Agenda item

Outline application for up to 450 dwellings including access (appearance, landscaping, layout & scale reserved) - EIA development (Further information as requested by Regulation 25 of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017).  Report by Lead Planning Officer – Major Applications (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Lead Planning Officer – Major Applications (circulated previously) regarding planning application 76293.

Councillor Denton re-declared a non registerable interest in this application and left the meeting during the consideration thereof.

Councillor Lane declared a non registerable interest in this application as he knew the applicant and left the meeting during the consideration thereof.

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer read out statements received on behalf of Mike Tucker (Instow Parish Council - objecting), Sarah and Ryan Tucker (objecting) and Geoff Hall (objecting) to the Committee.

Martin Gimber (North Devon Homes – supporting), Mark Johnston (North Devon and Torridge Housing Crisis – supporting), James McKechnie (supporting), Councillor Bell, Adrian Tucker (objecting), Dennis Jenkins (objecting), Andrew Pegg (Wessex Investors – applicant) and Claire Alers-Hankey (Greenslade, Taylor and Hunt – agent) addressed the Committee.

Councillor Cann (Ward Member) addressed the Committee.

In response to issues raised by the speakers, the Service Manager (Development Management) advised the following:

·       That reference made to policy ST19 was not applicable to this application as it was not a rural site.  Policy ST18 was the applicable policy in this instance.

In response to issues raised by the speakers, the Lead Planning Officer – Major Applications advised that there had been a fatality on the A39 near to the proposed location of the footpath with a person crossing from Brynsworthy Lane.

In response to questions raised by the Committee, the Development Manager for Devon County Council Highways Authority advised the following:

·       That the Highways Authority preference had been to secure a roundabout as opposed to a crossing.  However, the applicant had been able to demonstrate that traffic signals would work and therefore the Highways Authority had not raised an objection.  The Highways Authority could not dismiss a proposed junction if it could be demonstrated that an alternative solution could work.

In response to questions from the Committee, Andrew Pegg (applicant) advised that it had been decided to not proceed with the provision of a roundabout as part of the development as it would be a larger infrastructure and require more third party land.  The provision of a pedestrian crossing had passed the appropriate tests, was more practical to deliver and would be less confusing for pedestrians and drivers.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Sustainability Officer advised that in relation to the comments made by Natural England regarding the estuary being a migration route for overwintering birds was a general statement.  The applicant was responsible for ecology on the site and there was no suitable habitat on the site for overwintering birders therefore an overwintering survey was not required.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Lead Planning Officer – Major Applications advised the following:

·       A Grampian condition could be imposed on an area outside of the application site to ensure the delivery of part of a development and that without a Grampian condition it would prevent the development taking place until it was secured.

·       The Local Plan required 30% affordable housing/Social housing.  The Supplementary Planning Document would require the tenure mix to be at least 75% for social rent and 25% intermediate housing.  Some of the proposed tenure was intermediate which would enable the occupier to become a freeholder.  The social rent would be provided by a registered provider such as North Devon Homes who would provide social housing to tenants with an identified need.

·       That the site had been submitted as a call for site as part of the evidence base for the the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assesmment (HELAA).

·        The NHS was a consultee for all major schemes. She reported on a recent meeting that she had attended whereby the NHS were requiring section 106 contributions for primary care and for acute care build projects.

·       As detailed on page 123 of the report, although the location of the site had been identified by Natural England as having a potential impact, they had identified suitable mitigigation through conditions.

·       South West Water had been consulted and responded.  From the comments made it had been taken that there was sufficient infrastructure in place to connect to the site.

·       The wording in the policy stated that walking and pedestrian footways should be well designed and attractive. 

·       There had been no technical objections to the application in terms of the safety of the proposed crossing.

·       In terms of sustainability of the site, if the link could not be delivered then the site would not be connected and therefore not sustainable. If the footway could be delivered, there were still concerns regarding the lengths of walking distances and the quality of the route.

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

·       Confirmed that the Joint Local Plan was still up-to-date and had been subject to the Planning Advisory Service process and was assessed as being sound for decision making processes.

·       Meetings took place with South West Water every three months.  South West Water were taking into account new developments to ensure that there was capacity and they had confirmed that there was capacity for this site.  South West Water was a statutory consultee.

·       The proposed pedestrian/cycling links was not a quality route and it was unlikely that it would be used by parents walking with their children or by older people.

·       The application should be determined in accordance with the Local Plan unless there were material considerations.  The starting point was Local Plan policy ST07 principle of development in the countryside. The site was outside of the development boundary and was contrary to this policy.

·       The application was not considered to be a good form of development in terms of place making.

·       The site could come forward in the future, however it needed to be a more comprehensive development with better integration with Barnstaple and sustainable transport modes.

Councillor Walker addressed the Committee in her capacity as Ward Member.

RESOLVED (9 for, 1 against and 1 abstained) that the application be REFUSED as recommended by the Lead Planning Officer – Major Applications.