Agenda item

The Committee considered the agenda report and additional information reported by the Business Manager- Strategic Place.

Cllr Patch declared an interest in this application due to predetermination. He did not vote but spoke on the application as the ward member.

Public Speaker – Objector: Spoke on the negative impact on the environment, the village being designated rural, air and light pollution caused by the site, the increase in traffic and problems with road quality, health issues stemming from the construction, the proximity to the nearby school, enhanced risk to members of public including dog walkers, risk of flooding on site, this isn’t included in local plan, and the economic benefits aren’t enough to justify this application.

Public Speaker – Objector: Spoke on the lack of need, lack of demand from companies, the former BCT site, detrimental effect on Heathfield industrial estate and other stores in the area, the slip road to Ilsington is in need of repair, the application is contrary to policy S1, and the location is inappropriate.

Public Speaker – Supporter: Spoke on the applicant being an employer, the economic benefits, the employment gap, business closures, new homes but no new jobs, the need for more successful allocated employment floor space, job loss in recent years, no objections from any consultees, and no wildlife issues with the application.

.

Comments from Councillors include: Doesn’t fit with the Local Plan, evidence used is out of date, not as much demand as is claimed, employment space will open up as businesses shut down, the recent car crash shows how important traffic safety is in the area, increased pollution, sequential tests haven’t been taken, recent floodings in the area, loss of the carbon sink, better locations in the area, contrary to several policies, housing wouldn’t be allowed here, it would cause a 23 percent increase in village size, no carbon reduction plan, cautioning against building on greenfield land, the site would redistribute jobs rather than create them, concerns about school safety, heavy industry is damaging to small businesses, damaging to the rural setting, the proximity to the school isn’t as close as other Councillors believe, and there has been past criticism about failure to provide employment sites.

The Planning Officer stated that the application was not contrary to any policies in their opinion, there isn’t a major flooding risk, there are good transport options, there haven’t been any objections from consultees, and there is no need to demonstrate need,

Further comments from councillors included: There are only 3 buses to the site, there isn’t a realistic cycle route to the site, and the site should be refused to not following policy S22.

The Business Manager stated that several conditions for planning permission included transport, the A382 may be receiving renovations which would help with transport issues, there is a need for employment space in Teignbridge, and reiterated that there was no need to provide proof of need.

Further comments from councillors included: Lack of support from residents, employment land is often unfinished, no positives from combatting climate change with this application, need for landscape protection and enhancement, and the proposed site is too large,

It was proposed by Councillor J Hook and seconded by Councillor MacGregor that permission be refused for the reason set out below.

A roll call was taken.

For

Cllrs Haines, Goodman-Bradbury, Bradford, Clarence, Colclough, Cox, Hayes, Hook, Jeffrey, Keeling, Jenks, Kerswell, MacGregor, Nuttall, Nutley, Parker, Petherick, Wrigley.

Against

None.

Total: 18

Abstain

Cllr Bullivant

Total: 1

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reason.

1.    Contrary to policy S22, S9, and EC3 due to the scale of the application as well as lack of ease of transport options other than private car.

Note: The refusal of this application was contrary to the advice of the Business Manage as set out in the agenda report. The Committee considered that the application was unacceptable for the reasons detailed above, and below.

Statement of reasons

The decision to refuse the application was against officer recommendation.

The Committee considered the application unacceptable due to being contrary to S22 & S9 with regard to overall travel patterns and minimising dependence on private cars, and this is not small scale and therefore conflicts with EC3.