Agenda item

Councillors Bradford, and Mullone declared a disclosable pecuniary interest by virtue of their land ownership.

 

Application 18/01276/MAJ was refused by Committee at its meeting in February 2019, on four grounds, as set out below and at page 70 of the agenda for the meeting. The decision has been appealed and the Inquiry is scheduled for January 2020

 

The Chairman referred to the report circulated with the agenda at pages 67 to 74, which updated the Committee on the position and agreements made during the course of the first Inquiry. The Chairman suggested that for clarity purposes, the four reasons for refusal be voted on individually.

 

The Business Manager confirmed that the bat survey work had been undertaken, but the report had yet to be received.

 

Concern expressed by Councillors referred to the importance of Wolborough Fen, and the suggestion that a further reason for refusal relating to climate change should be included to defend at the Inquiry. The Business Manager advised that an additional reason for refusal added at this stage was likely to be seen as unreasonable by the planning inspectorate, and consequently, it would be highly likely that the Council would have costs awarded against it.

 

Comments made by Councillors included: an ecological specialist should interpret the results of the bat survey; there are more species of bat at the site than only the Greater Horseshoe Bat; there is insufficient information available at present to conclude beyond reasonable scientific doubt that the proposals would not have an adverse effect; delaying the link road would have a detrimental effect on the air quality, and not be in accordance with the Council’s emergency climate declaration.

 

The Chairman reiterated the unreasonableness of introducing additional refusal reasons at this stage.

 

The Business Manager advised that in relation to refusal reason 4, officers acting under instruction from the members, have agreed proposed conditions with Natural England, which would provide suitable protection.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Patch and seconded by Councillor Bradford that the meeting be adjourned to allow Members to consider if they would like to vote on each individual refusal reason, and not together as set out at agenda page 69.

 

An amendment was proposed by Councillor Bullivant and seconded by Councillor J Hook that the reasons as set out at agenda page 70, be considered and voted on individually. The amendment was carried by 11 votes for, 7 against and 1 abstention

 

It was proposed by Councillor Patch and seconded by Councillor Colclough that the Committee adjourn for a short recess. The proposal was carried by 16 votes for and 2 against.

 

The meeting reconvened and consideration was given to each individual reason for refusal. The reasons for refusal are as follows:

 

South Hams SAC (Reason 1)

There is insufficient information available at present to conclude beyond reasonable scientific doubt that the proposals will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the South Hams Special Area of Conservation as required under the 2017 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policies NA3 (Wolborough), EN9 (Important Habitats and Features) and EN10 (European Wildlife Sites) of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033, the NPPF and the NPPG.

 

Link Road Delivery (Reason 2)

The proposals, as submitted, do not provide for delivery of a road that connects the site from east to west at a point in time that allows for a sustainable community to be established. The provision of this link at an early stage in the development of the allocation is considered to be vital for mitigating the impact of traffic across the wider local area, managing air quality, place-making and access to public transport, community facilities and services. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policies NA3 (Wolborough) and S5 (Infrastructure) of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033, the NPPF and the NPPG.

 

Lack of a satisfactory S106 Agreement (Reason 3)

No adequate mechanism for securing necessary Section 106 Obligations has been made, contrary to Policies NA3 (Wolborough) and S5 (Infrastructure) of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 the NPPF and the NPPG.

 

Wolborough Fen SSSI (Reason 4)

Insufficient detail relating to the monitoring of impacts on the Wolborough Fen SSSI has been provided to ensure that unacceptable harm would not occur the proposals are therefore contrary to Policies NA3 (Wolborough) and EN9 (Important habitats and Features) of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033, the NPPF and the NPPG.

 

In accordance with Article 8, Paragraph 8.3(m)(v) of the Council’s Constitution, at least five Councillors requested that recorded votes be taken on each Refusal Reason.

 

1.  South Hams SAC (Reason 1)

 

The Business Manager advised that it would be regarded as unreasonable to continue with this reason for refusal if the results from the Bat Survey provide sufficient information to counteract this reason. It was envisaged the information would be available by 11 November, 2019.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Bradford, seconded by Councillor Patch and

 

Resolved – That Refusal Reason 1 remain. Delegated Authority is not granted to the Business Manager to determine, in consultation with appointed Legal Advisers and our expert ecological specialists, the best course of action in relation to the compliance of the proposals with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, following final receipt of up to date Bat survey information. The best course of action shall be considered by the Committee.

