Venue: Phoenix Chamber, Phoenix House, Tiverton
Contact: Sally Gabriel Member Services Manager
Link: audiorecording
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS To receive any apologies for absence and notices of appointment of substitute.
Minutes: Apologies were received from Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge to be substituted by Cllr R B Evans and Cllr Mrs C A Collis to be substituted by Cllr Mrs C P Daw. |
|
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME (00-02-31) 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 Blackmore speaking in relation to item 2 on the Plans List, Bradford Farm, Uplowman, Tiverton, asked whether the Council was confident that the conditions put forward as part of the officers recommendation will be properly enforced if they are breached? If the ‘hours of work’ condition is breached on a Bank Holiday, how long will it take for the enforcement section to investigate? Conditions 4,5,6,7 and 8 all need to be monitored closely. With regard to condition 8 does that mean they can use whatever foul drainage system they want for 6 months before they have put in a proper system? Seems to be a daft condition as it is a retrospective application, shouldn’t the details and its installation be required immediately?
Cllr Warren (Willand Parish Council) referring to Item 10 and 11 (Meadow Park/Lane, Willand) on the agenda stated: In paragraph 1.1 of the officer report members are reminded that it is the comments of the inspectors which are relevant and not the fact that they dismissed the appeals. With that in mind are the comments in paragraph 2.2 really addressing the members concern as to ‘The size and scale of the proposal and the impact on the character of the village.’?
There are more issues than those addressed by the officer. 125 houses is more than the 42 planned for over the period of the plan and please remember the 35 affordable which are being built now and were not to be in the emerging plan. It is not just about the look but cumulative impact on facilities and infrastructure which will not be improved. Are officers attempting to ‘water down’ reasons given by members in an attempt to make it less likely to be able to defend an appeal? If officers keep recommending approval of these major and other developments in villages contrary to the Local Plan Review is it not calling into question considerable areas of the plan housing provision before it has even been fully examined?
Why have officers not recommended citing the fact that approval of this application would be in breach of policies COR 17 and COR 18? Even taking into account the lack of 5 year land supply issue and the limited weight that can be given to them they still have some relevance and have been considered as relevant by two inspectors in recent appeals in the village.
For the 259 dwellings application the Inspector makes reference to one or both of these policies in paragraphs 10, 12, 13 and 51. He considered them to be relevant and the proposal was in conflict with the policy. Why have officers left out reference to conflict with COR 12 when the inspector clearly identified the earlier proposal as being in conflict with it?
In his response to the Esso site application the inspector refers to either/or policies COR 17 and COR 18 in paragraphs 16 and 17 and identifies conflict. Are members really convinced that the suggested one reason for refusal in ... view the full minutes text for item 60. |
|
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT (00-25-08) Councillors are reminded of the requirement to declare any interest, including the type of interest, and reason for that interest at each item.
Minutes: Members were reminded of the need to declare any interests when appropriate. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (00-25-25) PDF 94 KB Members to consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the special meeting held on 19 September 2018. Minutes: The minutes of the special meeting held on 19 September 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. |
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (00-26-21) To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
Minutes: The Chairman introduced and welcomed Gregg Venn and Alex Marsh, the new Conservation Officers to the meeting. |
|
DEFERRALS FROM THE PLANS LIST (00-27-12) To report any items appearing in the Plans List which have been deferred.
Minutes: There were no deferrals from the Plans List. |
|
THE PLANS LIST (00-27-00) PDF 461 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 4 on the Plans List (18/01205/FULL – Erection of a livestock building, 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 (17/02061/MFUL – Remodelling and modernisation of existing garden centre following demolition of existing structures, to include erection of retails areas, café and warehouse, formation of new vehicular access, provision of parking areas and landscaping – Crediton Garden Centre, Barnstaple Cross, Crediton). The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report identifying by way of presentation the location of the site and an aerial photograph which outlined the existing footprint at the present time. He explained that conditions 13, 14 and 15 outlined in the report would maintain control of the floor use specified for retail activity and would stop the restaurant acting independently from the Garden Centre which was of concern to many of the objectors to the application. He provided a footprint of the site as proposed which highlighted the different areas contained within the application, part of the scope of the site would contain some of the highway improvements and a plan identifying the main access point and landscaping proposals. Existing and proposed photo montages were outlined as was a site plan setting out the parking area for the staff, the new building, new access and a new car park along with the proposed landscaping and footway connection. The block plan highlighted the solar panels on the roof, and the area to be demolished. Members viewed plans for the ground floor, the proposed elevations, the site sections and the highway proposals which included the scope of the alterations and the inclusion of an additional feeder lane to the site, the location of the bus stop and photographs from various aspects of the site.
