The Planning Committee has approved recommendations for planning application 78364 following discussions on environmental impact, housing land supply, and traffic assessments.

URL: https://democracy.northdevon.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4231

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: Councillor C. Leaver re-declared her disclosable pecuniary interest in this application and left the meeting.   The Committee considered a report by the Senior Planning Officer (JJ) (circulated previously) regarding planning application 78364.  He presented an update to the Committee which outlined:   ·       Since the publication of the agenda, one additional plan detailing the drainage layout had been provided reference 01 PDL 1001 Rev G.  No further representations had been received. ·       On pwiiamsages 37-39 of the report, the consultation response received from the Devon Wildlife Trust received on 19 March 2024 had been duplicated on the reply received from the Devon Wildlife Trust on 19 November 2024 in error.  The Devon Wildlife Trust had provided a consultee response on 19 November 2024 which had been omitted from the report, which he read to the Committee.  The other issues raised by the Devon Wildlife Trust in its response on 19 November 2024 had been satisfactorily addressed in the proposals that had been submitted by the applicant in October 2024.   Debbie Baddick (objector), Steve Skirth (objector), Kathy Wellington (on behalf of Dave Webb objector), Mike Turner (objector) and Danielle Doran (objector) addressed the Committee.   The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer read out a statement received on behalf of Ann Williams (objector) to the Committee.   Councillor Davies advised the Committee that he was aware that the notification to register to speak had been sent out late and the six spaces had already been allocated before this notification had been sent.  Council officers had spoken with the Ward Member and Agent who were both comfortable that the committee meeting went ahead.  To allay fears of the community, he advised that a further five statements from objectors (Janet Marshall, Tony Watkins, Barbara Petagna, Kathy Wellington and Joanna Greenaway) had been submitted and outlined the comments that had been raised in those statements to the Committee, which had not already been addressed by the objectors that had addressed the Committee.   Paul Knox (applicant) and Matt Steart (agent) addressed the Committee.   Councillor Biederman (Ward Member for Fremington) addressed the Committee.   In response to comments raised by the speakers, the Service Manager (Development Management) advised the following:   ·       In terms of the 5 year housing land supply, the Planning Policy team had last updated and published the statement in January 2025 and the statement confirmed that the 5 year housing land supply was currently 4.8 years.  Planning permission for 450 dwellings in Brynsworthy had not yet been granted and therefore not included in the figures.   In response to comments raised by the speakers, the Senior Planning Officer (JJ) advised the following:   ·       The main difference between this application and the St Andrews Road application, was that when the Planning Inspector considered the appeal that the Local Planning Authority had a 5 year housing land supply.  The Council could no longer demonstrate that it had a 5 year housing land supply. ·       Each application was considered on its own merits and it was very rare that two proposals and sites were the same.  Access to the St Andrews Road development involved the demolition of a bungalow and was proposed to be located at the rear of the gardens of the existing property.  The Planning Inspector considered the impact of the lights of vehicles leaving the site going into bedrooms would have a significant impact.  There was also some conflict with policies in relation to the character, access and demolition of the bungalow. ·       This application the road followed a similar alignment to the existing Chilpark Road highway and there would not be an issue with vehicle lights. ·       Natural England had submitted a consultation response dated 25 March 2024 and had requested further information.  The applicant had now submitted the additional information requested in October 2024 in relation to the open space provision on site, that as it was a SSSI site a condition was recommended to implement a bird strategy to mitigate and reduce the disturbance to over wintering birds by dog walking. ·       The application had been assessed by the Sustainability Officer and it was recommended that education boards be placed on the junction with the permissive footpath with the Tarka Trail and that home information packs be provided for residents emphasising the importance of non disturbance of over wintering birds. ·       An otters survey had been undertaken within 50 metres of the water course site boundary and there had been no evidence of otters being present.  As a mitigation measure, a condition was recommended requiring a further otter survey to be undertaken prior to commencement of works. ·       Natural England and the Sustainability Officer had not recommended refusal of this application. ·       In terms of bats, there was a significant tree coverage surrounding the site, which were used by bats for limited roosting and fostering.  The proposals included a dark corridor and a condition to secure a lighting strategy.   In response to questions from the Committee, the Service Manager (Development Management) advised the following:   ·       The 5 year housing land supply statement was published in January 2025, however it was suspected that it had been produced during December 2024.  The 5 year housing land supply was currently 4.8 years and a 5 year housing land support could not currently be demonstrated. A 5% buffer needed to be applied to the figures in the statement.  It was not possible to advise upon how many more houses would be required in order to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. Numbers could only be included at the point when spades were in the ground and houses were started to be built.  