Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and notices of appointment of substitute

Apologies were received from Cllrs S J Clist and E J Berry who were substituted by Cllrs J Cairney and Mrs F J Colthorpe respectively.

To receive any questions relating to items on the agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.

Note:   A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

Mrs Campbell, a local resident, referring to No 3 & 4 on the Plans List stated:

Mr Chairman and councillors, I wish to object to the removal and all variations of the conditions put forward. Why would we agree with the proposed design of these 20 houses which are more in keeping with the suburb of a town and not a village in the countryside?

Policies DM1 of Mid Devon plans states that the designs of countryside should have a clear understanding of the characteristics of the site, its wider context and surroundings. This is clearly not the case. The site design is over-developed, which is shown on the plan because of the footpath only being on one side of the road – a danger to pedestrians. Tree planting is on private property and can be removed at a later date, not on roadside, and not complying with national planning 2021 paragraph 131.

There is no allocated parking for visitors and no green spaces. These large houses built on a hill overlooking bungalows obviously intrude on their privacy. Mid Devon policy S1 states we should have a sustainable form of transport system for the new build – we haven’t.

At the meeting on the 22nd of October our bus services have been cut considerably, thus making it necessary for people to use their cars even more. The last bus to Silverton is 5.55. Conditions 5, 6, 7 and 8 deal with drainage and ground water monitoring, also surface water drainage. These have not only been fully carried out. Ruddlesden geotechnical carried out one test only of three, and said in their report it was because of time constraints – surely not acceptable. I’m sure you’re all aware of very recent concerns in the press and the television of phosphates going into our rivers, and polluting them causing great harm. With the added volume of water disposed of, as tested by the developer of combining sewage water and runoff water in larger pipes. This could cause our sewage system harm as the added volume of water after heavy rain and surges disturbs and cancels out separation causing sewage to flow into the river.

As was said on a television programme last week, more systems that are being added to are already outdated and overused systems that cannot cope with the extra volume. Should we ask the environment agency to do a nutrient neutrality test to make sure Silverton’s sewage plant is not letting phosphates into the river, and adding to the problem with this proposed build? This is all the more reason for the long term infiltration test should not be removed. These matters need more investigation. These are the reasons why conditions 5, 6, 7 and 8 should not be removed. With regards to the apex turning to the construction site being removed, and as you stated before the 6 foot 6 width restriction then proposed that they should come from the Tiverton A396. This is a very dangerous junction. It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

To record any interests on agenda matters

Members were reminded of the need to make declarations where appropriate

To consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 5^th October 2022

The minutes of the meeting held on 5^th October 2022 were agreed as a true record and duly SIGNED by the Chairman.

         To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make. 

The Chairman reminded Members of the informal planning committee on 9^th November 2022 and the training day on 23^rd November 2022. He also confirmed that there would be a need to hold a special Planning Committee in January, date to be confirmed.

To report any items withdrawn from the agenda

There were no withdrawals from the agenda.

To consider the planning applications contained in the list.

The Committee considered the applications in the *Plans List. 

Note: *List previously circulated and attached to the minutes

a)    Application 22/01377/CLU - Certificate of Lawfulness for the existing use or development for the occupation of the dwelling by anyone without restriction at Higher Coombelands, Knowle, Cullompton.

The Planning Officer outlined the application by way of a presentation which highlighted block plan, the original condition J, the approved plans, first floor elevations, south elevations, west elevations and photographs of the site.

The Officer explained that the Committee would need to determine if the breach of planning control was in excess of 10 years and if so enforcement was not legally an option.

In the case of applications for existing use, if a local planning authority had no evidence itself, nor from any others, to contradict or otherwise make the applicants version of events less than probable, there was no good reason to refuse the application, provided the applicant’s evidence alone was sufficiently precise and unambiguous to justify the grant of certificate on the balance of probability.

In response to public questions the Officer did not think there was deception and there had been no objections raised during the period of public consultation.

Consideration was given to:

·         The Planning Officer had carried out a site visit

·         There had been no previous enforcement cases within the 10 year time limit

·         Officers did not see the application as a concealment as the property was openly on view and not being hidden

·         A Certificate of Lawfulness was different to Planning Policy and any enforcement period had passed

·         The views of the Applicant who stated it was a detailed application which was not to be assessed against Planning Policy and that the matters set out were true. It would be unreasonable not to grant the Certificate of Lawfulness

It was therefore RESOLVED that the Certificate of Lawfulness be granted as recommended by the Development Management Manager.

(Proposed by Cllr B G J Warren and seconded by Cllr D J Knowles)

Reason for the decision: As set out in the report

Notes:

·         Cllrs P J Heal, Mrs F J Colthorpe, J Cairney, Mrs C Collis, L J Cruwys, Mrs C P Daw, B Holdman, D J Knowles, F W Letch, R F Radford and B G J Warren all made declarations in accordance with protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they knew Cllr E J Berry

·         Cllr B G J Warren made a declaration in accordance with protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as he had received correspondence from members of the public

·         Ms K Berry spoke as the Applicant

·         Cllrs B Holdman, F W Letch and L J Cruwys requested that their abstention from voting be recorded

b)   Application 22/01718/MFUL - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 17/01509/MFUL (Erection of 39 dwellings following demolition of existing garages and adjacent substructure, together with bike storage, underground car parking, landscaping and associated works) to allow substitute  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

To receive a list of major applications and potential site visits.

The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a *list of major applications with no decision.

The Committee agreed that:

·         22/01910/MOUT – Remain delegated

·         22/01671/MFUL – Be determined by Committee if officer was minded to approve and that a full Committee site visit take place

·         22/00915/MFUL - Be determined by Committee if officer was minded to approve and that a full Committee site visit take place

Note: *list previously circulated and attached to the minutes