Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 23 January, 2018.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 23 January, 2018 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. (17 votes for and 0 against)

The Chairman reminded Members that they should not vote on an application

if they are not present at the meeting to hear the entire debate on the

application. The Chairman also welcomed public speakers to the meeting.

Members declared interests as detailed below.

The Committee considered the reports of the Business Manager – Strategic

Place together with comments of public speakers, additional information reported by the officers and information detailed in the late representations updates sheet previously circulated.

To consider the report of the site inspection held on 1 February 2018.

The Committee noted the report of the Site Inspection Team circulated with the agenda. Comments from Members included that there would be no detrimental effect on the street scene and the “stepped” design of the terrace would remain. Concern was expressed that the allocation of two parking spaces at the front of the house would result in one being located over the footpath to the door, detrimental to the safety of pedestrians.

It was proposed by Councillor Parker and seconded by Councillor Dennis that the application be approved as set out in the report circulated with the agenda.

Resolved

Permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year time limit for commencement.

2. Development to be carried out in accordance with approved plans.

3. Unsuspected contamination.

(18 votes for 0 against)

Note: Councillor Clemens declared an Appendix A, paragraph 10 pecuniary interest by virtue of him being the applicant and left the meeting while the application was determined. Councillors Prowse and Mayne declared an Appendix A, paragraph 14 interest by virtue of the applicant being a close associate. They did not vote on the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Bullivant and

Resolved

Permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard three year time limit for commencement.

2. Development carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

(17 votes for, 0 against and 2 abstentions)

It was proposed by Councillor Keeling that the application be refused on the grounds of the loss of parking or manoeuvring area. The Business Manager advised that the proposal would not result in the loss of parking or manoeuvring area. The proposal was not seconded.

It was proposed by Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Bullivant and

Resolved

Permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year time limit for commencement.

2. Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

3. In accordance with submitted Landscape Details and Arboricultural Statement including replacement tree. The landscaping works hereby approved shall thereafter be maintained until it is returned to the control of Teignbridge District Council, 12 months following completion.

4. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed “Estates Agreement” dated 26 January 2018.

(14 votes for, 4 against and 2 abstentions)

It was proposed by Councillor Prowse that consideration be deferred for a Member site inspection to assess if concerns of neighbours are being addressed. This was seconded by Councillor Fusco.  

Resolved

Consideration deferred pending a Member site inspection.

(18 votes for, 1 against and 1 abstention)

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the Section 106 agreement had not been completed in January as expected due to the complicated nature of the development and multiple landowners. Therefore the re-endorsement of the resolution made at the September 2017 meeting was sought.

Public Speaker, Objector – The Council has not sufficiently consulted with Exeter City Council and community groups of Alphington; the bus lane will cut through Markham Lane contrary to Exeter City Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance; the County agreed Markham Lane would be for cyclists and pedestrians; the cycle routes of the development do not properly join up; the community facilities are an unreasonable distance from houses; Alphington is unsuitable for construction traffic and this should be prohibited; and there are a lack of social meeting places.

In response the Committee was advised that ongoing conversations were taking place with Exeter City Council and the County Council in relation to construction and operation plans, and bus routes. In response to other comments the Committee were advised that District Heating may be lost for this site; the site is on the edge of Exeter with good access to bus services and the future train station at Marsh Barton; a bid for housing infrastructure fund has been made for the delivery of roads early in the development construction; building regulations would ensure that dwellings are constructed to the carbon reduction standard.

Mr Hensley from Devon County Council advised that buses can run on un-adopted roads with the permission of the Bus Company and landowner.

Additional comments from Councillors included: the wish for a Railway Station at Exminster in view of the prediction that the A379 would not be adequate to serve the additional housing.

In response to comments relating to the compliance of the Section 106 Agreement, the Business Manager advised that the Agreement cannot be appealed against and legal action can be taken for its compliance.

It was proposed by Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Kerswell and

Resolved

Subject to:

The completion of a Section 106 Agreement by 27 April 2018 to provide:

1. A minimum of 10% Affordable Housing in the first phase in line with the

recommendations of the viability report split 25% Affordable Rent: 75% Shared Ownership (to be reviewed on receipt of any significant public or other funding in relation to any aspect of the scheme and at intervals throughout the development after the first phase).

