Erection of 9 dwellings for Social Rent for residents of or those with a local connection to Braunton Parish. Report by Lead Planning Officer (Major Applications) (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Lead Planning Officer (Major Applications) (JM) (circulated previously) regarding planning application 79268.

As part of the presentation by the Lead Planning Officer (Major Applications) to the Committee, Stephen Reed, Senior Historic Environment Officer from Devon County Council addressed the Committee as he had provided archaeological heritage advice to the Council in relation to this planning application.

The Lead Planning Officer (Major Applications) advised the Committee, that the applicant was seeking deferral of the application to enable further pre-application advice to be sought from Historic England.

Terry Green (objector) and Mark Cann (on behalf of the applicant) addressed the Committee.

Councillor Maskell, addressed the Committee in her capacity as Ward Member.

Councillor Worden declared for transparency reasons that he was the Chair of the South Molton Community Land Trust. He advised that he would not take part in the voting on this application.

In response to questions, the Lead Planning Officer (Major applications) advised the following:

·       Since the last 1960s, large parts of the Great Field had been developed such as Saunton Park.  Between 1963 – 1996, development had taken place on Saunton Road, Field Lane and Lime Tree Grove.  There had not been a lot of development that had taken place between the South and West of the Great Field. The development had all taken place in the last 50 years.

·       Since 2018, there were now safeguards in place in the Local Plan under the Local Green Policy.

·       There had been no new development over the last 10-15 years.  There was a pocket of land behind the Tesco’s site, however this did not affect the Great Field.

·       The applicant was seeking deferral of the application to enable further advice to be sought from Historic England.  Historic England provided a pre-application advice service to engage directly with the applicant.  This was free advice in the first instance. However, it was unlikely the pre-application advice would proceed any further as it was a protected landscape.

In response to questions, the Senior Historic Officer, Devon County Council advised the following:

·       The site was an enclosed field which formed part of the setting of the Great Field.  If development took place, the setting would start to be lost.

·       The agricultural use of the Great Field had changed due to ownership and change in agricultural practices.

·       In the mid 19 century, it was a medieval strip field and enclosed.  If the field system still existed in its entirety, there would be great medieval importance, regardless of whether it was open field.

·       Agricultural field formed part of the setting of the older Great Field.  It was not strip farmed now.

·       The original boundary of the Great Field could be defined from aerial photos as it was a recognisable landscape feature.

·       The area was protected by Policy BRA 03.  Any development on the edges of the Great Field would start to lose the integrity and setting of the Great Field.

In response to a question from the Committee, the Chair advised that around 30 houses would be required to provide a similar number of social rented affordable housing units.

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

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

·       That it was a light touch application and there was not an option to request the application to provide further detail as part of this application.

The Solicitor reminded the Committee of the requirements for Committee Site Visits as detailed in paragraph 10.1 of the Planning Code of Conduct and the reasons for a site visit was only likely to be necessary: “(i) if the impact of the proposed development is difficult to visualise from the plans and any supporting material, including photographs taken by officers; (ii) the comments of the applicant and objectors cannot be expressed adequately in writing; and/or (iii) the proposal is particularly contentious.” 

RESOLVED (10 for, 1 against, 1 abstained) that the application be DEFERRED FOR 2 CYCLES pending a site visit as there was a clear and beneficial interest for the Committee to view the impact of the proposed development on the area and to allow the Committee to receive additional information on exploring alternative location options given the social housing context of this proposal.

Councillor Bulled then left the meeting.