Tiverton homes plan deferred again

Four years after initial agreement

A detailed planning application for 164 homes on the outskirts of Tiverton as part of the town’s expansion has been deferred for a second time by councillors.

It’s now been four years since outline permission was granted for the development at West Manley Lane and land on the opposite side of Blundell’s Road, which forms the first part of the major urban extension to the east of the town.

But Mid Devon District Council’s planning committee again failed to approve the next step ‘reserved matters’ application (for specifics such as appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the homes) after deciding many of the concerns raised previously still hadn’t been dealt with.

It comes after they deferred the Redrow Homes application in July this year for reasons including the appearance and density of some properties, along with concerns about the height of some buildings and fencing.

Since then, some changes have been made to scheme, such reducing the proposed number of new homes  by two – to 164 – an extra play area, more electric vehicle charging points and enhanced ‘buffers’ between the development and existing properties.

Alterations were also made to the height of the developments to better protect views in the Blundell’s conservation area, two bungalows have been introduced and an apartment block has been lowered from 2.5 storeys to two.

In addition, a ‘stakeholder workshop’ was held to further consult on the scheme with the developer, which said in an email before this week’s meeting that it had “carefully reviewed the proposed development to address as many of the comments made as possible.”

However, the majority of members at Wednesday’s meeting were still not satisfied with the revised plans. One of the main concerns was uncertainty surrounding crossings for roads near the development, which includes children’s play areas either side of Blundell’s Road.

A Devon County Council highways officer told the committee the exact redesign for Blundell’s Road, which will see a roundabout added at some stage, was still up for negotiation with the developer, while money has been secured for traffic calming measures.

Approval was also given in the summer for a ‘spine road’ providing access to the proposed development, along with potential future housing sites to the south.

Councillor Graeme Barnell (Lib Dem, Newbrooke) said the proposed safety measures didn’t go far enough and were “wishful thinking,” adding: “We’ve got children crossing these roads to play areas on all sides. Clearly in my view there hasn’t been proper thought or provision given to safe road crossings and that needs to be re-examined as a matter of urgency.”

A planning officer subsequently added that two crossings were being paid for by the developer but couldn’t say if they were being put in before or after residents move in.

Councillor Barry Warren (Independent, Lower Culm) added: “We’re being asked to rubber-stamp the reserve matters, but we’re planning for the future people that are going to live in this area of Tiverton and the wellbeing of Tiverton.…The safety of the people that are going to occupy these houses is of paramount importance, not afterwards.

The site had previously been the subject of a wider application approved as part of construction of a mixed-use development for Tiverton’s eastern urban extension. This includes 700 homes, 22,000 square metres of employment land, a care home, primary school and neighbourhood centre with associated access onto Blundell’s Road.

An objector told the meeting: “The development designed to the north of Blundell’s Road, in the opinion of many, is a blot on the landscape. It is an eyesore. It would not be out of place in an inner-city environment.”

The development’s agent defended the new plan and said the total of 164 properties was lower than the amount they could apply for at the site, while the amendments made were “significant.”

Councillor Dennis Knowles (Independent, Lowman), who represents the area, thanked the developer for listening to concerns raised previously, but questioned the lack of electric vehicle charging points for each property and added there was no indication of air source heat pumps being used instead of gas boilers.

Councillor Clive Eginton (Conservative, Taw Vale) also asked why the full provision of charging points wasn’t something the council was “insisting on.”He was told there would be charging points that residents would have “access to” and the number of charging points supplied was in excess of that required.

But he replied: “That doesn’t actually say each property should have one….“I’m just wondering that really we should be a little bit tighter on that condition and say that each property needs to be ‘provided by’ as opposed to having access to.”

An officer said an upgrade to the electricity sub-station may be required if more charging points had to be put in. Gas boilers are not being banned from new homes until 2025.

Councillor Les Cruwys (Lib Dem) was also critical of the revised scheme, in particular how the developer had not properly reduced the density of homes in one row that had been raised as an issue previously. He said: “They have done nothing to appease the people that live there and the councillors that objected to it.

“I’d be quite happy to go for another deferment. I don’t think we’ve ever done two deferments before. Usually, we just bow down to what they say, but I think this time we have to fight back and say ‘look, you haven’t changed enough, you haven’t met the requirements of people that live there or the planning committee.”

Cllr Barnell, who raised concerns about accessibility to a proposed apartment block, likened the situation to “Groundhog Day.” He stressed the need to negotiate more with the developer and backed repeating the decision from July for the same reasons.

The committee voted by six-to-four to defer the application for further negotiation around the appearance, scale, characteristics, design and density of the properties. It will then be brought back to a future committee for a decision. One member abstained.