Outline application for erection of residential development for 80 dwellings with some matters reserved (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale). Report by Lead Planning Officer (South) (attached).

Councillor Mackie re-declared an other registerable interest in this application and left the meeting during the consideration of this item.

Councillor Walker declared an other registerable interest in this application as a Member of Fremington Parish Council.

The Committee considered a report by the Lead Planning Officer (South) (circulated previously) in relation to planning application 74943.

The Lead Planning Officer (South) advised the following:

·       That since the publication of the report, further objections had been received and the total number of objections were now 53.

·       Further to the site inspection held on 30 November 2022, it was confirmed that the layout of the site was driven by the location of the overhead electricity cables.  The proposed location of the access to the development was due to the location of two bus laybys and to avoid conflict in traffic movements.  No concerns had been raised by Environmental Health regarding potential light impact from vehicle headlights on properties located at Linscott Crescent.  It was considered that there would be no light impact as the properties were raised.

Simon Penrose (objector), Andrew Lainchbury (objector) and Lucy Downes (applicant) addressed the Committee.

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer read statements received from Dr Peter Williamson (objector), Phil Lewis (objector) and Jayne Day (objector) to the Committee.

Following representations made by the public, the Lead Planning Officer (South) advised the following:

·       Clarified the position of the pedestrian access which had been amended from the original plans.

·       Was not aware that the hedgerow had been removed on site since the site inspection had taken place on 30 November 2022.  This would need to be considered outside of this application and would be an enforcement issue.

·       There was no access at the north east corner of the site.

·       The indicative plans would not form part of the formal planning permission.

·       The cumulative highway impact on the surrounding network was outlined in paragraph 4.5 of the report.

·       Sewage issues on the neighbouring development was not a material consideration for this application and an issue which the owners needed to resolve with the developer and South West Water.

·       The section 106 contributions from Devon County Council Education would have considered the impact from Yelland Quay given the stage of the appeal in March 2022 and was calculated on the number of bed spaces on the proposed development.

·       Environmental Health had not requested a specific noise survey in relation to Orchard Lodges, however had requested a noise survey on how the proposed development would be impacted by road noise from Yelland Road.

·       The recent ministerial statement that had been made by Michael Gove was a statement of intent and would be subject to consultation.  The comments included within the report in relation to the 5 year housing land supply was correct.

·       The location of the public open space at the east of the site was due to the constraints of the location of the overhead electricity cables.

·       Additional landscaping could be sought as part of the reserved matters application.

·       Condition 5 sought information in accordance with a Design Code.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Lead Planning Officer (South) advised the following:

·       Reference to the two bungalows as open market housing that had been refused permission as part of a representation, the planning permission had been granted on 9 January 2018, which just pre-dated the adoption of the current Local Plan.

·       No discussions had taken place with the application regarding a Design Review Panel and it could not be included as a condition.  The applicant would be required to pay to have the scheme reviewed by the Design Review Panel.

·       Devon County Council Archaeological Officer had provided a consultation response and requested a written scheme of investigation, which would be included as a pre-commencement condition.  The Archaeological Officer had not objected to the application.

·       The site had been considered as part of the SHLAA assessment process, however it had not been included as a site within the Local Plan, as other sites were considered to be more preferable.

·       The grading of the agricultural land was considered in the balance.  The area of land was relatively small and severed by development either side.

·       In accordance with paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework, the housing supply policies were out of date and therefore applications for housing developments were being submitted.

·       There was a technical design reason for the siting of the access due to the location of the 2 bus laybys, which the Highways Authority were in agreement. The access could not be located further eat due to the conflict with vehicles when the bus was situated at the bus layby. 

In response to a comment made as part of a representation made regarding the conduct of a Councillor, the Solicitor advised that any allegations or complaints regarding a Councillor should be made via the Council’s Monitoring Officer.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Service Manager (Development Management) advised the following:

·       The Local Plan spatial strategy included 426 houses for Fremington to meet the needs of the parish.  This number was a minimum and not a maximum. The number of houses built could not be confirmed however.  In terms of permissions granted, there had been 470 for the parish of Fremington and 277 for the parish of Yelland.

·       Only those where the developer was on site could be counted towards the 5 year housing land supply.

·       The Planning Authority could not request the submission of a detailed planning application rather than an outline application.

·       The proposal offered the provision of 30% affordable housing.

·       The outline plan proposed low level density which was more suitable for a sensitive site.

·       The reserved planning application could include a condition requiring additional landscaping and buffering along the boundary edge.

·       For future large planning application, design code should be included as a condition and if the Local Planning Authority was not satisfied with the design the applicant would be requested to make improvements to the design.

·       The grading of the agricultural land was not seen as a high grade.

·       The time period within condition 1 could be amended requesting the submission of reserved matters application to be within 1 year.

·       The National Planning Policy Framework balance does apply and if the harm outweighed the benefits, then it would be recommended for refusal.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Solicitor advised the following:

·       The ministerial statement issued by Michael Gove, was only a statement of intent which advised that a consultation process would be undertaken.  She warned the committee against taking this statement into consideration.

Councillor Biederman (in his capacity as Ward Member) addressed the Committee.

RESOLVED that it being 1.00 pm that the meeting continue in order for the remaining business to be transacted.

RESOLVED (8 for, 2 against, 0 abstained) that the application be APPROVED as recommended by the Lead Planning Officer (South) subject to:

(a)  Condition 5 being amended to include reference to the National Design Guide to supplement the Design Code and the inclusion of future buffering in the design.

Councillor Biederman wished it to be recorded in the minutes that he voted against the application.