Agenda and minutes

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

Cllrs Mrs C P Daw and C J Eginton gave apologies and were substituted by Cllrs Mrs C Collis and B A Moore respectively.

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.

Cllr B Holdman referring to item 8 (Ashdowne Care Home) on the agenda stated:

The applicant has created a new tarmacked parking provision within the last 12 months that would be buried underneath the proposed extension.  This is not some rough patch of grass that is used for occasional overflow parking – this is a dedicated extension of their on-site parking that the applicant created only recently because they themselves are frustrated by the lack of parking on the site.

Mr Millar has given his opinion in the implications report that as there are no new bedrooms in the extension itself then our adopted local plan policy DM5 –which sets out the required minimum parking provision for the entire development– does not need to be considered.

When I spoke before you 4 weeks ago I argued that opinion was not backed up by evidence (or to use the agent’s own words: it was unreal) and I still disagree with that opinion.

How can it possibly be correct that removing existing parking provision from the site still does not create a justifiable reason to refuse under policy DM5?

Our local plan sets out how this authority intends to manage the development of Mid Devon.  Its policies need to be applied fairly without fear or favour, or not at all.  And yet members often find themselves here disagreeing with how the officers have interpreted parts of the plan one way or another in order to justify decisions that on the face of it go against those policies, or stretch them extremely thinly.

Can Mr Millar or another officer please explain why policy DM5 won’t apply when they are removing existing car parking provision?

Dr Bratby, referring to item 1 on the plans list stated that ;

Every independent observer considers that the storage of fuel to burn in a power station (and that is exactly what this application is) is an industrial facility. It does not matter what type the fuel is, where it comes from or where it is stored. In 2018 your then planning officer repeatedly told the applicant this, stating that the whole planning team agreed that it was industrial. However, on the 8th January 2019 the planning officer stated that she had "received detailed legal advice on the use of the proposed silage clamp and consequently am willing to accept that the proposed use can be classified as agricultural". The officer's report before you today states that "the officers consider the application to be agricultural".So this is just an opinion of the officers.

Where is this detailed legal advice documented? What exactly does it say? Why has it been kept secret from the public for nearly 3 years? We all know that there are two sides to every legal issue. So I am asking that this legal advice is made public today, so that before making a decision, the public can see the advice and the committee can decide for itself that this is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121.

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

The following interests were declared:

Members to consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 3^rd November 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3^rd November 2021 were agreed as a true record and duly SIGNED by the Chairman.

         To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make. 

The Chairman reminded Members of a briefing taking place on Monday 6^th December and requested that every effort be made to attend.

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

A decision on 21/00782/FULL | Siting of a temporary rural workers dwelling (mobile home) | South West Game Birds Crediton Devon was withdrawn

To consider the planning applications contained in the list.

The Committee considered the applications on the *Plans List

Note: *List previously circulated and attached to the minutes

a)    Application 18/01711/MFUL - Formation of an open clamp (4630m2) for the storage of silage and provision of new access at Land and Buildings at NGR 288069 117081 (Gibbet Moor Farm), Rackenford, Devon.

The Consultant Development Management Officer outlined the application by way of a presentation which highlighted the site location, larger farm plan, reasons for deferral, block plan, silage clamps and elevations.

The Officer explained that since the previous application the Mid Devon Local Plan had been adopted, legal advice had been received and that an updated transport assessment had been received.

In response to public questions he stated:

·         The  legal guidance that the application was agricultural

·         The committee were informed that the legal advice received was privileged.

Consideration was given to:

·         The views of the Ward Member who felt that for transparency that the application should be refused and determined by the Planning Inspectorate at appeal as he had concerns over the integrity of the applicant

·         Members views that if more silage product was permitted on site it would cause an increase in traffic movements to and from the site

·         The removal of soil to create the clamp was controlled by conditions 13 and 14

·         As the development was on uncultivated land an ecological assessment was not required

·         Previous alleged pollution incidents by the applicant were not a material planning consideration

·         That the end use of the silage, whether this was for livestock or as a fuel for an anaerobic digester was not a material planning consideration

·         Members views that the end product of many agricultural practices ended up in an industrial process but this did not conclude that the operation to produce the product was also industrial

·         The legal advice provided which confirmed that the operation was agricultural

·         Members concerns that the type of material stored in the clamp and where it had come from needed to be tightly controlled by conditions

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted as recommended by the  Consultant Development Management Officer subject to conditions and that delegated authority be given to the Interim Development Management Manager in consultation with the Chairman and Ward Members to amend Condition 11 to limit the source of and the type of material permitted to be stored in the clamp.

(Proposed by Cllr B A Moore and seconded by Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe)

Reason for the decision: as set out in the report

Note:

(i)            Cllrs S J Clist, L J Cruwys, R J Dolley and B G J Warren requested that their vote against the decision be recorded

(ii)          Cllrs G Barnell and F W Letch requested that their abstention from voting be recorded

(iii)         Cllr R J Stanley spoke as Ward Member

To consider an implications report with regard to this application.

At the meeting of 3^rd November 2021, the Committee were minded to refuse the application and requested that an *implications report be produced to consider the reasons for refusal.

The Interim Area Team Leader recapped on the history of the application and the previous reports that the committee had considered and the reasons for deferral.

The County Councillor had updated officers that the request to provide yellow lines was being progressed at County level.

In response to public questions he stated:

·         Only internal plans for the Pinnex unit were required for this application

·         The existing kitchen would remain in place

·         The applicants agent had confirmed that the proposed extension did no encroach onto a designated parking space and therefore no parking would be removed

·         In his opinion Policy DM5 did not apply as the extension would not create any additional traffic on the site

Consideration was given to:

·         The need to focus on any real need to increase parking for the use for the facility proposed

·         Members views that the proposal may increase traffic movements due to other rooms in the centre being converted to additional bedrooms

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused contrary to Officers recommendation for the following reason:

The proposed development would comprise over development of the site and an intensification in use of Pinnex Moor House, leading to increased levels of traffic. Taking into account the under provision of car parking facilities on site, and the restricted width of the public highway, this intensification of use will lead to increased likelihood of parking on the public highway, which would create a severe impact on the highway network. The development is therefore considered to be unacceptable and contrary to policies DM3 and DM5 of the Mid Devon Local Plan 2013-2033.

(Proposed by Cllr L J Cruwys and seconded by Cllr G Barnell)

Notes:

(i)            Cllrs Mrs F J Colthorpe, P J Heal and B A Moore requested that their vote against the decision be recorded

(ii)          In the event of an appeal it was agreed that G Barnell, S J Clist and L J Cruwys would defend the decision

(iii)         *implications report previously circulated and attached to the minutes

To receive a report from the Development Manager

The Committee had before it a report of the Interim Development Management Manager presenting a modification to the S106 planning applications for the above application following conclusions of a Financial Viability Assessment (FVA).

The Area Team Leader explained the outline permission already approved and the S106 conditions attached to that. He explained that a Financial Viability Assessment had been conducted that had concluded that the site was no longer viable for development with the existing S106 obligations attached to it.

Consideration was given to:

·         The views of the agent who stated that although the site had been extensively marketed that it had been difficult to sell due to the S106 agreement in place and that the site as was could not sustain the amount of affordable housing required. He further explained that the site would still contain an element of open market low cost housing

Members were disappointed that the affordable housing element of the S106 obligations would now not be delivered but were assured by Officers that further FVA’s would be conducted as the site progressed to see if any S106 monies could be collected, if the site became viable.

RESOLVED that the changes to the S106 agreement be supported as recommended

(Proposed by Cllr E J Berry and seconded by Cllr R J Dolley)

Reason for the decision: In order for this site to be developed for housing, a policy compliant scheme would not be possible based on the evidence submitted and assessed.

Note:

(i)            Cllr Mrs C Collis requested that her vote against the decision be recorded

(ii)          Cllr S J Clist had declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest as he was related to the applicant and was not present for the deliberations or vote

(iii)         Mr Preston spoke as the Agent

(iv)         *report previously circulated ad attached to the minutes

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 21/02137/MFUL - Land and Buildings at NGR 302094 104175 Westcott Park Westcott be brought before the Committee for determination and that a site visit take place.

Note: *list previously circulated and 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

Noted: *List previously circulated and attached to the minutes