Decisions

Prior to considering the following item on the agenda, discussion took place as to whether it was necessary to pass the following resolution to exclude the press and public having reflected on Article 15 15.02(d) (a presumption in favour of openness) of the Constitution.

It was therefore:

RESOLVED that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the next item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 and 5 respectively of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, namely information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)  and paragraph 5, information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

(Proposed by the Chairman)

 

 

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 (18/02019/MOUT – outline for the erection of up to 20 dwellings and associated access – land at NGR 295508 1063228 (Silverdale), Silverton).

The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location plan and the details of the access, all other matters would be reserved for future consideration.  She provided an indicative layout of the site, the potential location of the hedgebank, potential drainage strategy solutions, a plan of the proposed access and photographs from various aspects of the site.  She informed those present of the additional information available in the update sheet and confirmed that the land in question was agricultural land but that this did not change the recommendation.

 

Responding to questions posed in public question time, she provided the following answers:

 

·         With regard to the field in question and that it was a social meeting place, it was her understanding that no public access to the land had been agreed.

·         With regard to the Neighbourhood Plan and whether the proposal was in accordance with this document, she stated that the Neighbourhood Plan was still in draft and therefore had no weight in decision-making at the present time.

·         With regard to the flow of traffic through the village, the Transport Statement was clear and the Highway Authority had found it to be acceptable and that it did not demonstrate an unsatisfactory impact on the highway network.

·         With regard to the motivation for development and whether there was a need, she stated that she could not comment on the motivation for the application but that there was a need for housing nationally.

·         With regard to the number of movements outlined in the Transport Strategy, the visitors parking spaces in Exe View and the green area where children played, this was already mentioned within the Transport Strategy, the 2 visitors would be replaced within the development, there was no formal green space in Exe View and the children had been playing on a shared area.

·         With regard to the number of school places, the calculation was based on Devon County Council advice, these calculations had been tried and tested.

·         With regard to the site being on a hill and that this could be classed as ribbon development, the application was on rising land on a hill but it was not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding area.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The proposed 35% affordable housing within the scheme

·         The width of the road network in the area surrounding the proposed development

·         The fact that the site was not allocated within the adopted Local Plan or the emerging Local Plan Review and the use of the tilted balance within the NPPF

·         The details and reasons for conditions 8 and 9

·         The views of the objector with regard to: the number of residents present objecting to the application,  the emerging policies within the Local Plan Review and the amount of housing land supply available, the site was outside the settlement limit of Silverton and not mentioned in the Local Plan Review, the application was contrary to Policies COR 17 and 18, the application would affect the privacy of the residents and was not an asset to the area, the streets around the site were narrow and that traffic had to use the pavements at times to pass, the Highway Authority were only concerned with Fore Street and High Street.  The proposal was contrary to policy. Over 30 dwellings had been built in Silverton, 2 applications had not been built out and 50 houses were for sale in the village.

·         The views of the agent with regard to the use of the tilted balance within the NPPF, the site was well located, he referred to the Meadow Park appeal at Willand, the amount of proposed affordable housing on the site and the need for affordable housing locally, the site was away from the conservation areas and the historic assets of the village.  He confirmed that there was no public access to the site.

·         The Chairman read a letter on behalf of the Ward Member which highlighted his reasons for the call-in and his views on the impact of development on the immediate residents, the prominent hill site, the visual impact, that the development was out of keeping in the rural area and the fears of future development on the site, concerns regarding traffic and the narrowness of the high street, Tiverton Road and Silverdale parking issues, the impact of the development on local market housing and the amount of housing which remained unsold and whether Mid Devon required new housing.

·         The development being outside of the settlement limit

·         The fact that the authority had 7.43 years of housing land supply and the imminence of the Local Plan Review adoption and what weight should be given to the Local Plan Review

·         The tilted balance within the NPPF and the outdated housing policies

 

It was therefore:

 

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

 

·         The Local Plan Review is at an advanced stage and neither the adopted Local Plan not Local Plan Review allocate this site which lies outside of the settlement limits of Silverton for housing development.

·         The Council considers that it is able to demonstrate a 7.43 year housing land supply without the development site and there is no need for this further housing.

·         The development would have an unacceptable visual impact.

·         Unacceptable harm would arise as a result of the proposed access arrangements and traffic generation arising from the development.

·         If granted the development would have an unacceptable cumulative impact with other housing granted in the village.

 

(Proposed by Cllr B A Moore and seconded by Cllr Mrs C A Collis.)

 

Notes: 

 

i)             Mrs Campbell spoke in objection to the application;

 

ii)            Mr King-Smith (Agent) spoke;

 

iii)           The Chairman read a statement on behalf of the Ward Member;

 

iv)          A proposal to grant permission was not supported;

 

v)            The following late information was provided:

 

Correction p25 Draft Silverton Neighbourhood Plan- once adopted it will become part of the Development Plan, not a Supplementary Planning Document.

