Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Gubb, who appointed a substitute, Councillor Biederman, to attend in her place.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings held on 28^th April 2021 and 19^th May 2021 (circulated previously) be approved as correct records and signed by the Chair with the amendment to minute no.19 of the minutes of 28^th April 2021, as follows: “Councillor Biederman addressed the Committee as a Committee Member”.

(Please complete the form provided at the meeting or telephone the Corporate and Community Services Team to prepare a form for your signature before the meeting.  Items must be re-declared when the item is called, and Councillors must leave the room if necessary)

The following declarations of interest were announced:

Report by Planning Officer (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Planning Officer (circulated previously).

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the application be APPROVED as recommended by the Planning Officer.

Report by Planning Officer (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Planning Officer (circulated previously).

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the application be APPROVED as recommended by the Planning Officer.

Hybrid planning application: (A) Full application for the access, scale & layout of site including raising of the ground levels, site access works & highway infrastructure to site, together with purpose built bat building. (B) Outline application for 250 dwellings (Use Class C3(a)), Space of up to 3000sqm employment (Use Class E(g)(i) and E(g)(ii) was Use Class B1). Retail Space of up to 250sqm gross floorspace (Use Class E(a) was Use Class A1); Space for the Sale of food and drink of up to 2000sqm Gross floorspace (Use Class E(b) Was Use Class A3); Service and Community Space of up to 500sqm Gross floorspace (Use Class E(d) E(e), E(f) and F1(a), F1(b), F1(e), and F2(b)was Use Class D1 and D2); (C) all the associated infrastructure including removal of any contamination, roads, footpaths, cycleway, drainage (including attenuation works), flood defence works, landscaping & appearance, public open space, utilities & vehicle parking & including demolition of buildings (amended scheme & supporting documents) (Amended description)

Report by Lead Planning Officer (South) (attached)

The Committee considered a report by the Lead Planning Officer (circulated previously).

The Lead Planning Officer addressed the Committee and advised that since the publication of the agenda report and up to 4pm on the 8^th June, a further 76 representations against the application had been received. These primarily expressed concerns already captured in the report but specifically referred to the following comments from the public:

·       Reference should be made to Build Back Better and Blueprint for Clean Growth

·       Biodiversity offsetting approach was flawed in principle – net loss / greater impact on other areas / more space needed for ecology/wildlife

·       Adverts in Gazette and associated claims were misleading

·       Communication over the format and venue of June meeting misleading

·       Impact on plans to reopen the railway line – network rail should be consulted

·       Credibility of North Devon planning processes - to approve this scheme against widespread community opposition would leave North Devon Planning procedures facing a crisis of trust

·       Councillors and planning staff had invested hours of time and resources in trying to make the best of an application that had little regard to the nature of the site, with the aim of securing a viable future for somewhere that was admittedly challenging. Despite their best efforts they had failed, as was inevitable with such an inappropriate proposition

·       Torridge District Council had refused plans for 39 homes for the edge of Northam.  This was following only 77 objections, and despite Torridge not having a five year land supply, and the development delivering 30% of affordable housing

·       A complete barrier between the development's users and the estuary was required

The Lead Planning Officer advised the Committee that:

·       A letter from Barnabas Tanton (aged 12) who spent his half term reducing his representation down to 400 words had been circulated to the Planning Committee by email and related to impact on birds/natural environment.

·       All updates to the report were highlighted in bold type for ease of reference.

·       Further Flood Risk Assessment Reports would be required at the Reserved Matters stage. An update was provided on page 218 of the agenda

·       The Environment Agency were satisfied with the principle of the sea defences.

·       Updated information in relation to the traffic movements was provided on page 216. It was noted that there was a willingness to bring in some materials by river using the jetty as an access. This would reduce the length of time required to provide fill for the site. Construction time and possible disruption would be dealt with by conditions. Noise issues were still being resolved. The Lead Planning Officer would seek to obtain delegated powers to cover this.

·       The access to the site from the junction with the B3233 had been accepted by Devon County Council (DCC) as it met their standards.

·       Some barriers may be in place during construction which may prevent access to the South West Coast Path. This would be at such times that pedestrian safety would be needed to be protected during elements of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

To consider the Appeals Report (attached).

The Committee noted a report by the Senior Planning Support Officer   (circulated previously) regarding planning and enforcement appeal decisions received since those reported at the last meeting of the Committee.