Decision Maker: Planning Committee
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
RESOLVED that the following application be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the various recommendations contained in the list namely:
(i) No 3 on the Plans List (19/00306/LBC – Listed Building Consent for the replacement of Upvc windows to timber windows on south elevation – 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 (19/00573/FULL – Variation of conditions 2, 3,5,6,7 and 8 of planning permission 17/00910/FULL to allow substitution plans – 10 Mayfair, Tiverton).
The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location, the access to the site (which was not proposed to be adopted by the Highway Authority), the approved site plan and the proposed alterations to the scheme. She identified the land to the south, east and west of the site which would form Area B of the Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension and confirmed that there was no access to this land through Mayfair. Members viewed the access drive plan and the junction onto Mayfair, the proposed elevations of the dwellings and photographs from various aspects of the site. The officer confirmed that there was no proposal for a footpath alongside the access to the site.
Responding to questions posed in public question time, she confirmed that the access road would be tarmaced and would be a minimum of 4.1 metres wide. The applicant was responsible for the construction of the access road and the maintenance would be agreed by the landowner and the house owners, this was not a planning matter.
Consideration was given to:
· Possible issues with water run off affecting the bungalow on the access road and the views of the Lead Local Flood Authority
· The amendments to how sewage would be dealt with
· The access road being viewed as suitable for adoption by the Highway Authority but that it would remain a private road.
· The increase and reduction in some of the floor levels of the new dwellings
· How and why conditions could be varied
· The views of the objector with regard to the previous layout in the approved application and that pedestrian provision had been within the original plans. Reference was made to the original conditions relating to occupation of the properties.
· The views of the applicant with regard to him purchasing the land with planning permission and the amendments that he wished to make to the site for bespoke houses of a better quality. The removal of the attenuation pond and how that would reduce the amount of soil to be removed from the site
· Whether the access road should have a footpath
· The location of any bin store and whether the refuse lorry would access a private road, even if it is was to an adopted standard
· The views of the representative from the Highway Authority with regard to the standard of the road surface and the acceptability of the design.
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that: the application be deferred to allow for further discussions to take place with the applicant with regard to the footway, the bin store and its location and how refuse collection could be best managed.
(Proposed by Cllr L J Cruwys and seconded by Cllr Mrs C A Collis)
i) Cllrs E J Berry and D J Knowles made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning matters as they knew some of the residents;
ii) Mr Menheneott spoke in objection to the application;
iii) Mr Milton (Applicant) spoke;
iv) Cllr D J Knowles spoke as Ward Member;
v) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe requested that her vote against the decision be recorded;
vi) Cllr J Cairney and J M Downes requested that their abstention from voting be recorded;
vii) The following late information was provided: 2 additional letters have been received raising the following concerns:
· Information submitted is complex and difficult to understand;
MDDC website not kept as up-to-date as it might be;
· Doubt over the adoption of the road and where waste bins will be collected from;
· Pedestrians need a pavement for safety and to encourage walking
· Removal of the footpath
Page 9, line 8 of the officers report is incorrect. No pavement is being proposed alongside the private access road. This is to be a shared surface area with a minimum width of 4m (mostly 4.5m). The Highway Authority accept that this access arrangement could serve the potentially 9 dwellings.
c) No 2 on the Plans List (19/00075/MFUL – Erection of an agricultural educational/training facility to include demolition of farm buildings erection of 5 buildings comprising of 20 residential apartments for service users; alterations to convert existing buildings to create classrooms and office sites, formation of an access track and overspill car park – Land and buildings at NGR 286791 113761 (Kelly Farm) Nomansland).
The Area Team Leader provided an update to the report which provided clarity in respect of the required visibility spay at the entrance, the findings of the dusk and dawn bat surveys which had been carried out in July, the screening to the north boundary and the low lighting plan. He then outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the location of the site, the existing and proposed plans, he explained the different barn uses, the proposed elevations, the materials to be used, the surface water drainage proposals, the hedge replacement scheme to the rear of the passing places, the access plan which highlighted the visibility splay and photographs from various aspects of the site.
Consideration was given to:
· The views of the agent for the application with regard to the community facility in the countryside, the applicant’s experience with regard to residential care, the kind of care that would be provided, the independence of some of the residents and the proposed travel plan
· The suitability of the location for the scheme and the rural aspects of life that would be taught.
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that: planning permission be granted subject to conditions and informative notes as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.
(Proposed by Cllr B G J Warren and seconded by Cllr E J Berry)
i) Cllrs E J Berry, Mrs F J Colthorpe and R F Radford declared personal interests as Devon County Councillors;
ii) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe made a declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning Matters as the application was in her ward and it had been discussed at the Parish Council.
iii) Mr Stokes (Agent) spoke;
iv) The following late information was reported:
1. In light of the condition recommended by the Local Highway Authority with respect to the required visibility splay at the entrance, the applicant has submitted plan drawing no. 3681.PL.092 Rev B which shows the required visibility splay being met. The Local Highway Authority has viewed this plan and has confirmed that it is acceptable and should be conditional of any consent.
(This would be covered by recommended conditions 2 and 3 within the officer report).
2. The finding of the dusk and dawn bat surveys carried out in July have been provided which found no re-entry of bats on the dawn and a single emergence from a common pipistrelle during the dusk survey from the stables, western apex of the lower roof gable end. Therefore it is concluded that any new development proposals are unlikely to have anything more than a low impact on commuting, foraging and roosting bats.
The main mitigation / compensation / enhancement would be to maintain the north boundary trees to screen from the development, and to implement a low lighting plan to include:
• The design must use only the minimum number of lights required;
• Lights are to be fitted with UV filters or lack UV elements when manufactured to lower the range of wildlife species affected by lighting;
• Warm White (>3000K) LED lamps, which reduce upward light pollution, must be used where possible;
• Lights to be hooded;
• Bollard lights must be used to retain darkness above, be triggered by human movement and installed with a timer to turn off after a short amount of time;
• If/where security lights are required, these will be triggered by human movement, and be fitted with a timer adjusted to the minimum amount of ‘lit time’;
• Movement sensors to be carefully installed and aimed to illuminate only the immediate area required by using a sharp downward angle;
• A baffle, shield or hood must be used to avoid illuminating at a wider angle to reduce light spill beyond target areas; and
• No upward lighting to be used, especially at and above eaves height to avoid any possible roosting features.
(This would be covered by recommended conditions 7 and 8)
Publication date: 02/08/2019
Date of decision: 31/07/2019
Decided at meeting: 31/07/2019 - Planning Committee