Agenda and draft minutes

To receive the Minutes from the meeting held on 8 June 2023.

It was proposed by Councillor Leather, seconded by Councillor Pennington and -

Resolved:

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 June 2023 be agreed and signed as a correct record.

A recorded vote was taken.

(Vote: For 7, Abstentions 2)

Members with interests to declare should refer to the Agenda item and describe the nature of their interest when the item is being considered.

Elected Members of Devon County Council and Town/Parish Councils who have considered a planning application by virtue of their membership of that Council hold a personal interest and are deemed to have considered the application separately and the expressed views of that Council do not bind the Members concerned who consider the application afresh.

The Chair reminded Members to declare their interests when the relevant item was up for discussion.  Declarations of interest were made as indicated below and in accordance with the previously agreed arrangements for “dual-hatted” Members.

That the Agenda as circulated be agreed.

Information to be brought forward with the permission of the Chair.

With the permission of the Chair, Councillor Christie raised concerns in relation to the new Local Plan and whether the Plan would be ratified by the Inspector without a travellers site.

The Chair to advise the Committee of any prior requests to speak made by members of the public and to advise of the details of the Council’s public participation scheme.

The Chair advised the Committee and members of the public of the details in respect of the Council’s public participation scheme.

The information, recommendations and advice contained in the reports are correct as at the date of preparation which is more than ten days in advance of the Committee meeting.   Due to these time constraints any changes or necessary updates to the reports will be provided in writing or orally at the Committee meeting.

Residential development comprising 71 no. dwellings and associated works - Land At Grid Reference 263212 108395, Winkleigh, Devon

The following Councillors had attended the site visit listed below:

Councillors:  R Lock, K Hepple, C Leather, C Wheatley, P Pennington,

J Whittaker, D Smith, P Hames and P Christie

Application No. 1/0482/2022/FULM - Residential development comprising 71 no. dwellings and associated works - Land At Grid Reference 263212 108395, Winkleigh, Devon

Interests:   None

Officer recommendation:    Grant

The application had been called into Plans Committee by Councillor Newton for Members to consider:

·         No justification for the increase in houses from 55 – 71 as noted in the policy

·         No local input into the application

·         Unimaginative design

·         Impact on the Scheduled Monument

The Development Manager presented the report and advised Members of the main planning considerations.

During the debate of the application concerns and issues raised included the following:

·         The scheme does not confirm to Policy WIN02 of the Local Plan which states up to 55 dwellings, this application is for 71 dwellings.

·         Does not comply with WIN02 (h) which states an investigation to produce and confirm the capacity of the offsite sewer network -   South West Water had no objections and no investigation had been carried out.

·         Overdevelopment of Winkleigh.

·         Sustainability – people having to travel long distances to work which goes against the Councils Climate Emergency Plan.

·         Affordable Housing should be indistinguishable from open market dwellings and intermixed throughout the development.  Plans do not show this.

·         It is not clear if refuse vehicles have access to all dwellings which will mean that residents will have to carry refuse to a collection point.

·         It does not accord with the Winkleigh Neighbourhood Plan.

·         Neighbourhood Plan works alongside the Local Plan and carries equal weight.

·         Density of the site.

·         The design of the development does not fit in with the countryside, the character, the setting of Winkleigh village and the suggestions to protect the setting of the Scheduled National Monument, Court Castle, are inadequate.

·         The comments of Historic England who have strong reservations regarding the level of harm to Court Castle.

It became evident that Members were looking to refuse the application, and for this reason the Planning Manager advised that robust refusal reasons would be required.  

The Development Manager reminded Members that the site is within the development boundary and clarified the reasoning for the recommendation of approval and why the application is acceptable. 

Councillor Leather cited the following policies to support refusal of the application:

“DM07, ST04, WIN02 & 04, ST15, DM04, ST17 and non-compliance with HEDNA.”

The Planning Manager advised that in addition to citing policies, there was a requirement to identify in what way the proposal conflicts with those policies.

Advice and guidance was given by the Planning Manager on Polices and refusal reasons suggested by Members.

The Development Manager highlighted the key points to defend approval of the application.  The officer recommendation considers that the public benefits would significantly outweigh the heritage harm.    The public benefits the proposal would provide were summarised as:

·         71 houses – 30% will be affordable housing which will contribute to the Council’s housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102a

Outline permission for up to 17 no. dwellings with all matters reserved except for access and layout - Land At Rydon Mill, Holsworthy, Devon

The following Councillors had attended the site visit listed below:

Councillors:  R Lock, K Hepple, C Leather, C Wheatley, P Pennington,

J Whittaker, D Smith, P Hames and P Christie

Application No. 1/1285/2022/OUTM - Outline permission for up to 17 no. dwellings with all matters reserved except for access and layout - Land At Rydon Mill, Holsworthy, Devon

Interests:   None 

Officer recommendation:    Refuse

The planning application had been called into Plans Committee by Councillor James, if the Officer is minded to recommend that planning permission should be refused.  The reasons given for the call-in are as follows:

·         It is an infill between Rydon village and Rydon 5 development (Holsworthy)

·         It provides much needed local need affordable housing on a community basis

·         By its design and layout, it provides an attractive development more in keeping with its setting

·         It will add much needed appropriate housing

The Development Manager presented the report and informed Members of the main planning considerations and the reasoning for the recommendation of refusal.

When presenting the application, the Development Manager referred to the report which clearly sets out why the affordable housing is not acceptable in terms of tenure and mix. The Authority has its own Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document which sets out the approach to restricting the price of discount on open market dwellings. 20% discount is being offered whereas on this site it should be significantly more and should be 39% discount for a two-bed property for it to be considered as an affordable dwelling, otherwise it is just a discounted dwelling.

The following issues/concerns raised during the debate included:

·         Site is outside the Development Boundary

·         Affordable Housing unacceptable

·         Loss of mature trees on the site

·         Pedestrian cycle link – is there one?

·         It was confirmed that SWW had been consulted and had not sent a response

·         ST19 & 19a) affordable housing on exception sites and starter homes - this cannot be an exception site because it is adjacent to Holsworthy which is a Main Centre.  The policy is specific in that is only enables exception sites via rural settlements etc. therefore cannot be allowed on that basis. 

Councillor Leather asked if it would be considered as development within the curtilage of the existing dwelling rather than in the countryside.  The Development Manager advised it is covered by the NPPF - he read to the meeting the relevant paragraph from the NPPF which basically states – “residential development should not be treated as developed land and should be treated as green field”.

Councillor Lock referred to the comments in the report regarding the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and asked if it had been resubmitted or whether it is as it stands. The Development Manager confirmed it is as it stands and although not in accordance with the guidance, the Officer had no issues with the scope of the document.

It was proposed by Councillor Hames, seconded by Councillor Pennington that the application be refused.

A recorded vote was taken.

Appeal Decision Summary and Reports of Planning Inspectorate

Summary

Appeal Decision – Application No. 1/1168/2022/FUL

Appeal Decision – Application No. 1/1422/2021/FUL

Appeal Decision – Application No. 1/0214/2022/OUT

The Committee noted the Appeal Decisions.

There are no Costs on Appeals

There were no Costs on Appeals.

AGMB Decisions from 30.05.2023 – 10.07.2023

The Committee noted the Delegated Decisions (AGMB applications) for the period 30.05.2023 – 10.07.2023.

List of Delegated Planning Decisions, Consultee Abbreviations and Application Types enclosed 30.05.2023 to 10.07.2023.

RESOLVED

That the Planning decisions for the period 30.05.2023 – 10.07.2023 be noted.