 

Material considerations section 1, principle of development, planning policy and 5 year housing supply, paragraph 12, sentence 3 is incorrect.  It should state:

“At the time of writing this report, the Planning Inspector has not raised any objection to the residential development allocations proposed in Silverton.  However, the new strategic housing policies in the emerging Local Plan Review have not been determined as acceptable and therefore cannot be given any weight in the determination of this specific application.

 

Material considerations section 5 Landscape and ecology, paragraph 7, line 6, is incorrect, it should state that “….external lighting should not be positioned to illuminate retained vegetation and areas beyond the survey area”

 

A further letter of objection has been received and has been summarised:

 

Report does not have regard to or robustly justify the principle of 20 dwellings beyond the settlement limit of Silverton;

 

Approval would be contrary to adopted and emerging planning policies;

 

The Council can demonstrate a 7.43 year housing land supply and this should be given weight against approval of new homes in the open countryside as sufficient land identified in more appropriate locations;

 

Relevant emerging policies must therefore be given some weight in the determination of the application and they have not been given any weight in the tilted balance;

 

Not supported by emerging planning policies;

 

Emerging policy S14 should be given weight in the tilted balance;

Development would have an adverse visual impact, adverse impact on amenity, adverse impact on traffic and result in the loss of agricultural land.

 

b)  No 2 on the Plans List (19/00718/MOUT – Outline for the erection of 26 dwellings – land at NGR 270904 112818 (The Barton), Belle Vue, Chawleigh ).

The Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location plan and the details of the access, all other matters would be reserved for future consideration.  She provided an indicative layout which included landscaping to be considered under reserved matters and provided photographs which identified the access and views from various aspects of the site.  She provided an update with regard to a correction to page 57 of the report and that the recommendation would also include a further S106 requirement for 5% self-build on serviced plots.  She explained that the application was different to that previously discussed in that this was a proposed site (for 20 dwellings) within the emerging Local Plan Review and the amount of weight which could be given to emerging Local Plan

The main issue for members was the application for 26 dwellings and whether there was harm in the additional 6 against the 20 proposed within the allocation.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The detail of the application  and the number of dwellings proposed

·         The access to the site and the views of the Highway Authority

·         The allocation within the emerging Local Plan and the amount of affordable housing proposed

·         The views of the agent with regard to the housing need, the allocation and the fact that development on the site was acceptable, the increase in dwellings would improve the number of affordable housing, there was no objection from the Lead Local Flood Authority of the Highways Authority

·         The views of the Chairman of Chawleigh Parish Council with regard to the limited land for development, the allocation within the emerging Local Plan, the views of the Parish Council and the need for any affordable housing to be non distinguishable from market housing, the additional traffic from 6 more dwellings, potential drainage and flooding issues and the narrowness of School Lane.

·         The views of the Ward Member with regard to the amount of dwellings within the allocation in the emerging Local Plan and the application for 26 dwellings and the initial thoughts of the Highway Authority in May 2019

·         The reasoning behind the recommendation for 20 dwellings within the allocation

·         Whether a reduction in the number of dwellings could be negotiated

 

It was therefore:

 

RESOLVED that:  the application be deferred to allow officers to negotiate with the developer with a view to reducing the number of dwellings on the site to 20 in total.

 

(Proposed by Cllr S J Clist and seconded by Cllr  B G J Warren)

 

Notes: 

 

i)             Cllr C J Eginton made declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning Matters as he had been involved in discussions with the Parish Council and objectors to the application

 

ii)            Mr King-Smith (Agent) spoke;

 

iii)           Cllr Godley (Chairman of Chawleigh Parish Council) spoke

 

iv)          Cllr C J Eginton spoke as Ward Member;

 

v)            A proposal to approve the application was not supported;

 

vi)          The following late information was provided: Correction p57 Main modifications to the Local Plan Review will (subject to future decisions of Cabinet and Council) be subject to public consultation. The consultation has not yet started.

 

Recommendation to also include a further S106 requirement:

5% self build as serviced plots.

 

c)  No 3 on the Plans List (18/01711/MOUT – Formation of an open clamp (4630m2) for the storage of silage and provision of new access – land and buildings at NGR 288069 117081 (Gibbet Moor Farm) Rackenford).

This item had been deferred as indicated in minute 69.

 

 

d)  No 4 on the Plans List (19/01396/TPO – Application to fell 1 oak tree protected by Tree Preservation Order 02/00006/TPO – land at NGR 296476 113635 (adjacent to 3 St Johns Close), Redvers Way, Tiverton

The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the location of the tree and the fact that it was growing out of the hedgerow (which was protected) and was not a very good specimen nor worthy of a TPO.

Consideration was given to: the oak trees in the area and that the oak in question had grown from within the hedgeline.

 

It was therefore:

 

RESOLVED that:  the application be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.

 

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