 

Voting for:- Councillors Haines, Goodman-Bradbury, Bradford, Bullivant, Clarence, Colclough, H Cox, Keeling, Kerswell, MacGregor, Nuttall, Nutley, Patch, Parker, Petherick, and Wrigley. (16)

Voting against:- Councillors Hayes and Hook. (2)

Abstention:- Councillor Jeffrey. (1)

Absent:- Councillors Jenks and Phipps. (2)

Statement of Reasons

The Committee considered that given the importance and protection of the Greater Horseshoe Bat, the interpretation of the survey results by an ecological specialist should be considered by the Members. At present there is insufficient information available to conclude beyond reasonable scientific doubt that the proposals would not have an adverse effect on the species.

 

2.     Link Road Delivery (Reason 2)

 

The Business Manager advised that Devon County Council Highways was content with a condition that the trigger point for the construction of the Link Road to be completed be the occupation of the 500^th dwelling.

 

The committee considered that the trigger point should remain at the occupation of the 300^th

dwelling as originally requested by Devon County Council. Waiting until the 500^th would be unreasonable. 

 

The Solicitor advised that the County is a competent authority. It would be hard to defend the reason for refusal if it is contrary to County’s advice. This would be regarded as unreasonable, and costs would be awarded against the Council.  The Business Manager added that an alternative Highway consultant would need to be engaged by the Council to defend this refusal reason which would be costly.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Wrigley, seconded by Councillor MacGregor and

 

Resolved –Refusal Reason 2 remain and be defended at the Inquiry. The link road should be delivered the occupation of the 300^th dwelling as originally supported by Devon County Council Highways, and not the 500^th dwelling as the County are now agreeing.

 

Voting for: Councillors Goodman-Bradbury, Bradford, Clarence, Colclough, H Cox, Hayes, Hook, Jeffrey, Keeling, Kerswell, MacGregor, Nuttall, Nutley, Patch, Parker, Petherick, and Wrigley (17)

Voting against: Councillors Haines and Bullivant (2)

Absent: Councillors Jenks and Phipps (2)

 

Statement of Reasons

Members considered that it would be unreasonable to expect the future residents of the development to wait until the occupation of the 500^th dwelling for the link road to be completed, and that this would exacerbate congestion on the existing road network, have a detrimental impact on air quality and climate change; and be inconsistent with the Council’s declaration of climate emergency.

 

3.     Lack of a satisfactory S106 Agreement (Reason 3)

 

The Business Manager noted the differences between the parties were minor and could be addressed through evidence, but did not constitute a reason for refusal.

 

It was considered that the Section 106 agreement as negotiated at present was unsatisfactory.

 

It was proposed by Councillor MacGregor, seconded by Councillor Wrigley and

 

Resolved – Refusal Reason 3 remain and be defended at the Inquiry.

 

Voting for:- Councillors Goodman-Bradbury, Bradford, Clarence, Colclough, H Cox, Hayes, Hook, Jeffrey, Keeling, Kerswell, MacGregor, Nuttall, Nutley, Patch, Parker, Petherick, and Wrigley (17)

Voting against:- Councillors Haines and Bullivant (2)

Absent:- Councillors Jenks and Phipps (2)

Statement of Reasons

It was considered that whilst any differences may be minor, the reasons for refusal should be sustained until all have been agreed.

 

4.     Wolborough Fen SSSI (Reason 4)

 

The Business Manager advised that Natural England is content with a condition that had been negotiated with the Applicant.

 

It was considered that the negotiated condition may not adequately protect the Wolborough Fen SSSI and that any development could unacceptably and detrimentally affect the Fen.

 

It was proposed by Councillor MacGregor, seconded by Councillor Wrigley and

 

Resolved - Refusal Reason 4 remain and be defended at the Inquiry.

 

Voting for:- Councillors Haines, Goodman-Bradbury, Bradford, Bullivant, Clarence, Colclough, H Cox, Hayes, Hook, Jeffrey, Keeling, Kerswell, MacGregor, Nuttall, Nutley, Patch, Parker, Petherick, and Wrigley (19)

Absent:- Councillors Jenks and Phipps (2)

Statement of Reasons

The Committee considered that given the environmental importance of the Fen, the condition as presently negotiated may not adequately protect the Wolborough Fen SSSI and that any development could unacceptably and detrimentally affect the Fen.