Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

It was proposed by Councillor C Parker and seconded by Councillor Nutley that the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

 

A vote was taken

 

Resolved

 

That the minutes of the previous meeting be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

 

 

If Councillors have any questions relating to predetermination or interests in items on this Agenda, please contact the Monitoring Officer in advance of the meeting.

Councillor Bradford considered that she was predisposed but not predetermined on applications 6a and 6b as she had taken part in a photo op outside the Council offices with protesters before the meeting. She took part in the debate and voted on both items.

The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee. He advised that two new letters had been received. They raised no new issues and did not result in any changes to the conditions.

 

Public Speaker, Objector – Spoke on:

·       Opinion of 2 hydrologists asked to assess site

·       Concerns around surface water drainage

·       Insufficient data on groundwater catchment

·       Impact on groundwater flow and quality

·       Surveying must take place over a year

·       Protection of fen

 

Public Speaker, Supporter – Spoke on:

·       Access already has permission

·       Road would aid traffic control and air quality

·       Further applications to come including discharging of conditions

·       No objection from the Town Council

·       Need for new houses to reach housing targets

·       600 new homes to be built in the area by 2028

 

 

Comments from Councillors during debate included:

·       Negative impact on church

·       Trees do not provide sufficient screening

·       Concerns about incorrect parking

·       Concerns about ensuring road speed limit is kept to, and implementing this into the design

·       The 2015 assessment of the fen may be considered out of date

·       Have officers considered the points made by the objector?

·       Need for more data to consider groundwater catchment

·       Necessity to enforce conditions

·       Objection from Historic England

·       Objections from residents

·       Doesn’t comply with policy EW-5

·       No balance against historic England objections

·       Loss of wildlife

·       Concerns expressed by Natural England

·       Ownership of the road

·       School needs a proper pedestrian crossing

·       Prevention of antisocial parking

·       Issues with design of buildings

·       Trees used for shielding will take some time to grow

 

 

In response, Officers clarified the following points:

·       This application wouldn’t have a serious effect on other wards

·       Natural England are an advisory body

·       No car parking restrictions

·       The report includes consideration of objectors points

·       The outline permission formed much of the application, and conditions came from that outline permission

·       Issues with enforcement are being addressed

·       High curves on side of the road

·       Speeds will be affected and vary through different sections of the road in the design

·       Tackling antisocial parking is complicated

·       Condition 15 discharged on first section of road

 

It was proposed by Councillor Hook and seconded by Councillor J Taylor that decision be deferred so that officers can ascertain further information on the construction of the road, including traffic speed regulation in the design of the road, the pedestrian crossing near the school, and parking spaces along the road.

 

A roll call vote was taken. The results were as below. 

 

For: Councillors Bradford, Buscombe, Goodman-Bradbury, Hall, Hook, Macgregor, Nutley, Nuttall, Palethorpe, and J Taylor (10)

 

Against: Councillor Sanders (1)

 

Abstentions: Councillor C Parker (1)

 

Resolved

 

That decision be deferred so that officers can ascertain additional information on the construction of the road, including traffic speed regulation in the design of the road, the pedestrian crossing near the school, and parking spaces along the road.

 

 

 

The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee.

 

Public Speaker, Objector – Spoke on:

·       Protecting the fen

·       Rare plants and invertebrates

·       Hydrology

·       Measurement of groundwater catchment needed

·       Need for sustainable drainage plan

 

 

 

Public Speaker, Objector – Spoke on:

·       Rob Low’s opinion

·       Air quality report

·       Local plan requirements

 

Public Speaker, Supporter – Spoke on:

·       Sustainable homes

·       Needs of local residents

·       Stakeholder involvement

·       Accessible homes

·       Reduced carbon emissions in new homes

 

Public Speaker, Supporter – Spoke on:

·       Accords with master plan/outline permission

·       Need for 2 and 3 bedroom properties

·       Housing delivery requirement of 600 homes

 

 

Comments from Councillors during debate included:

·       Concerns from Historical England

·       Concerns from Natural England

·       Premature application

·       Issues with SUDS

·       Houses should be 1m above water level

·       NPPF requirement to minimise risk

·       Need to enhance biodiversity

·       Need for more single bed housing

·       Ideal design in Exeter

·       Importance of protecting the fen

·       Prefer social rent to affordable rent

·       Can 1 bedroom properties be purchased?

·       Maintenance fee

·       500 dwellings to be considered

·       Housing delivery record

·       Lots of conditions that need satisfying

·       School isn’t confirmed to be happening by DCC

·       No scheme yet for Coach Road

·       Applications may be somewhat codependent and so the first deferral would require the second to be deferred

·       Landmark buildings not in right places

·       Lack of carbon reduction

·       Care homes on site

·       Lack of survey data for fen

·       Principle of no harm should be followed

·       Objection from Devon Wildlife Trust

·       Application not unique enough

·       Red sandstone could be used for dwellings

·       Walls should be natural stone

·       Houses should not be occupied until other works are completed

 

 

In response to comments, Officers clarified the following points:

·       No infiltration of SUDS

·       1 meter rule was for use in a different method

·       Control established by condition 20 which protects the fen

·       No objection by Natural England who are the highest ranking body

·       Use of natural slate

·       All 1 beds are social rent

·       Can’t mandate fees as there is legal agreement

·       Officer view is that it replicates master plan

·       Heat pumps in plans

·       Need for more discussion on reasons for deferral so officers can come back with plenty of information

·       Care homes are assisted living and provided by developer

·       Natural England evidence trail including 2019 letter

·       It is problematic for the council and members to receive new objection letters a day or two before the Committee meeting

·       Major development sites monitored by team, including quarterly meetings with ward members and developers

 

It was proposed by Councillor J Taylor and seconded by Councillor Macgregor that decision be deferred so that officers can ascertain additional information including the features of the through road, house design, the impact on the fen, and drainage systems.

 

A roll call vote was taken – the results were as below.

 

For: Councillors Bradford, Buscombe, Goodman-Bradbury, Hall, Hook, Macgregor, Nutley, Nuttall, Palethorpe, Sanders, and J Taylor (10)

 

Against: None

 

Abstentions: Councillors Sanders and C Parker (2)

 

Resolved

 

That decision be deferred so that officers can ascertain additional information  including the features of the through road, house design,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57a

The Interim Head of Development Management introduced the report to the Committee.

 

It was proposed by Councillor J Taylor and seconded by Councillor Nuttall that the Committee note the consultation and recommend that Full Council adopt the revised Validation Guides.

 

A vote was taken. The result was unanimously in favour.

 

Resolved

 

That the Committee notes the consultation and recommends that Full Council adopt the revised Validation Guides.                                             

The Committee noted the appeals decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate.

The Committee noted the Major Decisions Summary sheet.