2. A minimum of 30 Custom Build Dwelling plots.

3. A scheme for provision of 4 Gypsy and Traveller Pitches.

4. Provision of District Heating – if public sector or other funding for infrastructure is guaranteed prior to development commencing and subject to further viability review. (Applicant to employ best endeavours to work with the Council to secure such funding).

5. Provision of land and financial contribution to Chudleigh Road link and financial contribution to Devon Hotel Roundabout improvements at a maximum of around £4,000 per dwelling (precise amount to be agreed with Devon County Council).

6. Provision of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 325e

The Committee noted the report of the Site Inspection Team circulated with the agenda.

The Business Manager referred to Members considering this application back in June 2017 when it was resolved that, subject to Officers negotiating an improved design for the building, permission should be granted.  Officers negotiated hard with ALDI and achieved what is considered a high quality design that respects the context of the site.  The permission was issued in December 2017. 

The Council’s decision was challenged on the basis that Members had not been properly advised on the impact of the development on nearby designated heritage assets.  Designated heritage asset means a listed building or a Conservation Area. The Railway Goods Shed is not a designated heritage asset. The basis of the challenge was that Officers had not adequately explained why the recommendation was contrary to the expert advice of the Council’s Team Leader – Design and Heritage regarding the impact on designated heritage assets.  The designated heritage assets in question are Forde House and its Gate Piers and the three Newton Abbot Conservation Areas.

Rather than spend public money defending our decision in the High Court it was considered more expedient to agree a Consent Order to quash the decision and to make a new decision on the basis of a report that comprehensively sets out Officer’s considerations on the impact on designated heritage assets.  These considerations are set out in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.30 of the Addendum Report, circulated with the agenda. In summary Officers do not consider there to be any harmful impact to the settings of designated heritage assets.

The Addendum Report also provides an update on other issues that have changed since the last Committee Report, primarily bat issues. The original Committee Report is appended to the Addendum Report and covers all of the other issues that Members need to consider before making a new decision.  Officers do not consider there have been any changes to these other issues that would result in changing the advice and recommendation offered at the time.  The issues are:

·           Retail Policy Assessment

Officers are still of the view that there are no sequentially preferable sites and there will be no adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Newton Abbot Town Centre (Section 4.1 of original report).

·           Loss of Employment Land

Section 4.2 of the main report - Officers remain of the view that for viability reasons the site is unlikely to come forward for purely employment development in the foreseeable future.  However the overall proposal involves the transfer of serviced land to the Council to provide 990 sq m of employment floorspace.  Together with the jobs created by ALDI itself it is considered that the proposals would not result in a loss of employment opportunities.  The Council’s Economy Manager supports the application.

·           Highway Safety

Section 4.3 of the main report – The Highway Authority does not object to the application.  A yellow box junction would be funded by the Applicant to improve traffic flows  ...  view the full minutes text for item 325f

Note:  Councillor Bullivant declared a pecuniary, Appendix A interest by virtue of his residence being in proximity to the application site, and left the meeting while the application was determined.

The Committee was referred to the transport assessment addendum submitted by the Applicant to address transport and highway concerns of the Committee. The document included photographs of two large vehicles passing at various locations along Howton Road from the junction with Mile End Road to the site. The applicant had arranged for hedges to be cut back.

The proposal would include junction improvements at Mile End Road and the location of bollards along Howton Road to make it a no through road, to the satisfaction of the County Highway Engineer.

Public Speaker, Objector – Highway safety: Howton Road is single track with high hedges and walls unsuitable for the additional traffic from the additional dwellings; the hedges will grow back reducing the width of the road still further; the road is unsuitable for the additional traffic from 32 houses which will be significant; on street parking spaces will be lost; construction traffic and other large vehicles will have to reverse a significant distance when meeting a passing car; and contrary to the Local Plan promoting Howton Road as a safe cycle and pedestrian route.

Public Speaker, Supporter – The advice from the Highway Consultant has been taken on board in the traffic assessment, and during construction; the cycle route will pass through the development opposite Western House; the entrance to the site will be at the widest part of the road, and will have a visibility splay of 25 metres.

Comments from Councillors included: the road is unsuitable for the additional traffic being narrow, no pavements and with blind corners; the cutting back of the hedges is a one off and would not be repeated; construction traffic and cyclists/pedestrians is an unsafe combination, when the area has been promoted for cyclists.

