Venue: Phoenix Chamber, Phoenix House, Tiverton
Contact: Sally Gabriel Member Services Manager
Link: audio recording
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS To receive any apologies for absence and notices of appointment of substitute.
Minutes: There were no apologies. |
|
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 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.
Minutes: Mr M Greig, referring to item number 8 the agenda said, speaking on behalf of Mrs Violet Stevens, stated that the planning officer has referred to a number of properties in the proposed access cul-de-sac as being occupied by elderly and disabled residents, however he has not specified that these homes will always be occupied by elderly and disabled so will always be occupied by people with special needs. In fact, living there is a bit like living in an old people’s sheltered housing complex. Does the Planning Officer agree that discussions about access should not just be about generalised highway safety but also the specific needs of those living in that cul de sac? Mrs Stevens has lived in her bungalow for over 30 years and during that time an ambulance has needed to come for residents on many occasions, a great deal more I am sure than the national average for a cul de sac given the care needs of almost all residents here. But a parked ambulance blocks or restricts access to the rest of the cul de sac. More houses would mean more people being inconvenienced so why does the Planning Officer consider this cul de sac to be the most appropriate means of access to any new housing when an alternative does exist?
At the meeting of this committee in October Section 106 money was discussed including a proposal that £50k would be allocated to the funding of a village hall in Copplestone, a sum that is just a drop in the ocean compared to the funds needed. It was also suggested that the hall would benefit the environment by significantly reducing traffic between Copplestone and Lords Meadow Leisure Centre, when in fact most users of Lords Meadow go for specialised facilities such as a swimming pool, things that are not designated in part of the new village hall. In the village it is seen as the talk of money towards the hall, something of a red herring seeking to justify development that the village rejects by offering what feels like jam tomorrow.
Section 2.6 of the implications report echoes comments made at this Committee in October and suggests a significant community benefit as a result of paths from the development to the schools. The Parish Council has discussed this with the schools head and the outdoor area behind the pre-school which needs to remain enclosed is located where the proposed path is shown to enter and the school would not allow access here on security grounds. Has the applicant or planning officer discussed this with the school and with what result?
Mrs A Greig, also referring to item 8 on the agenda, said at the October Planning Committee the Planning Officer was asked about access to the proposed site from the East but dismissed it on the grounds that there was no road beyond the farm yet Mr Pearcey has said that he would ask construction traffic to access the site from ... view the full minutes text for item 81. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (00-28-53) PDF 353 KB To receive the minutes of the previous meeting (attached).
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 2017 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
|
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (00-29-56) To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
Minutes: The Chairman had no announcements to make.
|
|
DEFERRALS FROM THE PLANS LIST To report any items appearing in the Plans List which have been deferred.
Minutes: The Chairman informed the meeting that Item 5 (Application 17/01292/FULL – Veltham Barn, Morebath) had been deferred to allow for further information to be submitted. |
|
THE PLANS LIST (00-30-42) PDF 941 KB To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
Minutes: RESOLVED that the following application be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the various recommendations contained in the list namely:
(i) No 7 on the Plans List (17/01464/FULL – retention of change of use from shop (A1) to Tattoo and Piercing Studio )(Sui Generis) – 17 West-Exe South, Tiverton)be approved subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration. (Proposed by the Chairman)
Note: Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as Cabinet Member with property sat within his portfolio.
(b) No 1 on the Plans List (17/00982/MFUL – Erection of 49 dwellings, including associated public open space, landscaping and all other associated external work – land at NGR 284671 100838 Cromwell’s Meadow, Crediton. The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report highlighting by way of presentation the site location plan sitting adjacent to the existing Cromwell’s Meadow estate, the adopted and emerging policies, the development would be located outside of the flood plain, the concerns of the Town Council and the updated position of South West Water. He outlined the proposed site layout and the pedestrian connection into the existing site, the affordable housing distribution on the site, parking provision, the open space proposed and the connection to the proposed Pedlarspoool site allocation. The proposed street scene and design types were identified, along with the drainage strategy, the refuse storage and collection points, elevations of the proposed dwellings and photographs from various aspects of the site.
Consideration was given to:
· The parking provision · The drainage scheme and management of the attenuation ponds · Flood history, high water tables and sewage issues · The density of the proposal and possible over development of the site · The site being allocated in the Allocation and Infrastructure Development Plan Document · The distribution of the affordable housing · The lack of a 5 year land supply and the reasoning as to why the development of 49 dwellings was being brought forward at this time · Consultation feedback from South West Water and Devon County Highways Authority
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to:
· The prior signing of a S106 Agreement relating to the provision of 35% affordable housing on site (a total of 17 units), air quality contribution of £139,008.00, an open space contribution of £40,768.00 and an education contribution of £179,487.00
· Conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration with an amendment to Criterion D of Condition 6 as follows: D) A site compound and car park shall have been constructed on site in accordance with details that shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Notes:
|
|
MAJOR APPLICATIONS WITH NO DECISION (4-08-23) PDF 18 KB List attached for consideration of major applications and potential site visits.
Minutes: The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a list * of major applications with no decision.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to the Minutes
|
|
To consider an implications report of the Head of Planning. Economy and Regeneration regarding an application which had been considered but deferred from a previous meeting as Members were minded to refuse the application. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee had before it an implications report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding an application which had been considered but deferred from a previous meeting as Members were minded to refuse the application.
The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report reminding the meeting of the issues raised previously, the location of the site, proposed access arrangements, an indicative masterplan for the development and photographs from various aspects of the site. He had provided possible reasons for refusal as requested
He provided answers to questions posed in public question time: he referred to the occupation of the bungalows that were populated by elderly people and stated that there was no planning restriction on the occupancy of those bungalows. He felt that the issues highlighted by local residents were covered within the reasons for refusal within the report
Consideration was given to:
· The fact that this was only one part of the Sunnymead estate · The occupation of the bungalows · The proposal was outside the settlement limit and that reason for refusal 1 be used · Lack of 5 year land supply · The location of the school an open space adjacent to the development site.
RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement to include:
· Primary school contribution of £30,717 and Secondary school contribution of £5,320 as per DCC request. · Air Quality contribution of £39,906. To be allocated and spent towards the delivery of the community/sports/village hall proposed at Copplestone. · Open Space contribution of £10,845. To be allocated and spent towards the delivery of the community/sports/village hall proposed at Copplestone. · Financial commuted contribution toward the delivery of two affordable housing units following completion. · Pedestrian link between the application site and the Village school/ Recreation ground campus areas.
With conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr Mrs G Doe)
Notes:
(i) Cllr P J Heal made a declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning Matters as he had had discussions with the applicant;
(ii) Cllrs Mrs C A Collis, R J Dolley, B A Moore and R L Stanley requested that their vote against the decision be recorded;
(iii) The following late information was reported: Please correct the conclusion and Summary Section (paragraph 2.20) on page 121 so that is clear that the Highway Authority would NOT be able to provide support at an appeal situation in order to defend a reason for refusal on highway grounds;
(iv) *Report previously circulated copy attached to signed minutes.
|
|
To receive a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application which was deferred from the previous meeting to allow for a site visit to take place by the Planning Working Group. Minutes: The Committee had before it a *report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding an application which had been considered but deferred from a previous meeting to allow for a site visit to take place by the Planning Working Group.
The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report highlighting the site location plan, the established tree group, the distances between the existing and proposed dwellings in Mayfair, the proposed floor plans and elevations for the dwellings, junction improvements and photographs from various aspects of the site. She also explained via a plan the density of development between Mayfair, the proposed new dwellings and Area B of the Eastern Urban Extension.
The officer then provided answers to questions posed in public question time:
· Following a conversation with the Highways Engineer, under Section 38 of the Highways Act the developer may ask for the private drive to be adopted as there were to be more than 3 dwellings off of a private drive. The developer had elected to have the road adopted. · The above therefore overcame the issue of waste collection. · The pedestrian footpath would be provided for the full length of the drive. · Condition 9 with regard to a landscape plan would overcome the issue of the quality of the screening and the applicant had offered up the use of heavy standards trees. · An additional condition would overcome any ecological issues · She reiterated the density of development highlighted in her presentation and that the density would be a transition from Mayfair to Area B of the Eastern Urban Extension
Consideration was given to:
· The concerns of local residents with regard to the access to the site, overlooking and over development issues, the height of the proposed dwellings and that the buildings did not reflect existing properties in Mayfair. · The distance between the proposed and existing dwellings · The proposed screening and the offering up of mature trees for screening · The amenity of local residents · Access issues
RESOLVEDthat planning permission be granted subject to the prior signing of a S106 agreement to secure a financial contribution of £7,210 towards off site public open space and conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration with additional conditions stating that:
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations and mitigation measures set out in the ‘Preliminary Ecological Appraisal ’ prepared by WYG dated May 2017 and shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority before construction begins.
Reason To limit the impact of the development on any protected species which may be present
The landscape scheme, to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any development, shall provide heavy standard trees.
Reason In the interest of the character and visual amenity of the area in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies).
(Proposed by the Chairman)
(Vote 6 for: 5 against – Chairman’s Casting Vote)
Notes:
(i) Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge, ... view the full minutes text for item 88. |
|
To consider a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Development with regard to this application. Minutes: The Committee had before it a *report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding proposed changes to the S106 agreement entered into in relation to this planning permission.
The Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report stating that the change to the S106 agreement was with regard to the cascade of affordable homes, there had been an oversight in the original agreement in that only Halberton Parish was mentioned and not Uffculme. It was suggested that both Halberton and Uffculme should have joint priority over the affordable housing.