The officer answered questions posed in public question time:
· Why the garden centre was not treated as a retail development; the description was not proposed as retail and conditions would prevent retail development and that this would be enforceable. · Why were officers recommending approval for the planning application which was 13 times the size of the existing buildings on site; the plans show that the development was larger but not significantly so. The Local Planning Authority would have had a retail impact assessment but the conditions limited the amount of areas to be used for retail. · With regard to the scale and massing of the proposal, the plans available identified the area to be developed. · Concerns with regard ... view the full minutes text for item 65. |
|
MAJOR APPLICATIONS WITH NO DECISION (3-35-55) PDF 26 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.
|
|
APPEAL DECISIONS (3-37-31) PDF 13 KB To receive for information a list of recent appeal decisions.
Minutes: The Committee had before it and NOTED a list of appeal decisions * providing information on the outcome of recent planning appeals.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to signed Minutes.
|
|
To consider an implications report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application; Members at the meeting on 5 September 2018, were minded to refuse planning permission but a final decision was deferred pending consideration of this implications report. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee had before it an * implications report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application; Members at the meeting on 5 September 2018, were minded to refuse planning permission, but a final decision was deferred pending consideration of an implications report.
The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report highlighting the proposed reasons for refusal identified at the previous meeting. The meeting viewed a presentation which highlighted the proposed site for 125 dwellings outside the settlement limit of Willand, an aerial view which identified the affordable housing being built on Silver Street and the site by the Esso garage which had recently been to appeal. She presented an indicative concept plan for the proposal of 125 dwellings and showed photographs from various aspects of the site.
In respect of the questions posed in public question time, she provided the following responses:
Cllr Warren asked:
1) Whether para 2.2 was really addressing all the issues. He advised that size and scale of the proposal and the impact on the character of the village should include consideration of the cumulative impact on facilities and infrastructure. He was concerned that officers were attempting to ‘water down’ the reasons given by members to make it less likely to defend an appeal and wondered whether one reason for refusal was robust enough. Officers would comment that: we are here to provide professional advice to members for them to consider in the decision making process. It would be remiss of officers if we didn’t give professional advice on the likely success or otherwise at appeal nor remind members of the need to ensure that reasons for refusal are well-reasoned and robust to prevent cost being awarded at appeal. The cumulative impact on services and facilities are not dismissed but considered later in the report. Members have the ability to add further reasons for refusal if necessary but these should focus on the main issues rather than be a raft of reasons which would not stand up at appeal. More reasons for refusal does not make a scheme more likely to be dismissed at appeal but it can lead to an increased likelihood of costs being awarded against the council for unreasonable behaviour. 2) Why officers are not using policies COR17 and 18 as reasons for refusal. Officers would comment that: Page 93 of the report (starting with the third para up from the bottom) sets this out clearly and states that the proposal for the 259 dwellings WAS in conflict with COR17 and COR18 but in the para immediately below, it also states that as these are policies which were contributing to the lack of a 5 year housing land supply, the Inspector afforded them LIMITED weight. In the appeal for the 30 dwellings on the garage site, the Inspector refers to the conflict with policies COR17 and COR18 but in applying the tilted balance, he states that he will treat the most important policies accordingly and refers ... view the full minutes text for item 68. |
|
At the Planning Committee meeting on 5th September, Members advised that they were minded to refuse the associated application 18/00175/MOUT and invited a further report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration to set out the implications of determining this application for the access in light of a possible refusal on the application for 125 dwellings.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee had before it a * report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application; at the Planning Committee meeting on 5th September, Members advised that they were minded to refuse the associated application 18/00175/MOUT and invited a further report to set out the implications of the determining this application for the access in light of a possible refusal on the application for 125 dwellings.
The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report stating that since the previous meeting the description of the application had been amended by the applicant and was now just the “Creation of new access for residential development”. She provided plans which identified the location of the new access.
Consideration was given to: the views of the Parish Council with regard to the access identified in the emerging Local Plan for access for 42 dwellings.
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 R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr P J Heal)
Notes:
i) Cllrs: Mrs F J Colthorpe, Mrs G Doe, R B Evans, P J Heal, D J Knowles, F W Letch, B A Moore, R F Radford, J D Squires and R L Stanley made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing in Planning Matters as they had all received correspondence regarding this application;
ii) Cllrs Mrs J Doe and R B Evans made further declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing in Planning Matters as they had had contact with the applicants and objectors as Ward Members;
iii) The following late information was reported:Members are advised that the applicants have formally requested that the description of their application is amended to ‘Creation of new access for residential development’. Members are advised that this has been done in the interests of making the application proposals clearer. It does not materially affect the development proposals as the plans/drawings/specification remain unchanged. This in no way prevents members from issuing a refusal, if having read the implications reports and considered everything raised at committee, they feel it is appropriate to do so.
iv) *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
|
|