Agenda item

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.  However the objections do need to be balanced against the significant local and district-wide economic and sustainability benefits that will be delivered.  Even at the lower end of the range – 500 jobs would be very significant to the local economy.  In view of the lack of any policy or technical objections Officer’s view is that the economic benefits of this scheme far outweigh any residual impacts and for that reason the application is recommended for approval.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that an additional representation has been received emphasising the need for enhanced facilities for non-car users.

 

Public Speaker, Objector – The views of the Parish Councils have not been taken into account; at a highways meeting in October 2017 it was advised that an additional slip road could not be added to the A38 because it would be too close to existing junctions: the safety audit for the cycle route has not been provided; no provision for cyclists for crossing the A38; unsafe cycle routes next to a busy dual carriageway; there is no affordable and convenient public transport to the site; increased traffic and pollution along the A38 and A379; increased HGV’s running through the villages particularly Kennford; and no mitigation for the increased traffic flows. 

 

Public Speaker, Objector – This application fails to address the previous reasons for refusal and is contrary to several policies - employment land is compromised, the site is unsustainable, increase in traffic, and development in the open countryside.

 

Public Speaker, Supporter – This is a responsible development with mitigation measures; a traffic survey evidences that the site would have a minimal impact on Kennford; building heights have been fixed; comprehensive landscaping scheme to protect the landscape; it would be a valuable economic boost to the area; the employment allocation in the Local Plan is not being achieved; provision of employment for the 2000 dwellings being developed south west of Exeter; and the area is a Regional Growth Point.

 

Public Speaker, Supporter – Exeter is the second fastest growing City nationally, with a 3.5% rise in GDP and additional employment sites were needed; statistics from SWERDA evidence 3.5k public sector jobs lost for the region but with a gain of 7k private sector jobs; 1500 jobs would be created at the site, and would meet the demands of the house building aspirations.

 

Comments from Councillors included:  contrary to Local Plan policies; detrimental effect on amenities of neighbouring communities; unsustainable; the original site was unviable; potential difficulties with connection to Western Power; empty employment units at Marsh Barton and Sowton; development in the countryside; unsafe cycle and pedestrian routes; dangerous laybys for bus stops; unacceptable increase in traffic for Kennford; decreased air quality; impact on surrounding transport network, gridlocks; detrimental effect on tourism; failed to take into account the effect of the proposal on the setting of the nearby historical buildings Peamore House and Cottage, and views from the listed Haldon Belvedere; the Local Plan encourages employment in the heart of Teignbridge and not as a satellite for Exeter; the site is not allocated as such in the Local Plan; the smaller development was not viable due to utility costs; reasons for refusal include Area of Great Landscape Value, effect on neighbouring heritage assets, it undermines the Teignbridge Local Plan policies that the priority for economic growth is in the Newton Abbot Town Centre, and employment land requirements are already met; all major planning applications receive objections; 1500 jobs would be created at the site, which is a well located site for employment; there are no substantial grounds to refuse the application on highway issues.

 

In response the Committee was advised that employment land is not coming forward for Newton Abbot; the development does not form part of the setting of Peamore House or Cottage; a clear need has been demonstrated for additional employment land; the significant benefits from this application outweigh other issues.

 

The Economic Development Manager advised the following:

·           This site will deliver much needed employment land in the district. If this was an application for housing it would be scrutinised in depth under the 5 year land supply situation and delivery to date. The Council has delivered around a third of the employment floorspace planned, but none of it has been on the allocated sites.

·           The application will also address a wider need for the Greater Exeter area, which the Council has committed to both through the GESP, shared economic strategy and its 10 year strategy.

·           With reference to the 10 year strategy, the Going to Town and Investing in Prosperity projects form the basis of the emerging work on the Council’s Economic Development Plan, which some Members are contributing to as part of a review group. He drew Members attention to three of the actions under Investing in Prosperity that are relevant to this application: The Council

o  will grant applications which help create jobs.

o  will work with Greater Exeter Councils to bring business into the area

o  will grasp opportunities to improve the areas economic base

·           Clearly there will always be a balancing of issues and this isn’t a carte blanche approach, but it is a very clear direction of travel.

·           As highlighted in paragraph 3.29 of the Committee report, an annual review of the South West Property Market by property consultants James Lange Lasalle highlighted the pent up demand for employment space due to the lack of available sites, particularly for manufacturing and logistics and on the key strategic transport corridors.

·           In that review they cited Dragonfly Foods, based in Buckfastleigh. The Council worked with Dragonfly for several years to try and help them secure new premises to meet their growing needs. For a number of reasons they were unable to secure a site and have now moved to a site at Willand near Cullompton in Mid Devon.

·           Paragraph 3.28 refers to an unmet demand of 30,000sqm of employment floorspace from existing Teignbridge businesses. This is now around 25,000sqm as Dragonfly were part of that demand. This shows how real the risk is of losing businesses, jobs and business rates.

·           The Economic Development Manager’s finally reiterated the significance of the safeguarding of land for a slip road. This will be of significant benefit to the local economy and could help tackle congestion to the south of Exeter.

In response to the issue raised regarding the impact on the setting of the heritage assets, the Business Manager advised he was content that the proposal would not have an impact on the setting of the heritage assets.

 

Further comments from Councillors included; Exeter receives several applications for inward investment to one received by Teignbridge; the proposal will provide opportunities for Teignbridge residents; there should be more effort in bringing forward employment opportunities with large housing development more central to Teignbridge, and Newton Abbot in particular.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Dennis, seconded by Councillor Winsor and

 

Resolved

 

Subject to:

The completion of a Section 106 Agreement to provide:

a) A £250,000 sustainable transport contribution to deliver an off-site cycleway alongside the A379, or the delivery of the cycleway by the developer.

b) Delivery of off-site bus stops along the A379.

c) A £5,000 contribution for a Traffic Regulation Order to enable the delivery of a scheme of signage for a 7.5 tonnes weight limit for the village of Kennford.

d) Scheme for provision of signage at the western and eastern end of Days Pottles Lane to outline that the road is unsuitable for HGVs.

e) Land for a future slip road as part of a wider strategic objective for Devon County Council to be made available in perpetuity.

 

Permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. Requirement for reserved matters submissions.

2. Time limit for submission of reserved matters.

3. Time limit for commencement of development.

4. Development to proceed in accordance with the approved plans/documents

    including building height parameters plan and landscape zones.

5. Development Phasing, uses and quantums (B1c, B2, B8 only and removal of Permitted Development Rights to change).

6. Compliance with section 7 (Table 12) of the Ecological Survey.

7. Any relevant reserved matters application to be accompanied by a landscaping plan showing trees planted within or adjacent to hard surfaces and all trees to be container grown and not planted until written approval received.

8. Submission of an operational Landscape and Ecological Management Plan       to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

9. Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

10.Limitation of hours of operation during the construction period to

     7 a.m.–7 p.m..

11.All plant and machinery to not exceed the prevailing background noise levels as existing, by more the 5db at noise sensitive properties.

12.Relevant reserved matters applications to include details of design    measures to reduce noise levels.

13.A parking strategy/framework travel plan for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, with parking thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details.

14.A travel plan to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing prior to the occupation of each unit, and the travel plan implemented as approved. The travel plan shall detail a preferred route for traffic accessing the A38 north from the site that avoids travelling through Kennford Village centre.

15.Prior to the first occupation of each building, cycle parking facilities shall be

      provided in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and    approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Cycle parking shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with approved details.

 16.Implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance  with a written scheme of investigation.

17.Temporary and permanent surface water drainage management has been

     submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

18.Full details of a foul drainage strategy has been submitted to and approved      in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

19.Unsuspected contamination.

20.Notwithstanding the submitted details, full access details including the new

    roundabout shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The access works and roundabout shall be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation.

21.Provision of an external lighting scheme to be submitted and approved by   the Local Planning Authority.

 

(7 votes for, 6 against and 2 abstentions)