Agenda item

The Senior Planning Officer referred to the late representations document and recommended a further condition following advice from the County’s Flood and Coastal Management Team: Detailed drainage design for the duration of construction as recommended by Devon County Council.

The Business Manager advised that the overall site is allocated in the Teignbridge Local Plan for a mixed use development. The application site itself already has outline planning permission for up to 230 dwellings. This is a reserved matters application that complies with the terms of that outline permission. Means of access was approved in detail at outline stage. This reserved matters application only concerns appearance, landscape, layout and scale.

The Business Manager added that the Applicants have engaged positively in negotiations with officers and the design and layout of the scheme the subject of the application is significantly improved from that originally submitted in May last year. Officers recognise that there is still a lot of public concern about the access arrangements, particularly regarding pedestrian access from the site into the town and the closure of Oldway. However, as stated, means of access has already been approved so these issues cannot be revisited through this reserved matters application.  The Applicants are also aware of public concern regarding the closure of Oldway and have proposed an alternative, which would be considered under the next item on the agenda.  For procedural reasons it is necessary to determine the reserved matters application before dealing with the subsequent Section 73 application which would allow the retention of one-way traffic in Oldway.

Referring the Committee to the officer recommendations and report circulated with the agenda, the Business Manager advised that there are still detailed ecological matters that require resolution but, subject to these being addressed, the recommendation on this application is approval because the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are considered to be acceptable.

The Applicants are keen to deliver this allocated site as soon as possible, so, if Members are satisfied with all other aspects of the proposal it is  recommended that the remaining ecological issues are resolved by officers without the need for further Committee consideration.

Public Speaker, Objector – on behalf of residents and the community, objected on the following grounds: highway safety – the footpath/cycle path is too narrow being the width of one person, unsuitable for pushchairs and on a bend in the road with limited visibility for drivers. It is unsuitable as the main footpath to the town centre.

Public Speaker, Objector – In addition to objections from the Town Council previously submitted, objections for the following reasons: loss of a Bronze Age site; reduction in the affordable housing provision; access unsuitable for large number of traffic movements which will be generated from the development; unsustainable development because it will not be for the better; footpath too narrow and dangerous with traffic speeds nearer to 40mph than 30 mph; the unsuitable pedestrian route to town will isolate new residents from the existing community; and better access to town, or better facilities on site should be provided.

Public Speaker, Supporter – The site is allocated in the Local Plan and the principle of development has already been granted at outline stage; the current scheme is an improvement on the original having considered the Urban Design Guide principles; the development will provide onsite facilities and many financial contributions including the provision of a play space, Greater Horseshoe Bat mitigation, transport improvements and street design and materials to match the characteristics of the town; and much needed housing and community benefits will be provided.

Issues raised by Councillors included: increased flooding concerns; loss of a Bronze Age site; unsustainable development; development of a rat-run through Oldway; contribution towards a play area but which should be provided on site; footpath width inadequate, land should be provided for a wider footpath, and the number of units should be reduced to allow for an adequate footpath; no allotments; and the views of Natural England should be taken into account. 

In response to issues raised above, officers reiterated that the current application related to reserved matters, and to matters already covered by the Section 106 Agreement. Concerns raised are those regarding the principles of the outline permission already granted, including means of access, and the number of houses. In relation to advice from Natural England, the Council can be challenged through the High Court in accordance with European Law if Natural England’s views, a statutory consultee are not taken into account.

In response to further issues raised by Councillors, officers advised that: the plans showed two play areas; the Greater Horseshoe Bat mitigation scheme was yet to be finalised; there would be no impact on highways or surface water drainage and the Flood Risk Assessment is acceptable. A further recommendation as advised above would cover this issue; the footpath is not an issue of the Section 106 Agreement or reserved matters having been agreed at the outline permission stage; there is no land in the applicant’s control to deal with the footpath concern that Members are now raising; and there is no policy requirement to provide allotments.

The Business Manager and Legal Adviser commented that there was strong grounds that a refusal of this application would result in the Applicant lodging an appeal, which would not have strong grounds for refusal, and therefore the situation of costs being awarded against the Council was likely. The Business Manager added that issues being raised were agreed at the previous outline planning approval stage. Officers should be given time to approach the Applicants to negotiate issues if members are minded to refuse the application. However, the recommendation was one of approval of the application and not deferment for negotiation.   

It was proposed by Councillor J Hook, seconded by Councillor Prowse and

Resolved

Consideration deferred for negotiations with the Applicant regarding inadequate location and connectivity of open spaces.

(14 votes for and 2 against)

Note:  Deferment of this application was contrary to the report of the Business Manager. The Committee considered that it should be deferred for reasons outlined above.