Outline application for residential development of 105 dwellings with some matters reserved (Appearance, Scale and Landscaping) (Further information received) (Development Affecting a Public Right of Way). Report by the Lead Planning Officer (Major Applications) (attached).

The Council considered a report by the Lead Planning Officer (Major Applications) (circulated previously) regarding planning application 76809.

The Lead Planning Officer (Major Applications) outlined the report to the Committee and provided an update to the Committee as follows:

·       That since the publication of the agenda that the total numbers of representations received were as follows: 88 in support; 226 in objection; 21 general comment and a petition containing 19 signatures.  The additional representations received raised no new issues and were in relation to similar or same issues that had been previously raised. 

·       That further to the Committee site inspection, it had been confirmed that 170m of hedgerow would be removed and replaced on site as well as bolstering other parts of the site.

Councillor Crabb arrived at the meeting.

Councillor Don Duffield (Parish Council representative), Graham Devine (supporter), Mark Cann (supporter), Will Ridalls (objector), Ron Ley (objector), Harry Middleton (objector), Andrew Ball (objector), Claire Alers-Hankey (on behalf of the agent), Andrew Pegg (joint applicant) and Martyn Gimber (joint applicant) addressed the Committee.

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer read out a statement on behalf of Paul Neal (objector) to the Committee.

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer read out a statement on behalf of Councillor Bell, Lead Member for Housing, to the Committee.

Councillor Wilkinson (Ward Member) addressed the Committee.

The Chair advised Councillor Crabb that as he had arrived during the consideration of this item that he was not able to propose or second a motion or cast a vote.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Highways Officer (PY) advised the following:

·       Typically there would be between 6 – 8 vehicle movements per dwelling per day.  For the whole site it was predicted that there would potentially be around 600-800 vehicle movements per day.

·       There was also a need to consider peak flow time between 5.00 pm – 6.00 pm, where it would be potentially 60 vehicle movements.

·       Highways objection was in relation to the lack of accessibility to and from the site for non-motorised users and conflict with vehicles.

·       There was no calculation in relation to number of pedestrian movements per dwelling per day.

·       There was a need to consider what services were available in the vicinity and the location of facilities where users that did not have vehicular access would need to walk to and potential conflict with vehicles would arise.

·       Key consideration for this application was sustainability.  It was considered that the site was quite isolated in terms of facilities and amenities.  The convenience stores in the near vicinity were small in nature.  The increase in movements would arise for travelling to schools and medical facilities. The site was unsustainable in terms of distances to facilities and amenities.  Consideration also needed to be taken into account in relation to topography of the area, the condition of public rights of ways and lack of street lighting.  If pedestrians used the main highway network, sections of footpaths were missing and there was a significant risk to the safety of pedestrians coming on and off of the highway.

·       The rural public right of way could not be relied upon as a lot of people wouldn’t use it.  It has to be safe, secure and have a good surface. Unaccompanied children would not be able to use it.  Therefore, would have to rely on the public highway network.

·       There were two recorded accidents over the past 3 - 4 years in the immediate vicinity of the access.  It was not an accident cluster and were accidents expected on a minor road.  Some accidents are not reported to the police.

·       The proposed development would have a significant impact on the conflict between vehicle on vehicles and vehicles on pedestrians.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Chartered Town Planner (LA) on behalf of the North Devon Coast National Landscape (formerly AONB) advised the following:

·       Although the site was bordered by development on both sites, there was even more reason to protect the area and was an important gap.

·       It was a skyline development in a prominent location and would affect dark night skies and tranquillity as it was currently an undeveloped site.

·       The development would have an adverse visual and environmental impact on the AONB landscape.

·       The proposal represents quite a dense urban form which would have an impact on wildlife.

·       The diversion of the public right of way through the site would have an impact on tranquillity.

·       David Wilson, who were working with the applicant, had been previously used by the AONB in some instances to provide expertise on visual and environmental impacts of developments.

·       The development was contrary to a number of policies in the Local Plan including ST09, ST14 and DM08A and paragraphs within the National Planning Policy Framework.

·       The AONB Management Plan include policies to support the provision of affordable housing.  The AONB had worked closed with the Woolacombe Community Land Trust to help support and develop the affordable housing scheme, which consisted of 21 houses adjacent to the village and within walking distance of facilities and services.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Housing Enabling Officer (SP) advised the following:

·       75% social rent and 25% intermediate tenure was being sought as part of the development.  Social rent would only be supported if it provided one bedroom accommodation.

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

·       The scheme would look to provide an uplift in accordance with the Ecological Impact Assessment and Biodiversity Net Gain across the site.

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

·       There was a national and also locally a reduction in the supply of both market housing and affordable housing. It was recognised that there was a need for additional affordable housing particularly for the younger generation.

·       The Council was committed to delivering the right houses to meet needs but in the right places.

·       The scheme sought to deliver 52 affordable dwellings. However, there was a need to weigh this against the harm and impact on the AONB.  It was a greenfield site and also a protected site within the AONB.

·       The scheme did not conserve and enhance the environment and it was not located within a sustainable location.

·       There was a need to consider whether this was the only site and right site for such a development.

RESOLVED that it being 12.20 pm that the meeting be adjourned for a short comfort break.

RESOLVED that it being 12.30 pm that the meeting be reconvened.

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

·       In terms of viability, the National Planning Policy Framework was very clear that viability could be accepted as an argument for considering development sites.  A viability assessment would need to be provided and reviewed by a third party.

·       There were no figures available at the meeting in relation to the number of affordable houses approved as part of the planning process and numbers that had been actually built on site following viability review.

·       There was a need for the Committee to take a decision.  The application had been in the planning system for 18 months. The Case Officer had requested the provision of further information from the applicant in relation to ecology and drainage for over 12 months to alleviate concerns.  This information had not been provided. If this information had been provided, some of the reasons for refusal would have been removed.  Reasons 1 – 3 for refusal were insurmountable.

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

·       Reasons 1 – 3 for refusal cannot be addressed and difficult to overcome and this included the statutory duty of the Council under section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

·       Some reasons were tilted balance.  In terms of housing mix, if the application was recommended for approval, amendments to the layout and density and Agricultural Land Classification of the site would have been sought.

·       Information regarding the housing needs assessment had been requested 7 months and had not been received.  In August 2023, archaeological work and noise assessment information had been sought but had not been received. 

·       Each time that new information was received, there was a requirement

to consult for 30 days.

RESOLVED (8 for, 0 against, 1 abstained) that the application be REFUSED as recommended by the Lead Planning Officer (Major Applications).