Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from:

Cllr S J Clist to be substituted by Cllr J Cairney

Cllr F W Letch to be substituted by Cllr J M Downes.

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.

Peter Dumble referring to item 10 (Higher Town, Sampford Peverell) on the agenda stated that two reports carried out by Highways experts, Mark Baker Consultants, have never been brought to Councillors’ attention.

In both reports from February and May 2018, he advises that “The Council should refuse the planning application on a number of concerns regarding access”. Concerning, the proposed crossing point on Turnpike near the canal bridge, Mark Baker states that:

“… there would be only 14m visibility to the north  “This is severely deficient for a crossing located in a 30mph area where 43 metres is required”.

Since then, the independent highway review by Trace Design asked the applicant to redraw lines of visibility to a safer standard. If done this would reduce visibility to only 9m. It should be 43m.

The applicant has told planning officers that they have addressed all Trace Design’s points, but they have not changed visibility lines at this crossing point or justified why not.

Furthermore, the proposed new footpath on Turnpike is to be only 1.2m wide.  The government guidance, “Inclusive Mobility”, says that 1.5m is the minimum. The Council must provide safe access for all including disabled users. This footpath and crossing do not.  “Inclusive Mobility” has never been mentioned by the applicant, the Highway Authority or your officers.

Moving on to the north-east access, Mark Baker finds that

“… the cycleway onto Higher Town directs vulnerable users onto a section of shared surface with restricted widths, where vehicles are entering a built-up area”. Trace Design expressed concerns and have asked for visibility lines to be re-drawn and for road widths to be shown on plans.  The applicant has not done this. If they were to do so, the plan would show …

•           that visibility to the south drops to 12m. It should be 43m.

•           that only 4.2m road width is available where Trace Design want 4.8m.

•           that where the Highway Authority wants 3.5m road width, only c.2.5m is available.

Officers say that the applicant has responded to Trace Design’s suggestions “where appropriate”. This is simply not true.  Trace Design’s work shows the design is even more seriously sub-standard than you were told last July.

Officers have chosen not to put the Trace Design Review or Place Lands response to the review out to consultation.  This is unfair. Councillors, it is not ‘unreasonable’ to refuse permission on grounds of road safety when a highways expert directly recommends that this is what you should do.

Let us not forget that Mark Baker’s advice matches the experience of those of you who visited the site during term-time last year. You saw the heavy traffic in the shared space outside the Primary School and parents with children struggling to cross Turnpike near the canal bridge.

In conclusion, Councillors, please stand firm on “Reason for Refusal 3”, but in doing so, please add that highway safety concerns also extend to the north-east access via Higher Town.

Hayley Keary referring to item 10  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Councillors are reminded of the requirement to declare any interest, including the type of interest, and reason for that interest at each item.

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

Members to consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 3 July 2019.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 July 2019 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

         To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make. 

The Chairman welcomed the new Principal Planning Officer (John Miller) to the meeting.

To report any items appearing in the Plans List which have been deferred.           

There were no deferrals from the Plans List.

To consider the planning applications contained in the list.

The Committee considered the applications in the plans list *. 

Note:   *List previously circulated; copy attached to the signed Minutes.

(a)       Applications dealt with without debate.

In accordance with its agreed procedure the Committee identified those applications contained in the Plans List which could be dealt with without debate.

RESOLVED that the following application be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the various recommendations contained in the list namely:

(i)            No 3 on the Plans List (19/00306/LBC – Listed Building Consent for the replacement of Upvc windows to timber windows on south elevation – 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 (19/00573/FULL – Variation of conditions 2, 3,5,6,7 and 8 of planning permission 17/00910/FULL to allow substitution plans – 10 Mayfair, Tiverton).

The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location, the access to the site (which was not proposed to be adopted by the Highway Authority), the approved site plan and the proposed alterations to the scheme.  She identified the land to the south, east and west of the site which would form Area B of the Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension and confirmed that there was no access to this land through Mayfair.  Members viewed the access drive plan and the junction onto Mayfair, the proposed elevations of the dwellings and photographs from various aspects of the site. The officer confirmed that there was no proposal for a footpath alongside the access to the site.

Responding to questions posed in public question time, she confirmed that the access road would be tarmaced and would be a minimum of 4.1 metres wide.  The applicant was responsible for the construction of the access road and the maintenance would be agreed by the landowner and the house owners, this was not a planning matter.

Consideration was given to:

·         Possible issues with water run off affecting the bungalow on the access road and the views of the Lead Local Flood Authority

·         The amendments to how sewage would be dealt with

·         The access road being viewed as suitable for adoption by the Highway Authority but that it would remain a private road.

·         The increase and reduction in some of the floor levels of the new dwellings

·         How and why conditions could be varied

·         The views of the objector with regard to the previous layout in the approved application and that pedestrian provision had been within the original plans. Reference was made to the original conditions relating to occupation of the properties.

·         The views of the applicant with regard to him purchasing the land with planning permission and the amendments that he wished to make to the site for bespoke houses of a better quality.  The removal of the attenuation pond and how that would reduce the amount of soil to be removed from the site

·         Whether the access road  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

List attached for consideration of major applications and potential site visits.

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

It was AGREED that:

Application 19/00928/MFUL – Hitchcocks Business Park, Uffculme be brought before committee for determination and that a site visit take place.

Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to the Minutes

To receive for information a list of recent appeal decisions.

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 Minutes.

To consider an implications report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application; Members at a previous meeting were minded to refuse planning permission but a final decision was deferred pending consideration of this implications report.

The Committee had before it an implications report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application; Members at a previous meeting were minded to refuse planning permission but a final decision was deferred pending consideration of this implications report.

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report informing Members of the detail of the original application and the changes that had been made over the course of the application discussions which had seen a reduction in the number of dwellings to 60 the relocation of the access, the application was broadly in line with Policy SP2 which was being considered as part of the Local Plan Review. He also informed the meeting of the findings of the inspector following the Local Plan Review hearings in November 2018, the use and findings of the highway experts who had been commissioned by the various parties, the concerns of the objectors with regard to landscape visual impact, the various accesses to the site and highways issues.  He outlined the traffic calming measures suggested along with vehicle access arrangements and the proposed highway improvements at Sampford Bridge, the footpath and cycle way onto Turnpike and identified the visibility splays and pedestrian access south of Battens Cross.  Members also viewed photographs from various aspects of the site and their attention was drawn to Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Consideration was given to:

·         The amount of affordable housing suggested for the site

·         The width of pavements at Turnpike

·         The Local Plan Review and the weight to be given to the plan prior to it being adopted, the link to J27 and the A361 and the views of the inspector

·         The cycleway route onto the highway

·         The location of the 30 mph signage and the proposed relocation of this

·         The results of the full safety audit

·         The contributions within the S106 towards education

·         The views of the objectors with regard to the misleading information that was being provided, the movement of the 30 mph sign, the width of the road on the north east access, the assessment of the application based on illustrative plans, the houses on the green infrastructure, the screening referred to the in the landscape assessment and the views of the objectors highway expert who had recommended refusal.

·         The views of the Parish Council who had agreed with the reasons for refusal indicated by the committee in July 2018; there was no objection to development within the village but it needed to be in the right place, and there was a need for 10/12 affordable homes for the village.  She  reiterated her objection with regard to visual impact, highway safety, the lack of pedestrian access at Turnpike and the poor visibility at that location also the impact on the listed buildings

·         The view of the Ward Members with regard to whether there was a need for 60 houses when only 10/12 affordable dwellings were required, whether there was an urgent need for development on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

To consider a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration setting out the S106 implications and revisions arising from the proposed change of ownership of the Moorhayes Community Centre in Tiverton.

The Committee had before it a *report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application.

The Group Manager for Development outlined the contents of the report stating that following the decision of the Cabinet on 4^th April 2019 to dispose of Moorhayes Community Centre in Tiverton to the Moorhayes Community Association, there was a need to make amendments to the original S106 agreement to reflect the change of ownership and to secure obligations in order to safeguard continued community use once the ownership changed.

RESOLVED that the revisions to the S106 agreement as set out in paragraph 2.2 be agreed and that a supplemental S106 agreement be entered into.

(Proposed by the Chairman)

Notes: 

i)             Cllr D J Knowles declared a personal interest as a member of Moorhayes Community Centre Committee;

ii)            *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.

To consider a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding suggested changes to the Scheme of Delegation.

The Committee had before it a *report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding suggested changes to the Scheme of Delegation.

The Group Manager for Development outlined the contents of the report stating that members were  being asked to consider whether the scheme of delegation should be amended to allow the consideration of enforcement cases (except in specific circumstances) under delegated powers rather than referring them to committee.

He outlined the recent enforcement cases which had been considered by the Planning Committee, all the resolutions of the committee were in accordance with the officer recommendation.  It was felt that enforcement issues could be dealt with in a timely manner without having to wait for the committee to meet.  He also outlined the Local Enforcement Plan for Mid Devon which had been adopted in April 2018.

Note:  *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.

To consider 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 1 of 19/20

The Committee had before it and NOTED a *report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding information on the performance of aspects of the planning function of the Council for Quarter 1 2019.

The Group Manager for Development outlined the contents of the report acknowledging the reduced performance within the service in the first quarter of the year and informing Members of the mitigation that was taking place to address the heavy caseloads of the officers. He informed the meeting that the 2 year performance target was being met.

Consideration was given to the temporary measures that had been put in place to allow officers time to write reports, recruitment and retention of staff.

Note:  *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.