To consider an implications report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application; Members at a previous meeting were minded to refuse planning permission but a final decision was deferred pending consideration of this implications report.
Minutes:
The Committee had before it an implications report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application; Members at a previous meeting were minded to refuse planning permission but a final decision was deferred pending consideration of this implications report.
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report informing Members of the detail of the original application and the changes that had been made over the course of the application discussions which had seen a reduction in the number of dwellings to 60 the relocation of the access, the application was broadly in line with Policy SP2 which was being considered as part of the Local Plan Review. He also informed the meeting of the findings of the inspector following the Local Plan Review hearings in November 2018, the use and findings of the highway experts who had been commissioned by the various parties, the concerns of the objectors with regard to landscape visual impact, the various accesses to the site and highways issues. He outlined the traffic calming measures suggested along with vehicle access arrangements and the proposed highway improvements at Sampford Bridge, the footpath and cycle way onto Turnpike and identified the visibility splays and pedestrian access south of Battens Cross. Members also viewed photographs from various aspects of the site and their attention was drawn to Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Consideration was given to:
· The amount of affordable housing suggested for the site
· The width of pavements at Turnpike
· The Local Plan Review and the weight to be given to the plan prior to it being adopted, the link to J27 and the A361 and the views of the inspector
· The cycleway route onto the highway
· The location of the 30 mph signage and the proposed relocation of this
· The results of the full safety audit
· The contributions within the S106 towards education
· The views of the objectors with regard to the misleading information that was being provided, the movement of the 30 mph sign, the width of the road on the north east access, the assessment of the application based on illustrative plans, the houses on the green infrastructure, the screening referred to the in the landscape assessment and the views of the objectors highway expert who had recommended refusal.
· The views of the Parish Council who had agreed with the reasons for refusal indicated by the committee in July 2018; there was no objection to development within the village but it needed to be in the right place, and there was a need for 10/12 affordable homes for the village. She reiterated her objection with regard to visual impact, highway safety, the lack of pedestrian access at Turnpike and the poor visibility at that location also the impact on the listed buildings
· The view of the Ward Members with regard to whether there was a need for 60 houses when only 10/12 affordable dwellings were required, whether there was an urgent need for development on the site, the location of the proposed development, the increase in traffic in the area, highway safety and the impact on the school, the impact of the development on the sunken lane and on the natural habitat and whether any decision should be delayed until the Local Plan had been adopted.
· Main modifications to the Local Plan and the unlinking of Policy SP2 from J27 and therefore whether the housing was necessary
· The location of the site on the edge of the village
· Further highway safety issues, with narrow pavements and a high wall which would impact on pedestrians
· Responses from the Highway Authority
· Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework
RESOLVED that the application be refused on the following grounds:
1. The proposed outline application for 60 dwellings on this prominent site will have a significant adverse visual impact on the surrounding landscape character and appearance.
2. The site is not considered to be a sustainable location for this scale of housing development due to poor pedestrian access. 60 dwellings would be a significant increase in the population of the village, which has little employment and which would result in an unsustainable pattern of car-based commuting.
3. The introduction of the substandard pedestrian footway at Sampford Peverell and the associated crossing points are considered to be unacceptable and unsafe. The introduction of 60 dwellings on this site will create a substantial increase in the numbers of cars which will need to access Sampford Peverell.
(Proposed by Cllr B G J Warren and seconded by Cllr Mrs C A Collis)
Notes:
i) Cllr R F Radford declared a personal interest as his brother and a friend lived at Battens Cross;
ii) Cllr E J Berry declared a personal interest as he had a friend in the village;
iii) Cllrs E J Berry, Mrs C Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, L J Cruwys, Mrs C P Daw, D J Knowles, E G Luxton, R F Radford and B G J Warren made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with Planning matters as they had received correspondence regarding the application;
iv) Mr Byrom spoke in objection to the application;
v) Cllr Mrs H Culpin (Sampford Parish Council) spoke;
vi) Cllrs Miss J Norton and Mrs C A Collis spoke as Ward Members;
vii) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe requested that her vote against the decision be recorded;
viii) Cllrs J Cairney and J M Downes requested that their abstention from voting be recorded;
ix) In the case of an appeal, Cllrs C A Collis, R F Radford and B G J Warren would represent the Council.
x) *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
Supporting documents: