Skip to main content

Decision details

THE PLANS LIST (00-27-00)

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decisions:

The Committee considered the applications in the plans list *. 

 

Note:   *List previously circulated; copy attached to the signed Minutes.

 

(a)       Applications dealt with without debate.

 

In accordance with its agreed procedure the Committee identified those applications contained in the Plans List which could be dealt with without debate.

 

RESOLVED that the following application be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the various recommendations contained in the list namely:

 

(i)            No 4 on the Plans List (18/01205/FULL – Erection of a livestock building, Middle Weeke Farm, Morchard Bishop) be approved subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.

(Proposed by the Chairman)

 

(b)            No 1 on the Plans List (17/02061/MFUL – Remodelling and modernisation of existing garden centre following demolition  of existing structures, to include erection of retails areas, café and warehouse, formation of new vehicular access, provision of parking areas and landscaping – Crediton Garden Centre, Barnstaple Cross, Crediton).

The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report identifying by way of presentation the location of the site and an aerial photograph which outlined the existing footprint at the present time.  He explained that conditions 13, 14 and 15 outlined in the report would maintain control of the floor use specified for retail activity and would stop the restaurant acting independently from the Garden Centre which was of concern to many of the objectors to the application.  He provided a footprint of the site as proposed which highlighted the different areas contained within the application, part of the scope of the site would contain some of the highway improvements and a plan identifying the main access point and landscaping proposals. Existing and proposed photo montages were outlined as was a site plan setting out the parking area for the staff, the new building, new access and a new car park along with the proposed landscaping and footway connection.  The block plan highlighted the solar panels on the roof, and the area to be demolished.  Members viewed plans for the ground floor, the proposed elevations, the site sections and the highway proposals which included the scope of the alterations and the inclusion of an additional feeder lane to the site, the location of the bus stop and photographs from various aspects of the site.

 

The officer answered questions posed in public question time:

 

·         Why the garden centre was not treated as a retail development; the description was not proposed as retail and conditions would prevent retail development and that this would be enforceable.

·         Why were officers recommending approval for the planning application which was 13 times the size of the existing buildings on site; the plans show that the development was larger but not significantly so.  The Local Planning Authority would have had a retail impact assessment but the conditions limited the amount of areas to be used for retail.

·         With regard to the scale and massing of the proposal, the plans available identified the area to be developed.

·         Concerns with regard to 85% of the floor space could be used for A1 retail; Condition 15 limited the area for retail to 500 sq. metres

·         The impact of the proposal on the local economy and that 45 jobs would be lost; the application constrained the café and floorspace for retail and the application had suggested that the garden centre would be a visitor destination that  would attract people to visit the garden centre and the town of Crediton.

·         With regard to the highway issues, Mr Sorenson would address those however the highway improvements had been highlighted within the officers presentation.

·         The proposal was extensively more than allowed in 2003 and should be refused; the height, scale and massing of the proposal could be a reason for refusal.

·         Why had the 10 year retail assessment not be carried out, as the application was not a proposal for retail development and conditions would limit the retail ability, this was not required.

·         A sequential test not being carried out; as above

·         Why not use other land, the applicant did not own the other land.

·         Issues with regard to congestion and impact on the highway; a highway improvement scheme had been submitted and the scope of those improvements had been explained,

·         Why a full public consultation had not taken place, the objector had referred to the pre-application consultations that did take place.  The Local Planning Authority had consulted as part of the planning application process.

 

Mr Sorenson (Devon County Council Highway Authority Representative) then addressed the meeting stating that the safety audit had been happy with the visibility splays, there would be additional road markings, the footpath would improve the visibility from Barnstaple Cross to Crediton and an offsite footway and crossing place would be in place.  The uplift in traffic proposed by the application would generate the provision of a right turn lane which would deal with the additional traffic and this was thought to be adequate for the size of the development.

 

The meeting then considered Members questions with regard to:

 

·         The speed of traffic using the A377

·         Whether plants would be grown on site

·         Whether the proposal was 100% retail, particularly as none of the plants would be grown on site.

·         The opening hours of the proposed garden centre

·         The traffic speed limitations around Bernaville Garden Centre

·         Whether the development was environmentally sound with regard to  the amount of glass and lighting proposed.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The views of the objector who highlighted the scale and massing of the proposal, the vast retail store in the countryside, the impact of the proposal on local businesses and the loss of jobs in the area.

·         The views of the agent with regard to the consultation that had taken  place, the highway improvements proposed, the proposal would be built on a brownfield site, the design of the proposed garden centre and the fact that it was lower than the existing building

·         The views of the Ward Members with regard to the bold and interesting proposal, the support of the local Parish Council and the Town Council, the facility would bring visitors to the area.  The Homeleigh Centre in Launceston had revitalised the town, there would be little impact on the businesses in the town and the proposed highway improvements.

 

Discussion then took place regarding:

 

·         Whether the proposal was an intrusion into the countryside

·         The impact of the proposal on the highway network

·         Whether garden centres should just sell plants

·         Concerns regarding the amount of retail area proposed and whether a business case had been completed

·         Whether the proposed conditions 13, 14 and 15 would give the control required

 

It was therefore:

 

RESOLVED that Members were minded to refuse the application and therefore wished to defer the application for consideration of an implications report to consider the following issues:

 

·         Whether the application proposal would result in harm to the vitality and viability of the Crediton Town Centre and surrounding villages which would be contrary to policy DM17 and DM19.

 

·         Whether given the size, scale and massing of the proposed buildings and the scope of hardscape introduced to accommodate the car parking requirements the application scheme would be detrimental to the visual amenities and overall character of this site in the open countryside which would be contrary to DM2, DM19 and DM20.

 

In addition concern was expressed about the level of lighting that would be required and how this would affect the overall character of the site especially given it is in open countryside.

 

·         Whether given the amount of car parking proposed and the increase in number of vehicular trips on the highway network travelling to and from the application site as it proposed to be remodelled, the application scheme is considered to be an unsustainable form of development which would be contrary to DM2, DM6, DM19 and DM20.

In addition the overall sustainability credentials were challenged.

 

(Proposed by Cllr F W Letch and seconded by Cllr  B A Moore)

 

Notes: 

 

i)             Cllrs: Mrs F J Colthorpe, Mrs G Doe, R B Evans, P J Heal, D J Knowles, F W Letch, B A Moore, R F Radford, J D Squires and R L Stanley made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing in Planning Matters as they had all received correspondence regarding this application;

 

ii)            Cllrs P J Heal, D J Knowles and D R Coren made additional declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing in Planning Matters as they had had face to face contact with objectors and/or the applicants;

 

iii)          Cllr F W Letch declared a personal interest as he knew some of the objectors;

 

iv)          Cllr Mrs G Doe declared a personal interest as she had spoken to the objectors, one of which was a close friend;

 

v)            Cllr J D Squire declared a personal interest as some of the objectors were known to him;

 

vi)          Mr Tucker spoken in objection to the application;

 

vii)         Mr Kemp (Agent) spoke;

 

viii)        Cllr s D R Coren and P J Heal spoke as Ward Members;

 

ix)          A proposal to support the application was not supported;

 

x)            The following late information was reported: On page 31 proposed change condition 3 as follows;

 

3.   All the existing trees and boundary treatments which are proposed to be retained and all new planting, seeding, turfing and/or earth re-profiling as set out on the soft landscape plan as shown on drawing 211 hereby approved shall be carried out within 9 months of the substantial completion of the development, and any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. Once provided, the landscaping scheme shall be so retained.

 

(c)            No 2 on the Plans List (18/00657/FULL – Retention of change of use of an existing agricultural building to office with parking – Bradford Farm, Uplowman).

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report, highlighting the information within the update sheet which outlined the nature of the business to be undertaken in the offices, the response of the objector’s agent, the amendment to Condition 6 with regard to the boundary fence treatment and the proposed additional condition with regard to the surface of the car parking area.

 

He provided the following answer to the question posed in public question time: with regard to the timing for the creation of a foul drainage system, if Members felt it necessary the condition could be amended to state prior to occupation of the accommodation, with regard to the enforcement of conditions, the officer felt that the conditions could be enforced and if a breach of planning control was reported then this would be attended to within 24 hours.

 

He then provided a presentation which outlined the site location plan, the block plan which considered the parking area and proposed landscaping and the amended/additional conditions as explained in the update sheet. Plans for the office space for up to 15 people, the first floor areas, section plans, proposed elevations and photographs from various aspects of the site

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The views of the objector with regard to the current enforcement issues being dealt with, the business was proposed outside the settlement limit, there were other available sites for office space, the visual impact of proposal including the car parking area on his property

·         The views of the agent with regard to the creation of useful office space, this was an internet based business which would not handle any stock, it was hoped that the business would grow but staff would be limited to a maximum of 15, he understood the issues with regard to the surface of the car park and was happy with the compromise suggested by officers.  The application was a conversion of existing buildings, the current scheme was supported by the Highway Authority and complied with the Core Strategy and the NPPF.

·         The views of the Ward Members with regard to the inadequate standard of the work that had taken place, there was adequate parking within the courtyard which would have less impact on the neighbouring property, the resurfacing condition was welcome, however there were still issues with the visibility splay.  Whether the office space could be tied to the dwelling and whether the car park would be light and if so the impact of this on the neighbouring property.  The ongoing enforcement issues on the site, whether there was a need for office accommodation in the rural area, the general impact of the proposal on the neighbouring property.

·         Whether the courtyard could be used for  staff car parking

·         Policies DM11 and DM20

·         The sustainability of the site

·         The need to talk to the applicant before suggested changes were made to the application

·         Whether the setting was inappropriate

 

RESOLVED that Members were minded to refuse the application and therefore wished to defer the application for consideration of an implications report to consider the following issues:

 

·         Whether the proposal had an unacceptable impact on the neighbouring property (especially the car parking area) and therefore did not comply with policies DM11 and DM20

·         The intensification of the use of the premises

·         Whether this was an inappropriate location for the proposal

·         Was there more appropriate facilities nearby

·         The impact of the development on the amenity of the neighbouring property especially with regard to lighting issues

 

(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr  R F Radford)

 

Notes: 

 

i)             Cllr D J Knowles declared a personal interest as the objector and his family were known to him;

 

ii)            Cllr R F Radford declared a personal interest as the objector was known to him;

 

iii)          Mr Blakemore spoke in objection to the application;

 

iv)          Mr Burton (Agent) spoke;

 

v)            Cllrs D J Knowles and C R Slade spoke as Ward Member;

 

vi)          The Chairman read a statement from Cllr  N V Davey (Ward Member)

 

vii)          The following late information was reported:

 

One email received from the applicant’s agent providing further information in terms of the nature of the business use for the office space which is summarised as follows:

 

·                     The nature of business to be undertaken in these offices will be desk work based i.e. administration and consultancy via the internet

 

·                This is the nature of the applicants businesses

·                This falls within the B1 use classification that is included within the proposed condition 3 for the application.  

·                In respect to no formal justification of the office accommodation within this location other than within Tiverton, Members are referred to the Officer Report  where it states:

"The applicant’s agent has commented that they have investigated the available office space and no suitable spaces were found within the local area. A search carried out by officers identifies the nearest office accommodation to let being located within the settlement limits of Tiverton and therefore not considered to be within the immediate area to the application site.”

•       Therefore they feel that the businesses location is not unjustified and complies with Policy DM20.

 

In response to this additional information one email has been received from the Planning Consultant (XL Planning Ltd) acting on behalf of the objector with the comments summarised as follows:

 

              The policy justification provided of the location is minimal at best

              In terms of the criteria for Local Plan Policy DM20, Tiverton Town centre is less than 2 miles from the application site and Tivertons settlement limit is now only less than one mile away which is considered to be within the immediate area

              It can be demonstrated that there are sufficient employment locations within Tiverton which would suit this new enterprise, including Lower Moor Way (two offices available), Howden industrial estate, and the Town centre itself.

              Notwithstanding the availability of existing premises in nearest settlement, the location is considered inappropriate for this size and type of development.

              The rural setting of this beautiful set of historic barns has been significantly eroded by the works that have taken place, including the unauthorised works which still have not been regularised by way of any planning application to date.

              Development which harms the visual environment or has an adverse impact on the character is contrary to policy.

              It is contended that the development proposed will clearly impact upon the barns themselves and their associated heritage values, both physically and visually and the changes to the setting and the erosion of integrity of the buildings is unacceptable.

              The further domestication of the barns will erode their integrity and authenticity and will be irreversible.

              The proposal to convert these buildings to offices is not considered to be in line with Local Plan Policy DM20.

 

 

3rd October 2018

Amendment to condition 6:

 

Notwithstanding the details as submitted and within one month of the date of this planning permission,  revised details for a boundary treatment to include a fence  in addition to the beech  hedgerow as indicated on drawing number 18-2263-002B shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details will include a plan indicating the height, positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected on the site and a timescale for its implementation. The hedgerow approved shall be implemented within the first planning season following occupation of the office accommodation hereby approved and retained thereafter. Any trees or plants forming part of the proposed hedgerow which, within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

 

Reason:

 

To safeguard the amenity levels enjoyed by the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling in accordance with policy DM2 of the Mid Devon Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies).

 

Additional condition:

 

Notwithstanding the details as submitted, the surface of the car parking area and access to serve the office accommodation shall be finished in a bound material such as tarmac or concrete with final details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and implemented prior to first occupation of the office accommodation hereby approved.

 

Reason:

 

To safeguard the amenity of nearby residential properties in accordance with policy DM2 of the Local Plan Part 3: (Development Management Policies). 

 

 

(d)            No 3 on the Plans List (18/00662/MFUL – Erection of an industrial building (B1/B2/B8 use) an provision of additional parking – Hartnoll Business Centre, Hartnoll Farm, Tiverton).

The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location plan and the established bund, the scope of the car parking area and the proposal for the additional 59 spaces, the access from the main road through the site and the vehicle loop proposed, the proposed site plan, ground floor plan, proposed elevations and the existing and proposed landscaping plans along with photographs from various aspects of the site.  He informed the meeting of the negotiations that had taken place between the applicant and the case officer.

