Agenda and draft minutes

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

Apologies were received from:

• Cllr N Letch
• Cllr M Jenkins who was substituted by Cllr G Westcott.

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.

Tim Barton referred to Application No. 25/00881/OUT

1. Why is a further housing development being considered outside of the Hemyock Boundary?

2. As a daily witness to traffic turmoil on Culmstock Road, would traffic calming measures be mandated to reduce the impact of a fourth housing estate junction in the short, 120m strip of road in order to slow traffic speeds, reduce congestion and lessen hazardous situations, particularly at school start and end times and during funerals?

3. Would the historic importance of nearby Hemyock Castle require significant archaeological explorations similar to those undertaken in the neighbouring Bailey Lodge property, and how would the developer ensure that the dwellings do not unduly affect both the historic landscape and the important local national landscape?

4. Will the height of proposed dwellings be minimised to moderate the significant height advantage over existing housing both to the east and south of the proposed site?

5. As part of the recent development nearby, will the public open space to the north, of the site be restored to suitable grassland as it is currently unfit for safe public use?

6. To prevent an extended building programme lasting many years, will a time limit be imposed on the whole development build?

7. Will a comprehensive plan be enforced to export any excavated, unwanted soil?

8. Will contributions be made for expansion of the sewage treatment plant to cope with higher use and unpleasant odours, also, to local overcrowded schools, the fully committed Blackdown Medical Practice, and to help generate local employment opportunities?

9. Why is a site visibility splay and a likely visual ‘dead spot’ in front of the adjacent cemetery not being considered in this application?

10. Why has this application failed to address ownership of a new access road and major weaknesses of heavy good vehicles accessibility, turn-around provision and exit from the site?

11. With 39 houses in Hemyock currently available for sale with three bedrooms or more, is there really a need for additional housing in this area?

To record any interests on agenda matters.

Cllr F J Colthorpe declared a personal interest with regard to Planning Applications 25/01237/HOUSE and 25/01239/LBC as she had known the applicant for many years and they had farmed alongside each other.  She had also helped the applicant with the application.  Considering this, she would leave the meeting when both applications were being considered and would not take part in the vote.

Cllr S Clist made a declaration of interest in accordance with Protocol of Good Practice in dealing with Planning matters regarding Application 25/00881/OUT  as there had been a representation made from Hemyock Parish Council of which he was a Member.  However, he had not participated or voted on any planning matters discussed at the Parish Council meeting.

To consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 12 November 2025.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 12 November 2025 were agreed as a true record and SIGNED by the Chair.

         To receive any announcements the Chair may wish to make. 

The Chair had no announcements to make.

To report any items withdrawn from the agenda.

The Chair announced that Planning Application No. 25/01453/FULL had been temporarily withdrawn from the Plans List as the applicant wished to submit amended plans.

To consider the planning applications contained in the list.

The Committee considered the applications in the *Plans List.

1. 25/01237/HOUSE - Enlargement of existing extension to link property to outbuilding; extension and conversion of outbuilding to form habitable accommodation at Broxford Cottage, East Village, Crediton.

The Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of a presentation and highlighted the following:-

• Plans 1 and 2 both related to Broxford Cottage, Crediton.
• The site related to a Grade II listed building and sought planning permission to enlarge the existing extension to link the main property to the outbuilding and for the extension and conversion of the outbuilding to form habitable accommodation.
• The main issues raised included:

(i)              Impact upon the Grade II listed building.

(ii)             Section 16 and Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

(iii)           Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

(iv)           Policies DM1 (high quality design) and DM25 (development affecting heritage assets) of the Mid Devon Local Plan 2013-2033.

• In reaching a decision the Committee needed to be mindful of the duty as set out in Section 16 and Section 66 above, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building, it’s setting and features of special architectural or historic interest which it possessed.
• Paragraph 212 of the NPPF noted that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.  The more important the asset was, the greater the weight should be.  This was irrespective of whether any potential harm amounted to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm.
• It was identified that the harm to the listed building would be less than substantial as a result of proposed development.  The harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
• A Bat Emergence Survey had been submitted in support of the application where a bat roost was identified, and a European Protected Species Licence would need to be obtained from Natural England before any work commenced.   The survey would be conditioned in the event of planning approval.
• In accordance with comments received from South West Water, in the event of planning approval, a condition would be placed regarding the reuse of surface water or drainage within the curtilage of the dwelling.
• It was considered that the provision of accessible accommodation would be a private benefit for the applicant and not a public benefit which would not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the listed building.

Discussion took place regarding:-

·       How did heritage asset link to the building?  It was explained that there had been a change in terminology – as outlined in the NPPF a heritage asset was anything that may be important to someone at some point at some time because of some reason.  There was a difference between a designated heritage asset and a non-designated heritage asset.  A designated heritage asset included world heritage sites, scheduled monuments,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

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 the following:-

1. 25/01598/MFUL– to remain delegated as per the report.
2. 25/01500/MOUT – to be considered at Planning Committee.
3. 25/01516/MFUL – to remain delegated as per the report
4. 25/01498/MOUT – to be considered at Planning Committee and a site visit to be organised.
5. 25/01495/MOUT – to remain delegated 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.