hill and along Putson Lane have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. It goes on to say that those works should be in general accordance with drawing No. 3026/05A of the outline consent.

The drawings submitted to date for this Reserved Matters application do not fully meet the needs of the Highway Authority. However, because Condition 15 of the Outline Consent requires the works to be in general conformity only, amendments can be made to the final road design under Condition 15 without the need for new Conditions 11 and 12. This has been confirmed by DCC Highway Authority.

 

Delete Condition 10 

Condition 11 of  Outline Planning Consent (13/01616/MOUT) confirms that there shall be no occupation of any dwelling until various works within the highway have been completed. Parts a, b and c of Condition 10, that is attached to this Reserved Matters application, broadly duplicates Condition 11 of the outline consent. Parts a, b and c of Condition 10 are therefore un-necessary as they will be satisfied when Condition 11 of the outline consent is discharged. DCC Highway Authority have confirmed this.

Condition 10(d) of this Reserved Matters application also required details of the site compound. Those details have now been submitted (Drawing No.s SC1A & DB-SD13-008B) to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. As such, Condition 10 can be deleted.   

 

New Comments / Objections Received

 

Tiverton Town Council (03.07.18): Support

 

Mr Sloman (06.07.18): Objection. Loss of a significant length of hedge bank and dominance of hard landscape to accommodate parking cars to the front of properties onalong Uplowman Road is not in keeping with the area. It is not sympathetic to the existing properties and represents very poor design to the entire project.

 

Dr Bell (30.06.18): Objection. Object to the location of the turning heading at Plot 175 based on engine noise, exhaust emissions and the health impact it would have on existing near residents.

 

Relocate eastwards so the turning head serves the full length of the ‘stopped off’ Uplowman Road as well as easing the impact on existing residents.

 

PLEASE ALSO SEE  APPENDIX 1 – ATTACHED TO THE UPDATE SHEET

 

(c) No. 3 on the Plans List (18/00867/CAT – Notification of intention to fell 1 maple tree within the Conservation Area – Blagdon House, Blagdon, Crediton).

 

The Planning Officer briefly outlined the contents of the report and informed the Committee that there had been no objections received from Crediton Town Council or the tree officer.

 

RESOLVED that there be no objection to the works since the tree was not considered to provide a significant enough contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area to warrant long term protection through the imposition of a tree preservation order.

 

(Proposed by the Chairman)

 

Notes:

 

(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 declared personal interests as Councillor J M Downes was known to them all as a fellow District Councillor.

 



 

Supporting documents: