Development to include 197 residential units, a local centre building (ground floor only) comprising Use Class A1 floor space of 460sqm new vehicular access to Totnes Road , internal road layout, car parking, open space, landscaping, ponds services and infrastructure and all other associated development. THIS IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE LOCAL PLAN

The Committee considered an application for a development to include 197 residential units, a local centre building (ground floor only) comprising Use Class A1 floor space of 460sqm new vehicular access to Totnes Road , internal road layout, car parking, open space, landscaping, ponds services and infrastructure and all other associated development. THIS IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE LOCAL PLAN

Prior to the meeting written representations were circulated to the Committee and members of the Development Management Committee undertook a site visit.  At the meeting David Watts, Anne Waite and Damian Barton addressed the Committee against the application and Ed Heynes addressed the Committee in support.  In accordance with Standing Order B4.1 Councillors Thomas (J), Thomas (D) and Richards addressed the Committee.

Resolved:

Refused for the following reasons:

(i)        The proposal demonstrates a failure to consider the wider rural, high quality landscape setting of the village and the application site and the long term opportunity in the area to deliver a planned organic and sustainable form of development that would improve opportunities for the community in terms of quality of housing, job opportunities, recreation, leisure and community facilities.  This proposal brings forward the piecemeal development of this site without an overall understanding of how it would contribute to delivering a robust and comprehensive growth strategy for the area.  The proposal would fail to deliver an integrated organic extension of the village and would result in community facilities sited in a remote location in comparison with the hub of the village that is centred around the school and church and as such would encourage car borne activity.   As such, the development is not considered to be sustainable, being contrary to paragraphs 56, 57, 58, and 61 in the NPPF, which seek to make places better for people. 

(ii)       The proposed development by reason of its design and layout would fail to deliver a sustainable form of development that would integrate effectively with the historic form of the adjoining village and the natural environmental features of the site and surrounding area.  The proposal comprises a suburban form and vernacular that would be indistinct in its origins and would fail to respect the ‘edge of settlement’ rural character of the site and would fail to provide a high quality development that would improve the quality of the area and the way in which it functions.  As such the proposal would fail to meet the objectives of Policies H2, H9, H10, BES and BE1 in the Torbay Local Plan 1995-2011 and paragraphs 56, 60, 61, 64 and 66 of the NPPF, which seek to ensure that new development is sustainable and will positively enhance the built environment, maintaining the integrity of local character and distinctiveness.

(iii)      This undeveloped Greenfield site is designated as being within an Area of Great Landscape Value and part of the Countryside Zone in the saved adopted Torbay Local Plan.  The site is on the edge of Collaton St Mary and forms part of an attractive rural valley with a high landscape value.  It has an important role in the transition between the open countryside and the urban edge of Paignton and it makes a valuable contribution to local and wider landscape views.  Within Areas of Great Landscape Value such as this, Local Plan policy L2 requires development to maintain or enhance the special character of the area.  Policy L4 resists inappropriate development that would lead to the loss of open countryside and the creation of urban sprawl.  The proposed development, by reason of its suburban character and form, which is derived from entire site coverage with rows of houses across the hillside, would result in an orderly form of development with an urban character.  This would fail to respect the rural setting of the site and to relate sensitively to the wider landscape setting and as such would be contrary to the provisions of policies LS, L2 and L4 of the saved adopted Torbay Local Plan (1995-2011).

(iv)      In the absence of a signed legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Act 1990 (as amended), the applicant has failed to satisfy the sustainability aims of Policies H6 and CF6 and the Council’s SPD “Planning Contributions and Affordable Housing: Priorities and Delivery” to secure the delivery of affordable housing and physical, social and community infrastructure necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.  Furthermore, a lack of a Section106 agreement also incurs an absence of ability to secure an enhancement to biodiversity.  The Local Planning Authority considers that it would be inappropriate to secure the required obligations and contributions by any method other than a legal agreement and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policies H6, CF6, NCS and NC5 of the Torbay Local Plan 1995-2011 and paragraph 206 of the NPPF.

(Note: Prior to consideration of agenda item 5  the Team Leader for Major Developments declared a personal non-pecuniary interest as his daughter attends Collaton St Mary Primary School).