Relief road changes at Land at Cullompton

What was proposed

The application sought changes to the approved relief road’s northern design and to when final noise mitigation details must be approved.

“Prior to the commencement of the development, final details of noise mitigation to protect the amenities of local residents most impacted by increased noise levels as a result of the construction of the relief road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The mitigation measures shall be implemented and thereafter retained.”

“Prior to the operation of the development, final details of noise mitigation to protect the amenities of local residents most impacted by increased noise levels as a result of the operation of the relief road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The mitigation measures shall be implemented and thereafter retained.”

Officer report

Why approval was advised

Officers considered the changes acceptable because traffic would remain below existing High Street levels and no significant additional environmental harm was identified.

“The greatest impact is likely to be on the local highway network. It is suggested within the supporting information that the amendments would lead to an increase in vehicle movements using the High Street rather than the relief road by approximately 700 per day (or 70 in peak hours), however despite this increase it is acknowledged that there would remain a significant reduction in the use of High Street compared to the existing usage without the relief road.”

“As noted in the assessment of the original application (20/00876/MFUL), the overall scheme would lead to significant adverse effects, although there would equally be significant beneficial effects, some of which outweigh the identified harm. It was however identified that any significant adverse effects would be localised and not considered to represent a wider unacceptable impact on the environment.”

Officer report

Public concerns

One objection raised concerns about construction vehicles using Duke Street, including pedestrian safety, road width and increased traffic.

“This planning application has been advertised by means of two site notices erected by the Planning Officer, by notifying immediately adjoining neighbours in writing and by advertising in a local newspaper in accordance with the legal requirements for publicity on planning applications, and the Council’s Adopted Statement of Community Involvement July 2020.”

“On letter of objection has been received. In this they express their concerns about the potential use of Duke Street for construction traffic. It is suggested that Duke Street is unsuitable for construction vehicles due to its narrowness, lack of pedestrian pavement, location of property paths and gates directly onto the carriageway, all of which would present a risk to pedestrian safety and lead to an increase in traffic.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Area Team Leader presented the application, and Councillor J Buczkowski spoke as the ward member and declared his county council role.

Committee discussion

Members did not discuss the application, while questions addressed possible traffic controls on Duke Street and the proposed northern access changes.

“In response to public questions the Area Team Leader answered as follows:-”

“Sally Graham Question 1: Will Duke Street be subject to forms of traffic control/restrictions when the relief road is operational? Answer 1: I am unable to answer this question fully, however I can provide some information based on the scheme, as originally approved in January 2021.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee resolved to grant permission subject to conditions, with the proposal moved by Councillor G Duchesne and seconded by Councillor B Holdman.

“Planning Committee – 8 April 2026 12 There being no discussion it was RESOLVED to grant permission subject to conditions. For delegated authority to be given to the Development Management Manager with regard to amending conditions two and four. Comments had not yet been received from National Highways. The decision would only be released once those comments had been received providing they had no concerns that required amending any plans.”

“(Proposed by Cllr G Duchesne and seconded by Cllr B Holdman)”

Minutes