Agenda item

A period of up to 15 minutes is available to deal with issues raised by the public;

OSDM.3/20

In accordance with the Public Forum Procedure Rules, the Chairman informed that one question had been received for consideration during the agenda item.

1.     Question from the South Hams Society

Can the District Council please confirm when negotiations with Baker Estates over the Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) began?  And do they recognise the reputational risk of doing this with a Developer which, amongst other controversies, has caused the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to fail to comply with planning law in relation to its plans for the K5 site?

In reply, Cllr Pearce made the following statement:

‘While ostensibly about the Planning Performance Agreement that the Council has entered into with the Baker Estates, the question is founded upon a number of misconceptions.  The principal misconception being that the Council is failing to comply with planning law and the Court Order. 

Based on a proper understanding of the facts, I can confidently say that the Council is acting within the law and the terms of the Court Order.

On 27 July 2015 outline planning permission was granted for the erection of up to 60 dwellings, 0.5 hectares of employment land, 2 vehicular accesses, open space, play provision and drainage on the land known as K5, West Alvington Hill, Kingsbridge.  Under Condition 3 of the 2015 Outline Planning Permission Baker Estates was required to submit an application for reserved matters before 27 July 2018.  Baker Estates submitted an application for reserved matters approval on 23 July 2018.  In making the reserved matters application when it did, Baker Estates complied with Condition 3.  So, the Outline Planning Permission did not expire as the questioner suggests.  The Council refused reserved matters approval on 31 July 2019 and that decision was quashed by the High Court on 2 October 2019.  The effect of the Order quashing the decision was to require the Council to re-consider the application afresh.  Importantly, as will be apparent from the quote from the Order in the question, the Council was to consider the application and any further submissions.

At the time that the Council issued its decision it was awaiting further details to be submitted.  As the questioner is aware, applications evolve throughout the decision-making process in response to representations and in an attempt to overcome objections.  This is particularly so in the context of an outline planning permission, where the permission might simply comprise a description and a plan with the site outlined in red.  In the case of the K5 Development, the Council requested further details so that the outline development could be defined with greater precision and the likely impacts assessed fully before any decision was made as to whether reserved matters approval should be granted or not.  As is quite proper, the further details have been publicised and representations sought.  All as it should be while complying with planning law and the Court Order.

It is both lawful and common practice for local planning authorities to enter into planning performance agreements with developers.  Indeed, it is encouraged by the Government through its advice in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance.  In view of the background that I have explained there is no legal impediment to the Council entering into such an agreement with Baker Estates, negotiations for which I understand began in January this year.’

The Chairman thanked Cllr Pearce and advised that, when sent this response, the South Hams Society would be invited to submit a supplementary question.