Minutes Special Joint Planning Committee - Wednesday 27 May 2009
Members Present:
Councillor Mrs M McDonald (Chair)
Councillor A Leech (Vice Chair)
Councillor Dr M Ireland
Councillor M Morse
Councillor H A Pirwany
Councillor D Weekes (Town Mayor)
Councillor C Hodgson (Chair, P & R)
Councillor D Webber (Hamlets)
Councillor P Green (Hamlets)
Councillor M Sampson (Hamlets)
J Gillard (Hamlets Clerk)
In Attendance:
D Bent (Town Clerk)
Councillor Mrs E Hicks (West Devon)
40. Apologies for Absence - Apologies for absence were presented on behalf of Councillors Mrs K Bickley, C Letchford and A Ewens.
41. Deferment of Business - (for comment by the public) - There were no questions from members of the public.
42. Planning Application No 12853/2009/OKE Land East of Okehampton Erection of 103 Dwellings with Associated Garages, Roads and Footpaths, Public Open Space and Drainage Ponds - The Chairman invited Members of the Joint Committee to examine and formulate a response to support or object to this proposal. The Town Clerk advised that a previous application to develop the site with the erection of 129 units had been objected to by the Town Council on the following grounds:
density - too many houses on a small site;
lack of architectural merit;
concern over increased traffic numbers generated through the town.
He referenced a meeting in February with Borough and County Officers at which the application was examined with Persimmon Homes and all Council’s objections directed at that meeting for clarification or amendment. An issue raised was the question of section 106 agreement and the benefits to be derived from granting planning permission; this would include provision of a school site with access to the same plus full services, a link road, construction of affordable houses within the project with a request for a much improved quality housing design. The Clerk reported from that meeting the development of 129 houses would not generate a significant contribution for education purposes, there was no agreement with the landowner to transfer the land as notice had not been served, however the Officers were pursuing contractual arrangements to obtain access on the site whilst expressing a major concern on viability of the total scheme.
Members acknowledged this new application as Persimmon’s response to addressing all of the concerns raised at that meeting.
The principal question raised was the position relating to section 106 agreement with the Borough Council on this development scheme. The provision of a link road was questioned with regard to affordability, but acknowledged as the landowner’s responsibility whilst further acknowledging 35% social housing including one house with special facilities. A Councillor acknowledged outline planning permission for 500 houses and questioned whether this was conditional for 3 builders to work together, but no agreement was in place and piecemeal development would not create sufficient money for services promised within section 106 agreement. The meeting expressed concern about the delivery prospects of the new school with falling numbers related to insufficient development.
The meeting questioned number of houses on the site, whilst acknowledging 129 to 103, still considered it to be too dense and unacceptable and of poor quality design.
The meeting acknowledged key changes in the development proposal including the following:
increasing open space to comply with local plan, policy H4;
limiting dwelling heights to 2 storey;
reduction in overall number of dwellings;
re-routing of public footpath access to Crediton Road;
improved orientation of dwellings overlooking public open spaces;
structured landscape approach delivery with the introduction of street trees etc.
These comments were noted, however with regard to local identity the Committee rejected this option with a preference for better house design on a new development on the edge of the town; such development may create social problems and antisocial behaviour.
Members examined the Council’s guidelines on determining planning applications and offered the following comments:
amenity - visual impact on main route into town questionable with parcel of land isolated within the development creating additional problems;
road safety - questions relating to the link road and the trigger point at which this would be delivered, subject to sale of houses;
services - impact on community services, water, sewerage, drainage, Members were not convinced despite reports from specialists that these aspects would be covered;
public interest harmed - Members acknowledged that this would be affected with the service structure across the town, particularly with the omission of section 106 agreements which would offer improved services. The meeting referenced a proposed public transport system (again subject to 106 agreements) but without it private cars would create additional problems to the town centre with congestion, therefore an improved infrastructure was required to accommodate this development. Councillor Webber commented that a reasoned and devolved infrastructure improvement process was required prior to any housing development including transport structure and assurances from the local authorities that these conditions would be delivered.
Councillors identified 3 areas for Persimmon’s development proposal to address a) infrastructure; b) delivery of school; c) delivery of link road; all as parts of the section 106 agreement, whether linked to this development or the proposed development of 500 houses on a structured timescale with equally important details relating to design, layout etc to be addressed.
Members also questioned environmental objectives, whilst acknowledging reports submitted by Persimmon, questioned the working operation of the attenuation pond with a preference for a proper SUDS programme disposing of rainwater soil at source. Members noted that if a section 106 agreement was not delivered, 103 houses would make little difference on the provision of any services and the County Council would have to deliver the school plus services and necessary infrastructure. The Committee examined a damage limitation situation with concerns over sewage system sufficiency, impact on community services, community social services - hospital, police, doctors etc, on infrastructure across each activity including neighbouring properties, creation of a crime corridor, impact on valuation of neighbouring properties through inadequate design and layout of the site. The meeting also addressed concerns of road safety as the development was beyond the 30 mph zone, adequacy of bus services and effect of the quality of life for the residents of the new development. Following further discussion, it was resolved to embrace a formal objection to this planning application extracting the above points.
Meeting closed 8.30 pm.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|