Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from Cllr S Clist who was substituted by Cllr D Wulff.

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.

Robert Theed referred to Application 23/00636/FULL) 

Q1. Why was the Public Health comment from July 13th not mentioned in the officers report. This comment includes important information regarding the expected background noise level in rural locations, which is contrary to that of the Noise Report. Specifically the following sentence:

“We know that in remote rural areas the background noise level during the evenings and into the night is around 18-22dBa, not the assumed 25-30dBa in the report.”

The latest Noise report did amend the assumed noise level to 20-25dB, but this is still contrary to those from Public Health. Whilst there is an overlap between the noise report and those stated by Public Health, it is the high estimate of 25dB that the Noise report uses in its assumptions on expected sound levels above background which lies outside those stated by Public Health.

The assumed level of sound attenuation (insulation) of the barn used in the Noise Report analysis are “likely to be limited to circa 5-10dB.” However it appears to be the maximum level of 10dB that is used in subsequent calculations to arrive at the final sound level at the sensitive receptors. In the comments from the 10th May Public Health  state “building itself affords little or no noise insulation properties.” and clearly a value of 0dB is used in the calculations done as part of the 13th of July comments from Public Health. The 85dB Internal sound level limit from the latest Noise Report still results in a sound level of 33dB at the nearest sensitive receptor when using the 0dB attenuation assumption. Even at a more generous value of 5dB for attenuation which wasn't previously used by Public Health we would expect a value of 28dB at the nearest sensitive receptor. Note that at the top of the aforementioned background sound level assumption of 22dB, both of these estimates are more than 5dB above background which is the guideline limit mentioned in the Noise Report itself, specifically the following.

“The most appropriate UK guidance document for the control of music noise at events is c, produced by The Noise Council. This document states the following at Note 5 of Table 1, at Section 3.1: ‘For indoor venues used for up to about 30 events per calendar year an MNL (music noise level) not exceeding the background noise by more than 5dB(A) over a fifteen minute period is recommended for events finishing no later than 2300 hours.”

Q2. Why were Public Health and the planning officer happy to accept the sound limit of 85dB at the venue when it clearly results in more than 5dB above background sound levels when using assumptions they themselves have stated?  Specifically more likely between 6-15dB above background under those assumptions or a more than doubling of the perceived sound level at the nearest sensitive receptor.

Jo Treweek referred to Application 23/00636FULL

Q1. Horseriding is a really important local activity and access to quiet lanes with low levels of traffic is a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

To record any interests on agenda matters.

Members were reminded of the need to declare any interests where appropriate.

To consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 8^th November 2023.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 8^th November 2023 were agreed as a true record and duly signed by the Chairman.

         To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make. 

The Chair congratulated Angharad Williams, Development Management Manager in being shortlisted for the “Inspiration Leader of the Year” National Award by the Royal Town Planning Institute.

To report any items withdrawn from the agenda.

There were no withdrawals from the Plans List.

To consider the planning applications contained in the list.

The Committee considered the application in the *Plans List.

Note: *List previously circulated and attached to the minutes.

a)    23/00523/HOUSE - Erection of two storey extension at 10 Willow Walk, Crediton, Devon.

There being no discussion on this item it was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

(Moved by the Chairman)

b)    23/00636/FULL - Change of use of barn to wedding/events venue and retention of access track at Land and Buildings at NGR 307827 108901, Pirzwell Ponds, Kentisbeare.

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of a presentation and highlighted the following:-

·       The proposed development was for the change of use of agricultural barn to wedding/events venue and retention of an access track.

·       The site was in the open countryside approximately 300m outside of the Blackdown Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and 1km from the village of Kentisbeare.

·       The Application was called in by Cllr A Glover to assess the impacts on noise, traffic and visual impacts.

·       Car parking had been provided which met the requirements of Policy DM5 and the Highways Authority.  Planting was considered to screen the parking area however as there would only be 25 events per year the car park would rarely be used and it was felt that this would detract from the open nature of the landscape.

·       A revised Noise Management Plan had been received which Public Health were satisfied with. 

·       The number of events had been restricted to 25 per annum, prevented music after 11pm, prevented amplified music outside and it was stated that the barn must be vacated by midnight.

·       Fireworks or camping would not be permitted.

·       There were no physical changes proposed to the building and given the constraints of the Noise Management Plan, the character of the AONB was also considered as protected.

In response to the public questions the Principal Planning Officer answered as follows:-

There were numerous related questions which have been grouped together to give answers.

Question on DM9/DM22
There was a difference between positively contributing to the area’s character and not being harmful, it was considered that whilst the building was not necessarily positive, it was neutral and not harmful. There was some policy conflict with DM9 due to this but officers consider DM22 it more relevant and sets a higher bar for development by requiring a business plan for example. We therefore considered that the balance weighs in favour of granting permission.

Question about the vision of the Local Plan and whether the development maintains an attractive countryside and protects landscapes
As set out in the officer report, officers were satisfied that this was the case.

Similarly, questions on visual impact and design
The building was already in situ and there were no physical changes proposed, officers were satisfied that the proposal would not result in a significantly adverse visual impact.

Question on features of the area/AONB
The impact upon the AONB had been considered despite the site not actually being within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

The Chair announced that the Committee would be discussing Item 11 on the agenda next.

The Corporate Performance and Improvement Manager to provide Members with an update on the Performance Dashboard.

The Corporate Performance and Improvement Manager provided the Planning Committee with a verbal update on performance for Quarter 2.

The information presented was NOTED.

To receive a report of the Arboriculture Officer regarding this Tree Preservation Order.

The Committee had before it a *report presenting the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 23/00003/TPO for land at Strathculm Road, Hele, Devon. Devon

The Arboricultural Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of a presentation which highlighted the site location plan and photographs of the site and the tree.  He also outlined the following:-

·       The Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was for 1 copper beech tree.

·       This was requested from the Hele Conservation Society following the recent sale of land.

·       The tree was growing within a green space on the corner of Station Road and Hele Road and was very visible when approached from both directions.

·       An objection had been received from the land owner as the land had recently been sold free of TPOs.

·       The points raised in the objection were not sufficient to outweigh the contribution from the tree.

It was RESOLVED that:  the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed.

(Proposed by Cllr F Letch and seconded by Cllr F J Colthorpe)

Reason for the Decision – as set out in the report.

Notes:-

*Report previously circulated copy attached to the minutes.

(i)              Jonathan Hall spoke as the Objector.

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:

(i)              Application 23/01406/MFUL, Land at NGR 271242 108982 (South Of Nymet Mill Farm), Nymet Rowland to remain as determined by Committee.

(ii)             Application 23/01440/MOUT, Land at NGR 304098 107284, Newlands Farm, Cullompton Devon to be determined by Committee and a Committee site visit to be arranged.

(iii)           Application 23/01446/MFUL, Ashmoor Stud Ashfields, Stoodleigh Tiverton Devon, EX16 9QF to remain as delegated.

(iv)           Application 23/01351/MFUL, Land at NGR 304444 114510, North of A361, Junction 27 Westleigh, Devon to remain as determined by Committee.

Note:  *List previously circulated, copy attached to the minutes.

To receive a list of recent appeal decisions.

The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a list of appeal decisions.

Note: *List previously circulated, copy attached to the minutes.