Agenda item

Planning Application Nos. 15/0640/OUT and 15/0641/OUT - Aldens Farm, Alphngton

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

 

Minutes:

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) presented two applications for residential development including new access onto Chudleigh Road and Dawlish Road (15/0640/OUT) and Shillgingford Road (15/0641/OUT) and associated infrastructure. (All matters reserved for future consideration except access). Details of the applications were provided as follows:-

 

Application ref 15/0640/OUT - outline planning permission for development for up to 234 dwellings with associated infrastructure. The application is for all matters reserved except for access, which is proposed from Chudleigh Road and Dawlish Road using an improved existing vehicular and pedestrian access. The site comprises an area of land of 8.07 hectares in total comprising open fields to the south of existing residential properties located in Steeple Drive, Pulpit Walk, Lichgate Road and Tower Walk.

 

Application ref 15/0641/OUT - outline planning permission for development up to 116 on land between Chudleigh Road and Shillingford Road together with a new vehicular access to Shillingford Road with other all matters reserved matters. The site comprises an area of land of 4.1 hectares in total comprising of open fields to the south of existing residential properties located in Veitch Gardens and Royal Close.

 

In view of the two applications, two individuals spoke separately on each. They spoke objecting to the proposals.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) referred to the objections received from the Alphington Village Forum and local residents and to some updated reports provided by the applicant which had been submitted with the application in 2015. He referred to a proposed Section 106 Agreement relating to affordable housing, district heating connection and traffic management and transport improvements. He advised that a late representation from the Council for the Protection of Rural England had raised the following issues:-

 

·                     the design and access statement is inadequate and is noncompliant with the National Policy Framework 2018;

·                     independent studies show that the number of new houses required in Devon did not reflect the real housing need in the County; and

·                     lack of a strategic goal and failure to build safe and well-designed homes.

 

He reported that the proposed condition 24 in respect of education would be deleted as the County Council, as Education Authority, had confirmed that an all through school would be provided within the Teignbridge boundary as part of the Bovis housing development which would also serve the two developments at Aldens Farm.

 

In respect of affordable housing, the Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) referred to the proposed Section 106 Agreement to secure a contribution of 30%.He reported that, although the applicant had initially considered their affordable housing provision should be 10% in line with that agreed by Teignbridge District Council within the outline planning application submitted by Bovis Homes, this had not been considered acceptable as it fell below the Exeter development plan policy requirement. The difference in opinion regarding the provision of affordable housing explained the reason for the delay in the submission of the applications in 2015. Following the submission of viability information and subsequent discussions with the applicant, it had been agreed that both developments would provide 30% affordable housing.

 

Councillor Musgrave, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on the item. He raised the following points:-

 

·                     as with the Alphington Village Forum, do not object to the developments in principle but to the overall strategy;

·                     the Alphington Development Brief sets out a number of the requirements relating to highways and traffic concerns but these are not being addressed;

·                     an Environmental Impact Assessment is required in line with the Council’s Core Strategy CP17 and 19 and Development Brief to ensure an acceptable green infrastructure and high quality green spaces;

·                     both the Council’s Development Brief and Core Strategy CP17 refer to the goal of retaining and enhancing biodiversity but the absence of a green infrastructure framework means that there is no guarantee that existing trees, hedges and habitats and species will be protected - in some parts of the developments the developer will remove some hedgerows and trees;

·                     the applicant’s Landscape and Visual Assessment states that the South West Masterplan “notes that the existing green infrastructure does not currently feature strongly around Alphington with limited existence of public open space located to the north of the village and play areas only located to the north and east”; 

·                     building houses on open fields will worsen the lack of public open space in Alphington and the lack of sufficient public open space is a serious concern;

·                     Core Strategy Policy CP17 requires the development to “retain and enhance the biodiversity of the site and adjacent areas” and the Development Brief requires that the site must be developed as a place which provides for a net gain in biodiversity;

·                     the bat population will be affected by the removal of their habitat and disturbed by lighting from the new houses and mitigation measures are inadequate;

·                     the findings from the traffic assessment in relation to air quality are questionable and existing poor air quality in the area and along Alphington Road will be exacerbated. Church Road and the northern section of Chudleigh Road already exceed or are just below the legal acceptable limits;

·                     sites will be developed but both applications should be deferred for further assessment of material considerations including a requirement for an environmental impact assessment.

.

Councillor Warwick, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on the item. He raised the following points:-

 

·                     Alphington is a semi-rural suburb, with a village culture, which would be lost by any new development;

·                     local concerns about building on agricultural land to generate income for shareholders rather than genuinely addressing local housing needs;

·                     there was a considerable traffic issues in the area, which was near the A30, with Alphington Road a major gateway into the city;

·                     the Traffic Assessment Report had been written in 2014 and was out of date and could not refer to recent delays caused by traffic incidents. There is also an increase in farming vehicles using the roads during certain periods;

·                     of the 2,500 homes agreed for construction, 2,000 had already been agreed by Teignbridge District Council which would be a vast increase in homes to the area and which also had not been covered by the Traffic Assessment Report;

·                     the Traffic Assessment Report suggested alternative transport arrangements for Alphington, however the two important transport options had not happened. The Marsh Barton rail station was due to open in 2015, but the latest report showed the station may not have the funding to be opened. The second arrangement was the Alphington Park and Ride which had also been delayed. The traffic assessment did not align with the current circumstances;

·                     clarification is required from Devon County Council on infrastructure proposals and on negotiations with developers on transport arrangements;

·                     time for locals to walk to the local doctor surgery and school, has been referred to. However, both are full and these issues have not been taken into consideration;

·                     the A30 is also a tourist route from Cornwall and, during summer months in particular, an element of that traffic heads for the city centre further increasing pollution; and

·                     the Traffic Assessment Strategy must be revisited before any permission is granted.