The Planning Policy team would undertake a further review of the 5 year housing land supply in the next couple of months. The Government were requiring Local Planning Authorities to deliver more housing. There was a need to look at this development and consider whether it was a sustainable site.  The tilted balance was engaged as a 5 year housing land supply could not be demonstrated. ·       There was European legislation and the Wildlife Act which protected otters, which could not be overridden. A condition had been recommended requiring an updated otter survey prior to the commencement of the development and that if there was any evidence to suggest the presence of otters that proposed mitigation measures would be required to be submitted. ·       The applicant had advised that the development was in their business plan and that they were keen to start building on the site.   In response to questions from the Committee, the Senior Planning Officer (JJ) advised the following:   ·       In terms of amenity, the Environmental Health Officer had submitted a consultation response dated 8 March 2024.  Significant comments had been made in relation to noise, construction and operation phase. Concerns had been raised regarding methodology and base line monitoring of noise.  As a result the applicant had been requested to undertake a further assessment.  The Environmental Health Officer was concerned as the existing environment was quiet.  However, including the background noise, it was still considered to be within acceptable levels having regard to noise levels from outdoor amenity levels and from inside dwellings.  Policy DM01 referred to significant harm to amenity, however there was a neutral impact and no conflict with policy. The applicant had submitted a Construction Environmental Management Plan, however a condition was proposed requesting the resubmission of the Plan which included a noise control plan to ensure that the adverse impact could be controlled. ·       Natural England and the Sustainability Officer had advised that as the original otter survey had not identified any otters being present that as a precautionary measure a further otter survey had been recommended. ·       The proposed condition requiring the submission of a Construction Environmental Management Plan, would include detail how on site parking would be provided during construction.  It was proposed that the green space would be used as a compound for construction and as phases were complete, it would be relocated to the next phase. ·       The Section 106 contribution for public open space would include delivery, specification and maintenance. ·       Central Government and the Planning Inspectorate provided guidance on applying conditions to ensure that the development was acceptable in that they needed to meet the six tests.  National Planning Policy Framework guidance advised that permitted development rights could only be removed where absolutely necessary.  Proposed condition 26 removed class AA permitted development rights which would prevent owners from adding an additional storey.  However, all other permitted development rights would remain. ·       The figures for the Section 106 contributions as detailed on page 74 would need to be reviewed to check the accuracy of the public open space contributions. ·       The development was required to deliver statutory Biodiversity Net Gain of a minimum of 10% when compared to the site baseline. Following consultation with the Sustainability Officer, the revised proposals submitted in October 2024 had included the addition of the northern piece of land to deliver Biodiversity Net Gain. The baseline considered habit units and linear habitat measures.  The watercourse units would need to be secured off site.  The submission of the Biodiversity Net Gain plan was required prior to the commencement of works and assessed by the Sustainability Officer.  10% requirement was the statutory limit and a higher level could not be required. ·       The development was required to be carried out with all mitigation measures within the Ecological Impact Assessment. ·       The Sustainability Officer had advised that there was a need to secure measures to control dust suppression during the construction phase and this had been included within the proposed condition requiring the submission of a revised Construction Environmental Management Plan. ·       The specification for the upgrading and surfacing of the lower footpath beside the open space was required as a condition.  There was a balance on provided a sealed surface and to protect the rural character.  The Highways Authority had requested that the footpath be brought up to an adoptable standard.  Officers were concerned on the impact this would have on the character. ·       There was a considerable length of Devon hedge banks and the creation of hedgehog passages could be explored.   In response to questions from the Committee, the Housing Enabling Officer advised the following:   ·       The formula for calculating open market value in relation to affordable housing was set out in the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document.  The £46,605 financial contribution was correct in accordable with the Supplementary Planning Document.   In response to a question from the Committee, Matt Steart (agent) advised that the development would be constructed in three phases and that each phase would take around 18 months to complete, with some overlap between phases.   In response to questions, the Highways Officer (PY), Devon County Council advised the following:   ·       In accordance with planning legislation, completion notices could be served where developments were taking longer. ·       The detailed Transport Assessment undertaken in 2023/24 identified that there was some capacity in the highway network.  He understood that with potholes and works taking place, that sometimes there were unacceptable delays. ·       Evidence provided at a previous Planning Inquiry indicated that the junction at Cedars roundabout had capacity. ·       The proposed development was likely to increase traffic generation and there was an acceptable traffic generation.  