The Devon County Council Highway representatives advised that Howton Road would become a cul-de-sac with the location of bollards, and the hedges would be cut back should they obstruct the road.

It was proposed by Councillor Hook, seconded by Councillor Fusco and

Resolved

Permission refused for the following reason:

1.     Road unsuitable for level of traffic generated by 32 dwellings.

(15 votes for and 2 against)

Note: The refusal of the application was contrary to the advice of the Business Manager. The Committee considered the application unacceptable for reasons set out above.

The Committee is recommended to approve the following resolution:

“That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the Press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act”.

Resolved

That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business  on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule12A of the Act.

To consider legal advice relating to the appeal against refusal of planning permission reference 16/03251/MAJ - Exminster/Shillingford St George - West Exe Park, Alphington - Outline application for employment development (Use Classes B1, B2 and B8) up to 47,112 square metres (gross floor area) together with associated infrastructure including new vehicular access, an internal road layout, car parking, landscaping, services and all other associated development (approval sought for access).   (Report to follow).

The Business Manager and Solicitor reported on legal advice relating to the appeal against refusal of planning permission reference 16/03251/MAJ - Exminster/Shillingford St George - West Exe Park, Alphington - Outline application for employment development (Use Classes B1, B2 and B8) up to 47,112 square metres (gross floor area) together with associated infrastructure including new vehicular access, an internal road layout, car parking, landscaping, services and all other associated development (approval sought for access).

At this juncture the Committee returned to public session and Part I of the agenda.

Note: Councillor Clarance advised that he had a predetermined view on the application and left the meeting while the application was determined.

The Committee considered the reports of the Business Manager – Strategic

  Place together with comments of public speakers, additional information   reported by the officers and information detailed in the late representations updates sheet previously circulated.

The Business Manager advised the following and explained why Officers were recommending approval.

·      The previous application was refused on highways and landscape grounds that were not supported by the Council’s expert consultees.  An appeal has been lodged and there is a very significant risk of losing that appeal with the very real potential for a full costs award against the Council.

·      This revised application continues to propose the transport benefits negotiated under the previous application (s106 items a – e).  In addition this new application includes up to date traffic counts to remove the doubts about the previous figures.  To further reduce likely traffic impacts the B1 element of the proposed development is now to be limited to exclude offices.

·      The landscaping proposals have been updated and parameter plans for the landscaping have been submitted to give confidence that substantial planting will be provided to limit the visual impact of the development.

·      This is an outline application, only access is being considered in detail at this time.  So the floorspace and the mix of employment uses falls to be considered at reserved matters stage.  Therefore the precise number of jobs that will be created is unclear, but it will clearly be a significant number.

·      There is an immediate need for employment land in Teignbridge – the Local Plan aims to improve the balance of jobs to working age population by providing 12,000 sq m of employment floorspace per year over the plan period.  In the first 3 years of the plan only 26,000 sq m were completed so there is already a shortfall of 10,000 sq m.  Meanwhile the Council is successfully delivering the required 620 houses per year.  If Teignbridge is to be a sustainable place where people can live and work the Council needs to provide jobs to keep up with the successful housing delivery.  Job Creation and Encouraging our young people to stay are 2 of the Key Objectives of the Council Strategy.

·      The allocated site has planning permission but has not yet come forward – this is because the infrastructure costs have proven higher than expected, in particular the electricity supply in excess of £1m in addition to the new roundabout.  The larger site will spread these costs over a greater area, making the overall scheme more viable.  The Applicant is confident that permission for the larger site will be viable and has agreed to a shortened time limit for submission of reserved matters to demonstrate their commitment to early delivery.

·      It is accepted that there is significant local objection to the proposal and it is absolutely right that Members should take that into account before making a decision.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 328.

To note appeals made by the Planning Inspectorate.

The Committee noted appeal decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate on appeals against refusal of planning permission as set out in the report circulated with the agenda.

Resolved

That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule12A of the Act.

Following further consideration of legal advice it was proposed by Councillor Bullivant, seconded by Councillor Dennis and

Resolved

That recommended option 3 as set out in the report be approved.

(13 votes for and 0 against)