Minutes Joint Planning Committee - Tuesday 30 June 2009
Members Present:
Councillor Mrs M McDonald (Chair)
Councillor A Leech (Vice Chair)
Councillor Mrs K Bickley
Councillor Ms T Edwards
Councillor D Weekes
Councillor C Hodgson
Councillor D Webber (Hamlets)
Councillor P Green (Hamlets)
Councillor A Ewen (Hamlets)
J Gillard (Hamlets Clerk)
Councillor K Williams (WDBC)
Councillor Mrs E Hicks (WDBC)
Councillor J Young (WDBC)
In Attendance:
D Bent (Town Clerk)
S Gill (Planning Consultant)
8 members of public
121. Apologies for Absence - Apologies for absence were presented on behalf of Councillors M Ireland, H A Pirwany, P Vachon.
122. Deferment of Business - (for comment by the public) - N Westman, acting for residents of Moyses Meadow, referred to the proposed eco-housing development accommodating 17 acres and invited the Town Council to support this application through the Core Strategy with an emphasis for development to the west of Okehampton; noted. A resident from Stockley Hamlets expressed concern over industrial development proposed and preferred the option to develop between the two major roads and sought the Town Council’s support. WDBC Councillor Mrs E Hicks expressed concern that, as Okehampton was the gateway to Dartmoor, there was far too much development proposed for the east of the town and wished to pursue a balance across Okehampton.
123. West Devon Local Development Framework - Core Strategy - Regulation 27 - Development Plan Document - The Chairman presented this document and invited Council to examine detailed development strategy relating to Okehampton and its surrounds, referenced this Council’s previous objection as prepared by S Gill (planning consultant) and invited the joint Councils to formulate a response to the Borough.
Mr Gill was invited to offer his opinion on the key issues contained in the document and to offer advices to the Councils in the form of objection or support. Mr Gill advised that, despite this Council’s request to change the policy for development across the town, little had been changed in the new document and he suggested that the major strategic argument for the balance of houses to the west was too great a request, however the Core Strategy document would end in a public inquiry with issues of this nature based on a test of soundness in line with national policy to be justified and effective. He concluded that this major issue would need a change of heart by the Borough Council which was unlikely whilst adhering to government policy.
Mr Gill referred to the document and the proposed changes against a widespread distribution of houses from main towns in to villages (based on the Matthew Taylor review report) with the strategy for concentration of this development in Okehampton and Tavistock and a promise to only look at development in villages. He explained the desire was to balance sustainability and national policy, but concluded this was not in accord with emerging advices and the Taylor report. He suggested there would be a small reduction of the numbers for Okehampton with a possible small development in villages to maintain sustainability of the same; Okehampton would have to convince the Borough and Inspector of a need to sustain villages and relieve pressure on the building of houses in the town.
Reference was made to the development and strategy or urban extension for Okehampton, which again Mr Gill suggested was not in accord with policy advice or the Taylor report and inappropriate to Okehampton and commented that these policies would work well in a green field or a large development of 5,000 houses. Mr Gill referred to employment land issues and the options, with a reference for 10 hectares required and questioned whether the Councils regarded this as a major issue. Members agreed in the affirmative, acknowledged two issues in the proximity of dwellings to the development, at the south of A30 with no problems, the meeting considered that the views issue was not a problem and dismissed the comments from the National Park and supported this point. Mr Gill explained the complications of additional industrial development land constraints and accepting tweaking might be useful for this site. Mr Gill advised that the delivery of strategy was critical, national policy document contents identified funding and gaps in funding with alternative plans causing delays. He commented there was nothing in the Core Strategy document to address funding or shortfall of the same and commented that this omission could derail the Core Strategy, bearing in mind the amount of infrastructure required based on the certainty required at or by this national policy, an additional factor was the Borough Council’s policy on affordable housing limit, again not in accordance with national and regional policy levels which required funding.
The meeting was reminded of the key issue previously, that of balanced development across the town with 350 each side and Mr Gill invited the Council to identify available land; this was acknowledged as land offered by Mr Westman in the eco-system proposal and adjacent site. Members were heartened on social integration, but concerned that large development would create social division with 40% social housing proposed. Questions were raised over traffic routes for the town centre relief road and Mr Gill advised that although the relief road was identified as a top priority, there was no timescale attaching although the Borough acknowledged this was a necessity during the development process. Reference was made to the link road between Crediton Road and Exeter Road which would give access but not certainty. A question was tabled that the inner relief road connecting to the lower industrial estate would ease the town centre industrial estates with transfer of the same with the release of cash for section 106 agreements on new developments. Mr Gill confirmed that the plan was related to links between section 106 agreement for the relief road and a contribution towards costs. He concluded that the Local Plan as submitted in 2005 did not include a relief road, but was approved following a traffic assessment, the Borough Council acknowledged the significance to accommodate the proposed number of houses in the town. Mr Gill agreed to include reference to the urgency of the relief road and link road in his response. Mr Gill repeated his comments relating to urban extensions and the point that Okehampton did not fit in this category; Members expressed disappointment that an urban extension, although a county model with national policies, was impossible on a rural development such as Okehampton and had to form part of his response to the Borough. Mr Gill referred to vagueness over housing numbers and complex policies, made reference to need to build 380 affordable houses per year to accommodate hidden homeless numbers, however Okehampton appeared to be suffering at the behest of Tavistock for gypsies and travellers with sites identified at Okehampton in the vicinity of the A30. Mr Gill suggested this as a lesser problem to be addressed later.
Further reference was made to inadequate infrastructure for the proposed development and concluded to be a major point for this Core Strategy response. Members opined the document had not been examined thoroughly with all options included, merely adherence to a national policy document with substituted names and sites. Members were disappointed with comments to protect and enhance the countryside with high quality distinctive designs when this was not delivered in reality with the Borough planning office ignoring the urgency of the content of this major document. Mr Gill advised Members to comment on strategy and sustainability element not fine detail relating to planning design which would be addressed when applications were submitted. Members were very keen to support and include the promotion and furtherance of Dartmoor Railway, both for goods and passengers, together with bus links; Mr Gill agreed to include this with housing problems submitted to the next level in this process. In response to questions over the Council’s aspirations on the document, Mr Gill was invited to offer key points for a submission to the Borough, the following were made.
a) Overall spatial strategy, the vast majority to the two principal towns linked to the role of villages.
b) Sustainability criteria altered based on travel distances.
c) Development strategy urban extension and policy terms, accessibility and difficulty links on planning and what is planned in town centre.
d) Railway line.
e) Playing fields.
f) Social problems.
g) Employment land, land to south preference acknowledging technicalities on delivery.
h) Affordable housing.
i) Balance of development to west quoting actual sites.
j) Urban extension.
Members acknowledged pressure from officers adhering to government policy to deliver the Core Strategy document and the difficulties in departing from these policies. Mr Gill advised that of the 900 proposed houses, the numbers would be monitored including infill. Mr Gill confirmed that developer contributions towards affordable housing were here to stay although housing numbers for West Devon were not in line with national policy and there was a link between cause and provision on houses and school numbers, subject to section 106 agreements.
On the proposition of Councillor Leech, seconded by Councillor Weekes, it was resolved to instruct S Gill to compile a report for the Town and Hamlets embracing the above points for submission to the Borough Council as this Council’s response to the Core Strategy document, the document to be based on his presentation and the joint Councils’ response (Members noted that some issues relating to Tavistock eg affordable housing, would apply to Okehampton and noted shared comments).
Meeting closed 9.05 pm.