Agenda and minutes

To elect a Chair for the municipal year 2025/2026.

The Chair of the Council invited nominations for the election of a Chair for the municipal year 2025/2026.

RESOLVED that Cllr L Cruwys be elected Chair of the Planning Committee for the municipal year 2025/2026.

(Proposed by Cllr S Clist and seconded by Cllr G DuChesne).

To elect a Vice-Chair for the municipal year 2025/2026.

The Chair of the Planning Committee invited nominations for the election of a Vice-Chair for the municipal year 2025/2026.

RESOLVED that Cllr G Cochran be elected Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee for the municipal year 2025/2026.

(Proposed by Cllr S Robinson and seconded by Cllr G DuChesne)

To agree a start time of meetings for the remainder of the municipal year.

The Committee AGREED to meet at 2.15pm for the remainder of the 2025/2026 municipal year.

(Proposed by Cllr S Clist and seconded by Cllr S Robinson)

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

Apologies were received from Cllr N Letch who was substituted by Cllr L G J Kennedy and Cllr M Jenkins who was substituted by Cllr G Westcott.

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.

Micheal Dearden – referred to Application No. 25/00346/PIP

Question 1: If this development is approved, how are the developer and Mid Devon County Council (MDCC) going to ensure that flooding does not happen as a result of it and, if it does, will they take responsibility for putting right the damage caused?

My reasons for this question, and there are several. In response to the 47 people who objected on the grounds of probable flooding and future subsidence of their properties, the Housing Officers’ comment in his “recommend approval” report was: “The site is in Flood Zone 1 which represents the lowest probability of sea or river flooding.” I agree but this is referring to the river and has nothing to do with our concerns other than we are concerned about the increase of raw sewage being dumped into the river should this application go ahead. Our concerns are about the increase in the already experienced flooding and heavy run off we have today from this proposed building site, it being well above us. Covering the hilltop with tarmac and concrete, as would be the case, will hugely exacerbate the situation. The existing land drainage is inadequate. The site's underlying structure is highly impermeable triassic and permian upper marl transitioning to valley gravel and rainwash along the north boundary of the site. Following heavy rainfall, rainwater filters through upper soil layers, is trapped by the impermeable rock below, seeps to the north to issue behind existing dwellings in Silver Street, we are one of this properties, or into Smallbrook, which has seen flooded houses just the other year. The reason this low area floods is that the culvert passing under Silver Street at that point cannot cope with the volume of water coming down thee brook. I hear that to correct this problem would cost in excess of £100,000. The Flood Hub of UK states: planners and developers have a responsibility to ensure future developments are sustainable and do not increase flood risk to the site or surrounding area. We have seen nothing from the developer addressing this very real threat.

Richard Jarman - referred to Application No. 25/00346/PIP

The applicant’s proposal includes an assessment of whether MDDC has met its legal duty to provide plots for self and custom build. However, their figures appear to contradict Mid Devon’s own data.

According to the applicant, only 21 plots have been delivered by the Council. But in response to an FOI request, MDDC confirmed that 70 plots have been approved, with 32 actually built — likely reflecting limited demand rather than under-provision.

Another FOI response confirmed that the shortfall last year stood at just 26 plots. Yet Point 2.6 of the planning officer’s report appears to rely on the applicant’s claim of a 145-plot deficit.

Question 1 - Has the planning officer independently verified the applicant’s figures?

Cllr Charles Kay - referred to Application No. 25/00346/PIP

The Planning in Principle on open countryside and outside the settlement area in Culmstock -  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Chair informed the Committee that Item 4 on the Plans List (Application - 25/00346/PIP - Permission in Principle for a phased development of between 3 and 9 Custom and Self Build dwellings at Land at NGR 310051 113426, North of Uffculme Road, Culmstock) would be considered as the first item on the Plans List.

To record any interests on agenda matters

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

Cllr S Clist made a declaration in accordance with Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters regarding planning application number 25/00346/PIP as he had received correspondence.

Cllr F J Colthorpe made a declaration in accordance with Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters regarding planning application number 25/00346/PIP in that she had received correspondence.

To consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 9^th April 2025.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 9 April 2025 were agreed as a true record and SIGNED by the Chair.

         To receive any announcements the Chair may wish to make. 

The Chair made the following announcements:-

·       He thanked the Committee for electing him as Chair for this municipal year.

·       He reminded all Members of the need to remain seated during agenda items and that if they left the room or took themselves way to make a drink they would be asked to abstain from voting on that item.

·       The order of the Plans List would change with Planning Application 25/00346/PIP being considered first.

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.

1.   25/00346/PIP - Permission in Principle for a phased development of between 3 and 9 Custom and Self Build dwellings at Land at NGR 310051 113426, North of Uffculme Road, Culmstock.

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

·       The Application had been called in by Cllr N Bradshaw.

·       Permission in Principle was an alternative way of seeking planning permission which separated matters of principle from technical details.  The scope of the application was restricted to location, land use and amount of development.  If approved, any other matters would be assessed at the next stage as part of a Technical Details Consent Application.

·       Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) related to the presumption in favour of sustainable development and stated that where the Development Plan was out of date, Local Planning Authorities (LPA) should grant permission unless the adverse impacts of doing so outweighed the benefits when assessed against the NPPF as a whole.

·       The LPA could no longer demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and therefore Paragraph 11 was enacted. 

·       There was a significant shortfall in custom self-build housing in Mid Devon. Thirteen of the households on the Council’s self-build register had addresses in Culmstock specifically.

·       An amount between 3-9 self-build dwellings were proposed, however the applicant had provided a draft legal agreement which committed to 7 dwellings, 2 of which would be affordable homes.

·       Concerns had been raised in relation to highway safety, biodiversity, local services and flood risk. In terms of Highways, the Highway Authority had raised no in-principle objections although they would expect additional details to be submitted at the technical details stage. Officers had visited the site and vehicle speeds had appeared to be low. The number of units proposed would not have a significant impact on vehicle movements in the area and whilst footpaths were limited, this was consistent with that part of the village. 

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

Micheal Dearden

Question 1 - If this development is approved, how are the developer and Mid Devon County Council (MDCC) going to ensure that flooding does not happen as a result of it and, if it does, will they take responsibility for putting right the damage caused?

Answer 1 – It was understood that there may be some localised surface water issues in the area but the proposal would not increase the amount of water entering the site and the Council did not know yet where areas of hardstanding would be located. This would need to be addressed in any final designs at the technical details stage through a Drainage Strategy and appropriate design which may include drainage solutions such as attenuation basins. Given that this was feasibly achievable, the site was not considered to be unacceptable for development as a matter of principle. 

Richard Jarman 

Question 1 - Has the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

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 the following:-

1.     25/00660/MFUL – to remain delegated as per the report.

2.     25/00674/MFUL – to remain delegated as per the report.

3.     25/00304/MOUT – to come to Planning Committee with a site visit to be arranged

4.     25/00470/MOUT – to remain delegated as per the report.

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.

With regard to Planning Application 24/00285/FULL - Erection of 7 workshops (Use Class B2) and cafe to serve development (Use Class E) following demolition of general industrial buildings – the Chair asked for clarification on what the inspector had and had not allowed with regard to the conditions.

It was explained that two conditions had been appealed.  The first condition related to the method of foul sewerage and the second condition related to limiting the use of the café.  The Planning Authority had won on the grounds of the drainage condition as the developer did not demonstrate why the costs had made the scheme unviable.  The Planning Authority had lost on the condition relating to the café as the inspector was less convinced that there would be any harm if it were available to the wider public.

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

To receive a verbal update on the Performance Dashboard from the Corporate Performance and Improvement Manager.

The Committee were presented with the *Performance Dashboard for Quarter 4 2024/25.  The following was highlighted within the report:-

·       The overall performance was presented in a pie chart and combined a RAG (Red, Amber, Green) rating to indicate if the performance was on track or not.

·       Major planning applications determined within 26 weeks was shown as amber in the RAG rating and minor planning applications determined within 16 weeks was also shown as amber both of which were set against an in-house target of 100% rather than national targets of 60% and 80% retrospectively therefore the Council were performing better than that.

·       Statutory and discretionary income fees were showing as red due to the lower planning income in the financial year due to the depressed housing market.

Discussion took place regarding:-

·       Habitat banks and whether they earned revenue. It was explained that this was questionable but it meant that the Council had done all that was possible to minimise costs.

·       Whether there was a difference in cost between PIP (Planning in Principle) Applications and Full Planning Applications?  It was explained that the fees were similar.

·       Planning Income and how would this be improved moving forward?  It was explained that with the upcoming changes to the 5 year housing supply there would be an issue in that more planning applications would be received that the Council may not have received previously.  However this may lead to defending appeals.

·       The cost of planning appeals to the Council.  The Committee were informed that it depended on the type of appeal.  However broadly speaking for a 5 or 6 day Public Inquiry a benchmark figure would be £60,000.  If the Council were seen to be unreasonable, the costs from the appellants would also be a factor.

Note: * Performance Dashboard previously circulated.