Two planning applications for 10 and 25 houses in Talaton have been refused on appeal. It is best to read the full document (see link below) for how it might affect YOUR community.

Basically, although the Inspector had a LOT to say about how he did not trust EDDC’s figures on 5 year land supply or its planning abilities in general particularly with regard to Cranbrook, the unsuitability of the suggested S106 option of village hall extra parking, the lack of sustainability AND Talaton’s nearness (within 10 km) of the Pebblebed Heath weighed heavily in his decision:

30. From the information in front of me, the Council has not demonstrated that previous under delivery has been accounted for within its five-year supply calculations. Even if the previous under-delivery has been accounted for within the estimated need of 17,100 identified within the SHMA, which is not certain, the way in which the Council have addressed the previous under-supply is not consistent with the aim of addressing it within the first five years, where possible. In the Council’s projection the 17,100 has been split evenly over the plan period, ‘the ‘Liverpool’ method. Whilst the PPG is not prescriptive in stating that any under-deliver must be recovered within the first five years it sets a clear preference for this approach, ‘where possible’. No evidence was presented by the Council to suggest that it would not be possible to recover any previous under-supply over the next five years and the Local Plan Inspector has previously written to the Council to advocate the ‘Sedgefield’ approach with the aim of boosting housing supply.

31. Moreover, I have concerns that the projected delivery rates for the new settlement at Cranbrook are not supported by clear evidence. The predicted completion rate for the two phases of the development over each of the following five years is 467 dwellings per annum. However, the March 2015 HMU identifies that there had been 757 completions between ‘summer’ 2012 and August 2014. It is not clear when development commenced but the published completion rate suggests a figure in the region of 350 to 375 dwellings per year over the two year period. The Council suggested orally at the Hearing that there is evidence to suggest that delivery rates are likely to increase but no firm evidence was submitted to show how the predicted delivery rates had been derived. In effect, those predictions show an increase of approximately 100 dwellings a year at the site, over and above the published rate of completion to date. That rate of delivery is not supported by the evidence presented to me.

…I conclude that the location of the site is such that the proposed developments would result in unsustainable travel patterns resulting in an increase in the use of the private car. The harm resulting from those unsustainable travel patterns would be comparatively greater for the proposed development in Appeal B due to the greater number of dwellings in that scheme. Both proposals would be contrary to the requirements of policy TA1 of the LP and policy TC2 of the ELP, which state that new development should be located so as to be accessible by pedestrians, cyclists and public transport and well related to compatible uses to as to minimise the need to travel by car.

…the proposed car park [for the village hall] is not directly, or even indirectly, related to the impact of the proposed scheme and is not necessary because of it. Thus, the offer to provide the car park is not a matter that I can take into account in reaching my decision, having regard to paragraph 204 of the Framework and regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). Whether an individual landowner or developer chooses to offer the car park to the Parish Council is a matter for their consideration. It is not a factor that can be taken into account in reaching my decision.

…The appeal sites are within a 10km radius of the Pebblebed Heaths SAC/SPA. The Council have referred to the South East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy10 (the Mitigation Strategy) which identifies that planned residential and tourist accommodation development within that radius would, in combination, have a detrimental effect on the integrity of the SAC/SPA, as a result of increased recreational pressure within the designated SAC/SPA boundaries. Both main parties agree that mitigation is necessary in order to off-set the harm caused by the proposed developments and clause 3.3 of the s.106 agreements in relation to both proposals indicates that planning permission should be refused in the absence of the proposed mitigation11. Based upon the findings of the Mitigation Strategy I concur with that view.

…Paragraph 7 of the Framework identifies three dimensions of sustainable development, based on economic, social and environmental factors. The Framework identifies that these strands are mutually dependent and should not be considered in isolation. In this case, the village is not in a sustainable location in terms of its proximity to shops, services and employment opportunities. Future residents would be largely reliant upon the private car. That reliance would not foster a move towards a low carbon economy and would be contrary to the environmental dimension of sustainable development.

The full document is HERE13.1832 & 1833.mout