Consideration was given to:
· The number of requests received by the developer from residents of Uffculme · The application site was within Halberton and therefore the Parish should take priority · The need for the cascading process to be clear · The details of the original Section 106 Agreement
RESOLVED that:
(a) A replacement S106 agreement be approved with regard to the affordable housing cascade: that Halberton be the lead parish followed immediately by Uffculme and that the normal cascade following these priorities take place; and
(b) Delegated authority be given to the Legal Services Manager to progress the replacement S106 agreement.
(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr P J Heal)
Notes:
(i) Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as Cabinet Member for Housing;
(ii) Mr Coles (Agent) spoke;
(iii) *Report previously circulated copy attached to signed minutes.
|
|
To receive a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding this application. Minutes: The Committee had before it a *report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application.
The Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report stating that this was a reserved matters application following the outline application that had been granted at appeal. The application before Members was to seek approval for the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the application. She provided a presentation which highlighted the proposed location, the layout, identification of public footpaths, the design of the proposed dwellings, the location of the public open space and attenuation ponds, the tree boundaries which would be strengthened, parking provision, the tenure plan which identified the affordable housing on site, the highway adoption plan, elevations and different house types. Photographs were also provided from different aspects of the site.
Consideration was given to:
· The work that had taken place between the developer, the local parish council and Uffculme residents. · The involvement of the Design Panel · The fact that the proposal was attractive and refreshing and had considered the views of local residents.
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration with an additional condition stating that: The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted floodplain compensation scheme as shown on drawing 16407-052 Rev B, the scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the construction of residential plots 31 and 32 and shall be retained and maintained as such thereafter.
Reason – To ensure adequate compensatory floodplain storage is provided in accordance with Policy COR11 of the Mid Devon Core Strategy (Local Plan Part 1).
(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr Mrs G Doe)
Notes:
(i) Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as Cabinet Member for Housing;
(ii) Mr Crosby spoke on behalf of the applicant;
(iii) The following late information was reported:A revised flood compensation storage scheme has been submitted. The Environment agency have provided further comments in relation to the scheme and have confirmed that the floodplain compensation scheme submitted satisfies their concerns about the small loss of floodplain storage resulting from the development. The scheme shall be fully implemented as approved and the works should be undertaken prior to the construction of plots 31 and 32.
On this basis an additional condition is proposed:
The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted floodplain compensation scheme as shown on drawing 16407-052 Rev B, the scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the construction of residential plots 31 and 32 and shall be retained and maintained as such thereafter;
(iv) *Report previously circulated copy attached to signed minutes.
|
|
To consider a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding this application. Minutes: The Committee had before it a *report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application.
The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report highlighting by way of presentation the application, the site location plan and the 3 previous consents on the site that had not come to fruition. Members viewed the site location plan, a plan showing the 14 affordable dwellings that had already been built as part of the allocation on the site, the proposed roof plans, photographs of the site and an impression of the development, an impression of the internal street scheme supplied by the architects and proposed views from Westexe looking back into the site towards the Town Hall and St Georges Church. She highlighted the site elevations, the landscape sections, the layouts of the upper level, ground floor and lower grounds floors and elevations of the dwellings and apartment blocks.
She then provided answers to questions posed within public question time:
· Her report had been written independently, it was a professional report based on the facts of the application. · She had collated all the information available and had contacted residents. · She had acted to assist the developer to overcome outstanding issues as she would with any application. · It was correct that the land fell within Flood Zone 3 and the Environment Agency were aware. · A flood risk assessment had been provided and recommendations had been made for additional conditions including the provision of flood warning signs particularly to the under storey area which could be prone to flooding. · With regard to the site being considered as the 5th most likey site for flood risk in 2009, she had not read that but in 2017 the site was sequentially sound.
Consideration was given to:
· Whether the linking bridges were covered · The number of lifts · Accessibility for disabled people · The steepness of the site · The views of the objector with regard to the possibility of a town centre garden, the size of the development, access issues, lack of planting, the impact of the development on Ham Place · The comments of Historic England · The need to develop the site
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration with an amendment to Condition 11 to read: No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system will be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the Flood Risk Assessment (Ref. L1008-C-RP-0001; Rev. 03; dated 24th November 2017), Webb Yates Sketch Showing Proposed Alternative Drainage Strategy (drawing No. L1008-C-SK-0035-00-59; dated 29th November 2017), Webb Yates Mark-up Showing Flood Exceedance Routes (drawing No. L1008-C-SK-0034-00-59; dated 29 ... view the full minutes text for item 91. |
|
PLANNING PERFORMANCE AGAINST TARGETS - QUARTER 2 (6-30-34) PDF 172 KB To receive a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration providing the Committee with information on the performance of aspects of the planning function of the Council for quarter 2, 2017/18. Minutes: The Committee had before it and NOTED a * report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration providing information on the performance of aspects of the planning function of the Council for quarter 2 – 2017/18.
The Group Manager for Development outlined the contents of the report stating that performance was continuing to meet targets and some of the key targets were being exceeded.
Note: *Report previously circulated copy attached to signed minutes.
|
|
Additional documents: |