Issue - meetings

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The Chair invited Mr Andy Martinovic, to speak for five minutes in support of the application, who made the following points:

·        his company was a local family company who had been engaging with officers and consultees since validation in September 2020;

·        there had been numerous consultees, including EEA, RSPB, Highways Authority, Lead Local Flood Authority, Waste Planning Authority, South West Water, Police, and Ecologists;

·        the Local Plan team had confirmed that there was a lack of a five-year land supply;

·        infrastructure works would be delivered within the site boundary, avoiding disruption to Topsham Road;

·        the site was already allocated within the emerging local plan;

·        the scheme had been developed collaboratively with heritage development consultants and officers;

·        the reason for Members to consider approval was that there was no five-year housing land supply, was a sustainable location, acceptable design and visual impacts, would cause no significant harm to neighbouring amenities and there were no material considerations justifying refusal;

·        proposed benefits included: carbon-neutral homes, 19 affordable homes, of which 70% would be for social rent units, totalling at 35% overall contribution;

·        NHS contributions would be £16,990 for Foundation Trust and £35,032 for NHS Integrated Care Board;

·        the CIL contribution would be £1,177,000 for managing public open spaces, children’s play areas, biodiversity net gain, SUDS, and habitats mitigation; and

·        there would be a continuity of work for local trades and suppliers, supporting the local economy as part of the company’s values.

Mr Martinovic responded to Members’ questions as follows:

·        homes were being built to A+ rating under EPC standards, which was the highest energy-efficiency rating;

·        he lived locally and knew the area well and considered the site location to be sustainable;

·        the proposed road would extend to the site boundary, for a future link road to Newcourt Road with a cycleway. This was subject to adjoining land becoming available;

·        although the developer was willing to work with others, they could not control what other landowners or developers decided to do;

·        the scheme included 19 social homes, of which, 35% would be affordable housing;

·        access for vehicles, pedestrians and bikes was designed to reach the boundary, as requested by the Highways Authority;

·        there would be no direct connection beyond the boundary because the developer did not own the next field; and

·        biodiversity net gain was being handled by the consultants but the planning officer may provide the explanation.

The Principal Project Manager – Development Managementpresented the application for demolition of existing buildings/structures and proposed residential development of 54 residential units, including affordable housing, plus open space, landscaping, car parking, drainage, vehicular access, internal roads and all associated infrastructure and development which was recommended for approval.

Members received a presentation and the following information:

·        a key added obligation in the update sheet was on ensuring the road and cycle/pedestrian route extend to the site boundary to secure future connectivity;

·        aerial views showed the new development to the east; heritage site to the south and motorway to the west, which required noise mitigation;

·        access arrangements  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44