 

Ms Meadowcroft spoke against the application. She raised the following points:-

 

·         Alphington Village Forum had held five workshops to produce a Development Brief to serve as a Supplementary Planning Document for the future development of Aldens Farm East and West. Had made clear that the development was part of the South West Exeter Urban Extension adjoining land to the south within the Teignbridge District, comprising 2,500 new houses, of which approximately 350 would be in Alphington village;

·         the Forum had pointed out that the outline plans were unfit for purpose with 12 points of concern. The most important one was the lack of evidence of a co-ordinated approach to the plans by the two councils on either side of the Exeter/Teignbridge administrative boundary. There was a lack of provision for community facilities; open space; protection of existing trees and hedgerows and there is no integrated approach to cycleway and bus route provision and traffic generation from the Teignbridge District Council development in the calculation of traffic and road junction capacity;

·         the County Council, in its response to the proposal, had referred to the lack of joined-up thinking and awareness of the future impact from the whole site. Half of the whole South West Exeter development was going to be built between the A379 and Alphington;

·         much of Alphington Village is a Conservation Area especially along Chudleigh and Church Roads, which is the route already used by a large volume of traffic for access to the City Centre and is frequently congested;

·         the South West Exeter Access Strategy is out of date and there is no agreed methodology for Transport Assessments for the whole site. The junctions on to the Shillingford Road are dangerously sited and should be moved to the entrance to Markham Lane, where it could meet up with the road from the Bovis development in Teignbridge, avoiding the access for buses across this historic lane, which was to be a high-quality cycle and pedestrian route as set out in the Development Brief.

 

Mr Croft spoke against the application. He raised the following points:-

 

  • Alphington Village Forum is not against the development and are supportive of good development which enhances the quality of life for the occupiers of the new homes;
  • the objection is that the application under consideration is not fit for purpose and does not demonstrate that the proposed development is viable;
  • compromises will be required and therefore the Forum assisted in the production of the Alphington Development Brief to show how issues can be addressed;
  • the applicant has no interest in identifying the conflict and how they may be overcome due to extra cost and any restrictions on the development, in particular number of dwellings. The developer will look to maximise profit for an unhindered site. It is believed that the constraints arising from the conditions will restrict the developable area, reduce the number of dwellings and reduce viability leading to the developer applying to increase the density with three and four storey buildings and/or reduce the number of affordable homes;
  • Devon County Council will get what they want, but Alphington will suffer with imposition of poor development and Exeter City Council will not get the affordable homes needed; and
  • urge refusal of consent or deferral until the applicant has submitted an indicative proposal showing compliance with the Alphington Development Brief. There are many technical reasons to refuse or defer the decision on this application until the applicant has demonstrated the viability of the site.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (PJ) commented that a screening opinion had been taken which concluded that an environmental statement would not be required. An environmental assessment requirement would only result in the re-packaging of the existing reports already provided to Members and not offer any new information. Where appropriate, older reports had been updated, which included the Transport Assessment, which had been updated in 2017. Devon County Council had been given the opportunity to comment further on the updated reports but did not wish to amend their original comments. The air quality reports had been assessed by the Environmental Health Officer and were deemed appropriate.

 

Whilst welcoming contributions to bus services, Members expressed concerns in respect of a number of issues which they felt should be further considered. They felt that, because of the scale of growth proposed in the South West Exeter urban extension, a coordinated, comprehensive approach was required to successfully create a sustainable community.  They were concerned about the ability of the County Council to take on the delivery of infrastructure, as it would be dependent on sufficient developer contributions being collected. They felt that, because of the scale of the development, an updated Transport Assessment was necessary particularly regarding the uncertainty over Park and Ride provision and the rail halt at Marsh Barton. The comments on differing affordable housing provision associated with the proposed developments in the area were reiterated and it was felt that the policy requirement should be met.

 

The recommendation was for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission for a residential development including new access onto Chudleigh Road and Dawlish Road and associated infrastructure. (All matters reserved for future consideration except access) be DEFERRED for discussions to be held at Member and Officer level with Devon County Council to reconsider both of the applications and assess the many issues of concern raised including:-

 

·                     the failure to adequately meeting requirements of the Alphington Brief;

·                     the percentage of affordable housing proposed;

·                     uncertainty about health/school provision

·                     lack of sufficient community infrastructure;

·                     the failure to bring forward a Park and Ride facility for this side of the City;

·                     need for greater open space;

·                     the stalled progress on the delivery of a Marsh Barton Rail Halt; and

·                     an outdated Transport Plan for the area given both of these development and that proposed within the Teignbridge boundary.

Supporting documents: