Venue: Town Hall
Contact: Sally Gabriel Member Services Officer
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 for absence. |
|
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 Welchman, referring to item 5 on the agenda (Chettiscombe Estate) stated that he had heard this week that part of the application to build on land south of West Manley Lane had been removed, was this correct and if it was, could future consideration be given to designating this area as a green buffer zone? He also stated that this application had been dealt with on party political lines and that the discussion today was happening very close to a general election. He further stated that a future government may have a different planning vision and he urged the Committee to defer the whole process until after the general election.
The Chairman stated that Members of the Committee were trained to set party politics aside and that answers to his questions would be given as part of the officer’s presentation. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING PDF 441 KB To receive the minutes of the previous meeting (attached).
Minutes: The Minutes of the meeting held on 1 April 2015 were approved as a correct record and SIGNED by the Chairman. |
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
Minutes: The Chairman had the following announcements to make:
1. She welcomed Mrs Jenny Clifford to the Committee in her new role as Head of Planning and Regeneration. She had been remiss in not doing this at the last meeting but stated that she had always found Mrs Clifford to be very reliable and capable of finding solutions to complex planning issues.
2. Three members of the Committee would not be returning after the election having chosen not to stand. These were Councillors Mrs Diane Brandon, Mrs Linda Holloway and Alan Griffiths. She stated that they had been stalwart in their attendance in what was one of the most difficult jobs on the Council. A great deal was expected of Planning Committee Members with issues sometimes putting them at odds with their constituents. She was grateful for the honour they had bestowed in having appointed her as Chairman and she thanked them for their trust in her. She wished them well for the future. |
|
Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding this application. Minutes: The Committee had before it a report * of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding the above application. She informed those present that this application had been considered at a meeting of the Planning Committee on 1 April 2015. The Committee had resolved that the application be deferred to allow for further consideration of the development approach to West Manley Lane in respect of access points, traffic and development on the southern side. She further explained that the applicant had sought to address these issues by:
· Submitting a new site location plan that removed the area of land south of West Manley Lane from the red line application site. This area was now excluded from the application. · Having withdrawn plan C698/26 ‘West Manley Lane Access Layouts’. This plan which previously showed proposed access points both north and south of West Manley Lane was no longer part of the application.
Referring to the questions raised by Mr Welchman at public question time, the Head of Planning and Regeneration confirmed that in respect of his first question the explanation above did indeed confirm development of the land south of West Manley Lane had been removed from the application. In relation to deferring a decision on this outline application until after the general election she stated that the day to day running of a planning service could not be held up by an election: decisions still had to be made. Planning Committee was not political. Should there be a change of perspective with a new Government this would take some time to filter through. Decisions are made against the policies and planning guidance that exist on the day of decision. She saw no advantage in deferring a decision any further.
Discussion followed with regard to:
· Whether or not the applicant could apply to build on the land south of West Manley Lane in the future? The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that it was not possible to pre-empt what the applicant might or might not submit in the future. Members and the public still had an opportunity until 27 April to submit formal representation regarding the Local Plan Review consultation and could further comment on this area should they wish to. · A desire to see roundabouts being landscaped as this was a ‘garden development’. However, it was explained that the appearance, landscaping and detailed layout of roundabouts were reserved matters and would be dealt with at the next planning stage. A noise assessment would also be conducted at the next stage. · The question was asked as to what the distance was from the last property in Post Hill to the first access point off the proposed roundabout, this was confirmed as being 9 metres to the back of the footpath.
It was therefore RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement and the conditions as set out in the report.
(Proposed by Cllr K D Wilson and seconded by Cllr R L Stanley)
Notes ... view the full minutes text for item 189. |
|
ENFORCEMENT LIST (00:35:20) PDF 178 KB To consider the items contained in the Enforcement List.
Additional documents: Minutes: Consideration was given to the following cases in the Enforcement List *:
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to the signed Minutes.
Arising thereon:
No. 1 in the Enforcement List (Enforcement case ENF/14/00124/UDRU – Without planning permission, an unauthorised development has commenced on land north of the A38. The development comprises of a change of use of land from a vehicle repair garage on part of the site and land used for lorry parking on the remainder of the land to a mixed use – Land at NGR 308125 115944 north of the A38, Maidendown Stage, Burlescombe).
The Planning Enforcement Officer outlined the contents of the report, stating this had been brought back to Committee with a revised site plan.
Discussion took place with regard to:
· Burlescombe Parish Council discussing the site on several occasions and requesting action to be taken. · The need for Members to have sight of the previous set of enforcement instructions.
It was RESOLVED that the Legal Services Manager be authorised to take any appropriate legal action including the service of an enforcement notice. In the event of any failure to comply with the notice served, the additional authority to prosecute, take direct action and/or seek a court injunction.
(Proposed by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge and seconded by Cllr Mrs L J Holloway)
Note:
Cllr P J Heal declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest as the applicant had purchased goods from his business and left the meeting during the discussion thereon.
No. 2 in the Enforcement List (Enforcement case ENF/15/00041/UDUR – Without planning permission, the carrying out of engineering works to raise the ground level at the north eastern boundary and erection of close boarded fence close to the boundary, alleged to be above the 2 metre permitted development height at Clouds, Barnfield, Crediton).
The Planning Enforcement Officer outlined the contents of the report stating that the matter referred to a building site which was at the rear of Clouds backing onto properties in Mount Pleasant, Park Street. The site was on a north facing slope and was formerly an orchard. He referred the Committee to the update sheet which stated that the Council’s Tree Officer had visited the site on 17 April and had concluded the area of the garden in question lay outside of the Conservation Area and the trees within it were not worthy of protection.
He went on to explain that the main issue was to do with a change in soil levels (due to the slope) and the erection of fence at the boundary. An allegation had been made that close board fencing had been erected on a false level of ground. However, in his view the soil build up had not occurred as a result of development and stated that the fence was within the maximum height allowed therefore there was not enough evidence to indicate a breach had taken place.
Discussion took place with regard to:
· A condition in the previously granted application that required ... view the full minutes text for item 190. |
|
DEFERRALS FROM THE PLANS LIST (01:33:03) 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 (01:33:12) PDF 391 KB To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
Minutes: The Committee considered the applications in the Plans List *.
Note: * List previously circulated; copy attached to the signed Minutes.
(a) No 1 on the Plans List (14/01949/MFUL - Change of use of land from agriculture to the installation and operation of a solar PV park to generate up to 5MW of power (site area 12.26 hectares) to include associated infrastructure (Revised Scheme) at Land at NGR 302663 109953 (Stoneshill Farm), Willand Road, Cullompton.)
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report * by way of presentation of the application drawings and showing a number of photographs from different angles around the site. She informed those present that a site visit by the Committee had taken place the previous day. She referred Members to the update sheet which informed them that a revised site layout had just been received following objections raised by the Environment Agency. This had removed panels from the flood plain area. The Environment Agency were happy in principle with the new drainage proposal which proposed the provision of a number of bunded swales across the site and drainage pipes located on the downslope of each swale. As a result of this she stated that the second reason for refusal contained with the officer report had now been withdrawn.
Discussion took place with regard to:
· The question was raised as to whether policy COR10 dealing with strategic transport networks should have been listed within the report? The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that she did not feel the proposal would compromise the function on the mainline railway and this could not be used as a reason for refusal. · If approved every access into the village would have a view of a solar farm. · There was a lot of public support for this application especially given the landowner no longer had a shop to generate income. · The site visit had shown how visible the site was and there was a concern regarding cumulative effect given the proximity of two further solar PV parks in the vicinity. · The visibility and impact of the development from the B3181 road adjacent to the proposed site
RESOLVED that planning permission for this application be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed solar PV arrays would be installed on grade 3a agricultural land, classed as being the Best and Most Versatile. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal would take the land out of arable production for the 25 year duration of the proposal and insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that there is no other land of lesser agricultural quality which is available and suitable for the proposed installation. The applicant's submitted sequential analysis is insufficient for this purpose as it only considers sites within close proximity to the proposed grid connection point and not potential sites further afield. The Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the development is directed to the most appropriate parcel of land. It is considered ... view the full minutes text for item 192. |
|
THE DELEGATED LIST (02:56:46) PDF 191 KB To be noted.
Minutes: The Committee NOTED the decisions contained in the Delegated List *.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to signed Minutes. |
|
MAJOR APPLICATIONS WITH NO DECISION (02:57:27) PDF 22 KB List attached for consideration of major applications and potential site visits.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a list * of major applications with no decision.
It was RESOLVED that:
Application 15/00537/MFUL – installation of a solar farm to generate 4.6MW of power at Sharlands Farm, Morchard Bishop be brought before the Committee if minded to approve.
Application 15/00507/MFUL – new surface car park and associated lighting at Tiverton Parkway, Sampford Peverell be brought before Committee.
Application 15/00334/MFUL – renovation and extension to provide 45 Extracare apartments at Alexandra Lodge, 5 Old Road, Tiverton, be brought before Committee and that a site visit take place.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to the signed Minutes. |
|
APPEAL DECISIONS (03:05:30) PDF 21 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 two recent planning appeals.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to signed Minutes. |
|
To receive a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding this application. Minutes: The Committee had before it a report * of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding the above application. The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation and informed Committee Members that there were now two additional reasons for refusal on the update sheet which related to insufficient information being provided by the applicant.
Discussion took place with regard to:
· Both Willand and Halberton Parish Councils were against this application for reasons relating to site location and it falling outside of the current Local Plan, the additional strain on local schools and the availability of jobs. The area was currently designated as an industrial site and any development, if allowed, would be surrounded by industrial units. · The comment was made that the developer was offering 35% affordable housing. · The proposal was contrary to COR12 of the Mid Devon Core Strategy and failed DM2. · More infrastructure was needed in Willand rather than further housing development.
RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
1. Policy COR17 of the Mid Devon Core Strategy (Local Plan Part 1) seeks to deliver minor development proposals in the recognised villages in the District, of which Willand is one. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the development of 97 dwellings in Willand would be a significant development in the context of policy COR17 and therefore be contrary to the objectives of the policy and the development focus set out in policy COR12 of the Mid Devon Core Strategy (Local Plan Part 1) which seeks to reduce housing rates in the rural areas.
2. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development of the site, sandwiched between two areas of employment development and physically divorced from the existing pattern of housing development in the village would not represent the high quality development required by policy DM2 of Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies) and the National Planning Policy Framework as it would be out of context with the spatial pattern of development in the village and would not be well integrated with surrounding buildings, streets, landscapes and uses.
3. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there is no commercial interest in the use of the site for employment generating purposes, particularly having regard to the high land values which have been sought for the development of plots of land on the site, taking into account prevailing local market values for similar developments. Accordingly the application is contrary to the requirements of policy DM21 b) of Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies).
4. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the development of the application site for mixed use purposes that incorporate an employment-generating use would not result in a financially viable development. The application is therefore contrary to the requirements of policy DM21 c) of Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies).
(Proposed by ... view the full minutes text for item 196. |
|
To receive an implications report by the Head of Planning and Regeneration following discussions at a previous meeting where Members were minded to refuse the application. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee had before it a report * of the previous Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding the above application. At a meeting held on 4 March 2015 the Planning Committee had considered the above application and had resolved that they were minded to refuse the application, subject to the consideration of an implications report. The Committee had considered:
· The proposed density of development, whether the development was in character with existing dwellings in Pomeroy Road · Whether the proposal development was in contravention to the Masterplan approved for the Eastern Urban Extension; · If the development proposed would set a precedent of building in gardens of adjacent properties; · Whether the site could support 2 dwellings; · The need for the development to be in line with Development Plan Policies COR2, DM2, DM14 and not the Eastern Urban Extension.
The Committee had initially considered that the proposal was out of character with the existing layout of the area, it would result in a development of uncharacteristically higher density out of character and appearance with the surrounding area, it would lead to a loss of local distinctiveness and provide a dwelling in close proximity to other dwellings contrary to the general character of the area.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration made reference to some confusion surrounding this application which had related to some recent work undertaken by the Council’s IT department. This had unfortunately generated emails relating to the decision on certain historic cases including that on the withdrawal of the previous application for a dwelling on this site. She had been in communication with some of the objectors regarding this and had provided an explanation.
RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the following reason:
The proposal is considered a departure from existing dwelling layout in the area, to have an unacceptable size of plot at an uncharacteristically high density contrary to the character and appearance of the surrounding area resulting in a loss of local distinctiveness and close proximity to other dwellings. The proposal is considered contrary to policies COR2 Mid Devon Core Strategy (Local Plan Part 1), DM2 and DM14 Development Management Policies (Local Plan Part 3).
(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr K D Wilson)
Notes:
i. Cllrs: Mrs F J Colthorpe, D J Knowles and R L Stanley made declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing in planning matters as they had received correspondence regarding this application.
ii. The following late information was reported:
22nd April 2015
Two further objections (one inadvertently omitted from the previous report and one recent) summarised as follows:
1. Letter from CPRE stating that “The principle of a further dwelling house within the small garden space is considered to be unacceptable as it would represent an over development of the site to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area.” They then list the policies to which they consider the application to be contrary COR2, DM2, DM15. They also ... view the full minutes text for item 197. |
|
Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding a request for a variation to the S106 legal agreement attached to this consent. Minutes: The Committee had before it a report * from the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding the above application. The applicant had made a request to this authority for a variation to the S106 legal agreement attached to the original consent.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration outlined the contents of the report highlighting the history of the application and reminding the Committee that it had previously granted planning permission for an anaerobic digester (AD) on land which was covered by that S106 agreement. The Applicant had offered an alternative area of land and approval was sought from the Committee to align the legal paperwork.
Discussion took place with regard to the area of land now being offered as an alternative. The Committee did not feel that an area of woodland equated in size or value to the area of land being proposed to be sold on to the AD operators.
RESOLVED that a decision in relation to this matter be deferred in order to allow officers to negotiate with the applicant for an area of land to be included which was of an equivalent size and quality to that being proposed for removal from the existing S106 agreement.
(Proposed by Cllr M D Binks and seconded by Cllr R F Radford)
Note:
i. Cllr K D Wilson declared a personal interest as he had had discussions with the objectors.
ii. A proposal to allow a variation to the S106 agreement as set out in the report was not supported.
iii. *Report previously circulated; copy attached to the signed Minutes. |
|
PLANNING PERFORMANCE (04:10:36) PDF 138 KB Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration providing the Committee with information on the performance of the Planning Service. Minutes: The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a report * from the Head of Planning and Regeneration providing the Committee with information on the performance of Planning Services for the financial year 2014-15 and quarter 4.
It was explained that there were staff shortages within the Planning Service but that recruitment was under way. It was probable that there would be some slippage in performance until the service was up to its full compliment of staff. Until then there would be a need to meet all the critical targets in relation to special measures and to meet all timescales that would result in a cost to the Planning Authority if they were not met.
The Committee were sympathetic to the staffing situation within the service. A suggestion was made that internships be offered to graduates planning qualifications to undertake some of the more administrative tasks within Planning.
Note:
*Report previously circulated; copy attached to the signed Minutes. |
|