Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from Cllr M Farrell however he attended online.

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.

Paul Elstone (Application 23/00126/FULL) -  Chairman read out.

Question 1

In respect of Paragraph 3.4 Page 87 and Paragraph 3.6 of your bundle.

The statements made in the officer report appear very substantially incorrect. That the new Zed Pods modules will be far bigger than the existing footprint. The modular building will be over 50% wider this including the balcony’s extending to the front of the property and the stair tower at the rear. 

That the modular home will extend forward by about 3 meters in respect of the existing building line.

Why are Planning Officers supporting a building design where the massing is substantially insensitive to the local area and therefore not compliant with the principles of Policy DM1?

Question 2

On examining the drawings provided by Zed Pods it is noticed that the 2 bedroom 4 person properties have an internal floor space area of only 66.9 m2. This despite to be compliant with the National Housing Standard they should have a gross internal floor area of 70m2.  That even when an allowance is made for the internal separation walls that the floor space does not meet the standard.

Specifically the Living Dining and Kitchen Area has a floor space of 30.5 m2.

Bedroom 1  = 11.5m2

Bedroom 2 = 11.5 m2                                                             

WC = 4.1 m2

Entrance Lobby (Room) =  8 m2

Storage = 1.3 m 

Total 66.9 m2 or around 3.1 m2 less than the National Space Standard or DM 1 requires.

Will MDDC Officers obtain and make available the drawings showing the exact internal wall to wall measurements of each of the dwellings. This to fully confirm full compliancewith National Floor Space Standards?

Question 3

It is noted that the design of the 1^st floor one-bedroom properties have bedroom windows that have direct access from a communal landing.  This resulting in both substantial privacy (visual and noise) and security issues for the residents. 

Does this Committee accept that this floor plan design warrants substantial redesign and for the welfare of its residents. That the current floor space design is not conducive to good or healthy living standards and therefore is unacceptable and by any reasonable measure?   

Question 4

Why is the applicant only providing 9 parking spaces and when the policy requires it to be 14 spaces?

Why should the applicant on behalf of MDDC once again be given a DM 5 car space provision dispensation? A dispensation that would permit others developers easily to do so as the benchmark has been set? 

Question 5

A recent Government Report and coupled with well publicised Chief Fire Officer repeat concerns has identified potential fire risk to Category 1 modular homes and which ZED PODS are. Fire risk with the potential of rapid and complete burn down. 

Has MDDC commissioned a fully independent and expert report into ZED POD modular home fire safety this including the preparation of any risk mitigation plan.  If not, why not?  

Peter Drew (Application 23/01351/MFUL)  

Question 1

I support the principle  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

To record any interests on agenda matters.

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

·       Cllr S Clist referred to Plan List 1 Application No 23/1870/MOUT and Plan List 2 Application No. 23/00511/FULL and declared that he had an Other Registerable Interest but he had not been involved with this application.

·       Cllr B Holdman referred to Plan List 3 23/00126/FULL and declared that he had an Other Registerable Interest as he had been contacted with regard to this application.

·       Cllr P Colthorpe referred to Plan List 1 Application 23/1870/MOUT and declared that from 2003-2011 and then 2009-2022 she represented the area in Lloyton first as District Councillor and then as County Councillor for Tiverton West. Over that period of time she had contact with the family from time to time.

To consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 13^th March 2024.

The minutes of the previous meeting held 13 March 2024 were agreed as a true record and duly signed by the Chairman.

         To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make. 

The Chairman made the following announcements:-

There had been some changes within the Planning Team with some staff leaving and some new starters.

·       Yvonne Dale would be leaving Mid Devon District Council in May and Shane Burgess, Principal Planning Officer would be leaving on Friday 12 April.

Replacements would be advertised.

The Chairman thanked the officers for their time with Mid Devon District Council and wished them well for their future.

·       The Chairman also welcomed two new starters - Elaine Barry, Planning Obligations Monitoring Officer who had replaced Jo Williams.  Emma Armes, Planning Support Officer was also a new starter. 

To report any items withdrawn from the agenda.

There were no withdrawals from the Plans List.

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)    23/01870/MOUT - Hybrid application for a change of use of land to allow the siting of 10 safari tents; conversion of existing barns to provide space for administration, grounds keeping, housekeeping facilities and visitors reception; extension to existing marquee; creation of vehicular access ways; the construction of 24 car parking spaces and natural swimming pool and associated landscaping; and Outline application (All Matters Reserved) for a change of use of land to allow the siting of up to 15 safari tents and cabins; demolition of existing barn and construction of wellness centre; improvements to existing vehicular access and the provision of car parking; the creation of track ways and associated access and landscaping works at Loyton LLP, Loyton Lodge, Morebath.

The Area Planning Officer advised the Committee of the following update:-

a)    One of the wood burning stoves had been removed.

b)    The spring bat survey had been completed and was available to view on the planning portal.  The spring survey had placed detectors in the area most likely to be impacted.   The number of flight passes were slightly less due to other suitable habitat close by.   Devon County Council ecologists submitted their final comments confirming it was acceptable subject to the inclusion of conditions.

c)    A letter of concern had been received from Mr Bateman and was available on the planning portal.

d)    An error had been noted in the report under Condition 5 – the barn conversion should sit under the “full planning” list of conditions and not under the “outline planning” list of conditions.  The condition numbers would need amending accordingly.

The Area Planning Officer outlined the application by way of a presentation and highlighted the following:-

·         This application had been called in to Planning Committee for reasons of impact on highways, public disturbance by way of noise, design and appearance, impact on protected species, loss of high grade farmland and flood issues.

·         The application was presented in hybrid form – part outline, part full seeking the construction of up to 25 safari tents and cabins for year round accommodation.

·         The main issues raised were traffic impact, pollution, water, visual impact, scale of development, viability, ecological impact and planning balance.

·         The County Highways Authority had been out to visit the site and had no objections to the application.

·         There was a sewerage treatment plan for each accommodation.

·         The proposed development was within flood zone 1 and deemed appropriate for development.

·         Members were made aware of the following Committee Updates:-

i)             DCC Ecology comments – which were available to view on the planning file.

ii)            The submission of a detailed business case which was confidential.

iii)           The submission of a revised drawing for Tent Type which included the removal of one of the wood burning stoves within each tent.

iv)           The submission of the Spring Bat Survey which was available on the planning file.

v)            The submission of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

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 that the applications remained as per the report.

Note:  *List previously circulated.

To receive a list of recent appeal decisions.

The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a list of appeal decisions.

Note: *List previously circulated.