The design layout could be safely accommodated on the network onto the B3233. The design standard exceeded the minimum standards and would accommodate domestic and commercial vehicles. ·       If the assessment for the 5 year housing land supply was calculated at the end of 2024, it would not have included 220 houses that the Committee approved at its meeting on 5 March 2025. ·       There were a number of fundamental issues that had not been resolved. The previous application for this site had been withdrawn which had identified the need for the provision of a bus shelter and puffin crossing on the B3223.  These were the minimum expectations.  These should be provided either via a traffic framework or as a condition. The permissive footpath was not included within the definitive map. It would be requested that the footpath be adopted and within the red line. If it was not adopted, he raised the issue of future maintenance.  As far as he was aware, notice had not been served on the landowner. ·       He failed to see that the section 106 would control the right of way. ·       The proposal flied in the face of what is required for sustainable development. ·       In terms of traffic assessment, the impact on immediate the environment and existing movements were considered and then additional movements were projected. The junction in the immediate environment was acceptable. ·       Consideration was also given to other key junctions and what impact a development would have. ·       Transport assessments were carried out as part of this application and for other applications and consideration was given to capacity on the existing network and monitoring of junctions was undertaken.  The transport assessment detailed analysis of junctions.   In response to the comments made by the Highways Officer (PY), the Service Manager (Development Management) advised the following:   ·       The Devon County Council Highways Authority response was detailed on page 22 of the report. The consultation had not included the recommendation of a puffin crossing and bus shelter and that this was the first time that it had been mentioned.  The 220 dwellings at Old Bideford Road (planning application 79375) had not been approved.   In response to the comments made by the Highways Officer (PY), the Lead Planning Officer (Major Applications) advised the Committee that in relation to planning application 79375, the section 106 was currently being drafted.   In response to the comments made by the Highways Officer (PY), the Senior Planning Officer (JJ) advised the following:   ·       The amended proposed submitted in October 2024 included an amendment to the red line which included the permissive footpath.  Following the submission of the amended proposal, further consultation was undertaken and no consultation response had been received from Devon County Council Highways Authority. ·       The permissive footpath needed to be managed as it was imperative for residents and this would be dealt with as part of the section 106 agreement.   RESOLVED that it being 12.08 p.m. that the meeting be adjourned for a comfort break and that it be reconvened at 12.19 p.m.   In response to further questions from the Committee, the Highways Officer (PY) advised the following:   ·       The provision of a bus shelter had been raised in the consultation response to the 2023 planning application.  The section 106 contributions for the provision of a bus shelter and maintenance would be £1,000 and £20,000 for the provision of a puffin crossing. ·       There were no objections to the findings of the transport assessment. ·       Peak travel times were considered as part of traffic generation.   In further response to the comments made by the Highways Officer (PY), the Service Manager (Development Management) advised the following:   ·       It was unreasonable to request section 106 financial contributions of £1,000 and £20,000 at the meeting as there had been no opportunity for the applicant to consider the impact of the viability.  The previous application for this site had been withdrawn.  If the requests had been made following the submission of this application, they could have been included within the section 106 agreement.   The Senior Solicitor and Monitoring Officer advised the Committee that there was a clear risk for potential challenge for bringing forward the request for financial contributions for a bus shelter and puffin crossing at this stage. It was possible to raise new matters provided that they materially met tests in terms of relevancy and reasonableness.   In further response to questions from the Committee, the Senior Planning Officer (JJ) advised the following:   ·       A consultation response from NHS Primary Care was set out in the report.  The financial contribution requested was based on a formula.  They were satisfied with the mitigation and impact. ·       In terms of amenity, the noise levels were within acceptable levels. ·       In terms of protected species, the Sustainable Officer was satisfied with proposed mitigation measures and had offered advice in terms of bats and overwintering birds where the impacts could be controlled through conditions.   In further response to questions from the Committee, the Service Manager (Development Management) advised the following:   ·       That the Senior Planning Officer had been thorough and looked at all issues.  The developer had been previously challenged in terms of amenity. An Ecological Impact Assessment had bene undertaken.  The developer had confirmed that each phase would take approximately 18 months. ·       This was a detailed application and there had been a lot of work undertaken in terms of design.   RESOLVED (6 for, 3 against, 1 abstained) that the application be APPROVED as recommended by the Senior Planning Officer (JJ) subject to the figure for section 106 total contributions in relation to open space contribution being checked and that the Service Manager (Development Management) being delegated power to negotiate with the applicant section 106 contributions towards the provision of a puffin crossing, bus shelter and for the finish of the permissive footpath.

Date of Decision: June 4, 2025