 

Consideration was given to the history of the site and the location of the bund which had formed part of previous applications; the now established landscaping on the site, the decrease in parking spaces from the original proposal and the impact of the proposal on the village of Halberton with regard to an increase in traffic.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning Economy and Regeneration.

 

(Proposed by the Chairman)

 

Notes: 

 

i)             Cllrs D J Knowles and R F Radford declared personal interests as the applicant was known to them;

 

ii)            Cllr R F Radford spoke as Ward Member.

 

(e)            No 5 on the Plans List (18/00745/FULL – Erection of a dwelling following demolition of existing shed – land and buildings at NGR 295495 115092 (Adjacent to Lurley Cottage) Lurley.).

At Planning Committee on the 5th September 2018 it was resolved that Members were minded to approve the application and therefore wished that the application be deferred to allow for the wildlife report to be produced and for a wider report to be submitted containing possible conditions, the consideration of replacement parking and a contribution towards the provision or improvement of public open space in the locality.

 

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report which included conditions if Members were minded to approve the application.  He informed the meeting s that the applicant had paid the financial contribution towards the provision of public open space and that the habitats survey had been received which had found no indication of any protected species on the site.  He presented plans identifying the location of the site, floor and roof plans and photographs from various aspects of the site.

 

Consideration was given to whether the proposal would improve the visual amenity of the site.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted for the following reason: the Local Planning Authority recognise that the application site is the open countryside and is not an allocated site for new residential development and therefore there is no specific development plan policy support for the application scheme which is for the creation of a new dwelling on this site. However taking into account the provisions of paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the benefits of provision of a single dwelling that respects the existing development pattern of Lurley and has no unacceptable impact on highway safety or the amenity of neighbouring residents with improvements to the visual amenities of the site and area in general through the removal of the existing shed, are considered to outweigh the harm caused by new residential development in a countryside location that is considered to be unsustainable in planning policy terms.

 

Subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration with the removal of Condition 7 and an additional condition  which stated that “The development shall be completed in accordance with the biodiversity mitigation set out with the ecological assessment completed by  encompass ecology ltd and received 24th September 2018”.

Reason for condition:

In the interests of preserving biodiversity in accordance with policy DM2 Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies) and in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended); the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000; the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC, 2006); and by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017).

 

(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr  P J Heal)

 

Notes: 

 

i)          Cllrs: Mrs F J Colthorpe, Mrs G Doe, R B Evans, P J Heal, D J Knowles, F W Letch, B A Moore, R F Radford, J D Squires and R L Stanley  made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing in Planning Matters as they had all received correspondence regarding this application;

 

ii)         Cllr R J Dolley spoke as Ward Member;

 

iii)       The following late information was provided:

 

·                A habitats survey has been received.  The habitats survey concludes that there is no evidence of bats using the buildings on site. There are two bird boxes on the southern elevation of the building, one of which seemed to have been in use during the 2018 season.  Overall, the results of the survey found no indications of any protected species presence on site, apart from the previous of one of the bird boxes.  There are no ecological constraints to consider within the current application or the construction process.  The report suggests the provision of new bird box provision on site, within the garden area as a biodiversity benefit.

 

Proposed additional condition:

The development shall be completed in accordance with the biodiversity mitigation set out with the ecological assessment completed by  encompass ecology ltd and received 24th September 2018.

 

Reason:

In the interests of preserving biodiversity in accordance with policy DM2 Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies) and in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended); the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000; the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC, 2006); and by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017).

 

·         A financial contribution of £1442 toward the offsite provision of public open space and play areas has been received in accordance with policy AL/IN/3 Allocations and Infrastructure Development Plan Document and the Supplemental Planning Document ‘Funding public open spaces and play areas through development’.

 

·         A plan has been submitted indicating the provision of two parking spaces for the proposed dwelling (which are adjacent to the dwelling).  A scaled plan indicating the provision of two parking spaces for use by the occupants of the existing dwelling is still required. 

 

3rd October 2018

 

Additional information and plans have been received that demonstrate that the occupiers of the existing property 2 Higher Lurley Cottages are able to park vehicles on the adopted highway to the west of 1 Higher Lurley Cottages.  The area of adopted highway to the west of 1 Higher Lurley Cottages does not have any restrictions upon it, although any user of the area must not cause obstruction to the highway.  This is understood to be the location which cars associated with 2 Higher Lurley Cottage use to park and will be able to park after construction of the proposed dwelling.

 

Proposed condition no.7 would therefore no longer be required as a plan demonstrating the provision of parking for 2 Higher Lurley Cottages is not needed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Publication date: 09/10/2018

Date of decision: 03/10/2018

Decided at meeting: 03/10/2018 - Planning Committee

Accompanying Documents: