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: Apologies were received from Cllr J M Downes to be substituted by Cllr P F Williams. |
|
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 00-04-30 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: Dr Whittlesey referring to Item 9 (Chettiscombe Estate) on the agenda asked the following questions:
Do you recall that in the AIDPD Inspector’s report of 2010, (3.48) he forecast that the adverse planning impact would fall on” flood risk, visual amenity and the wildlife and ancient hedgerows in West Manley Lane” We have come full circle. You are aware of the numerous references to the national importance of the SSSI including input from Natural England, Tidcombe Lane Fen Society, Devon Wildlife Trust, Are you, like them, in agreement with all the measures that must be employed to protect not only the SSSI but also the Ailsa Brook and do you share our concern that even within this outline application the nature of these mitigating measures is not clear? Do you agree with Natural England and Tidcombe Lane Fen Society that the complete safety of the water supply to the SSSI can only be achieved by not allowing development south of the lane? Within this application, are the structures and long-term management of sewerage, flooding and foul water measures sufficiently outlined to be reliable? Are you conversant with the Devon Wildlife Consultancy’s Hedgerow assessments of 2009 and 2013 and their classification of the entire length of hedge bank as important under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, and that it currently serves as a wildlife connectivity corridor and safe environment for small mammal species and birds, some of which are conservation concern listed and are you in agreement with MDDC’s own concept of protection and enhancement of this hedgerow? Are you aware that along its length this single track lane, currently used by some 12 private cars, service vehicles and farm machinery there are three right-angle bends, no footpath and no designated passing places and that the proposed development of 3 or 4 bedroomed houses north and south of the lane would not only destroy segments of the hedgerow but bring at least 30-40 additional cars into the mix, with resultant traffic chaos. Do you accept that new entrances separate from the proposed housing for both farm and vehicles servicing the attenuation ponds and sewerage machinery would need to be constructed Did you know that an increasing numbers of people are using the lane for all manner of exercise; do you agree that if the result of the proposed housing development is a rise in traffic movements in the lane, with its lack of footpath and limited visibility there will be a significant effect on road safety issues? Therefore, would you not agree that by retaining the fields south of the lane as public open spaces and green infrastructure options, this would fit with MDDC’s own stated environmentally friendly plans and sets the whole area in a more safe and rural setting. Finally, in its somewhat selective précis of our four most recent responses, are you aware that the planning officers make several incorrect attributions? So, would you to consider removing development south of West Manley Lane from this outline planning application, ... view the full minutes text for item 164. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (00-27-52) PDF 408 KB To receive the minutes of the previous meeting (attached).
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of 4 March 2015 were approved as a correct record and SIGNED by the Chairman. |
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (00-30-00) To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
Minutes: The Chairman had the following announcements to make:
· She reminded Members that there were two meetings in April, the 1st and the 22nd. · She informed Members that this was the last meeting for the Head of Planning and Regeneration, she expressed her gratitude to him personally and she was sure that Members both past and present thanked him and wished him well. |
|
ENFORCEMENT LIST (00-36-00) PDF 290 KB To consider the items contained in the enforcement list. Minutes:
Consideration was given to a case in the Enforcement List *.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to signed Minutes.
Arising thereon:
No. 1 in the Enforcement List (Enforcement Case ENF/14/00124/UDRU – without planning permission, an unauthorised change of use has been undertaken namely the use of agricultural land to domestic garden – land west of Rowey Bungalow, Plainfield Lane, Withleigh).
The Head of Planning and Regeneration outlined the contents of the report highlighting the history of the site as identified in the report and the complaints that had been received regarding the site from local residents regarding the use of the land. He was able to provide Members with photographs of the land in question. He stated that planning permission was not required for the planting of a hedge and that chickens and ducks were allowed to run on the land. The grass was being cut by a lawnmower and not by agricultural machinery. Referring to Mrs Coffey’s questions, he stated that the use of the land was not predominately being used for agriculture, the grass was being cut but that was the only non-agricultural issue taking place, the land had not changed from agricultural to garden, there was potential for a change of use but we were not at the point where an enforcement notice could be served.
Consideration was given to the need to keep the land tidy and the need to monitor the situation. It was therefore:
RESOLVED that
· The owner be advised that the regular domestic mowing of an agricultural field may constitute a breach of planning control and the Council will monitor the use of the site over the spring/summer period to ensure a predominantly agricultural use is maintained on the land.
· No further action be taken at this time.
(Proposed Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge and seconded by Cllr P F Williams)
Notes:
Cllr E G Luxton declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest as his son was the landowner in question and left the meeting during the discussion thereon;
Cllrs A V G Griffiths and D J Knowles declared personal interests as the landowner was known to them;
Mrs Coffey (neighbour) spoke;
Cllrs A V G Griffiths, R L Stanley and K D Wilson requested that their abstention from voting was recorded.
|
|
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. He referred to the questions as set out in the minutes of the previous meeting: Mr Davey had asked about the security issues, this had been addressed in Condition 14. Mr Hutchings had referred to the deck being moved 1metre away from Memorial Cottage, the slides would show this movement. Regarding loss of light and privacy and that the development was not in keeping with the surrounding area; there would be some issues with regard to this but Members needed to weigh up whether these issues warranted refusal of the application.
He outlined the contents of the report identifying the differences between the original and revised scheme: 44 flats were proposed instead of 45, the balance of the 1 and 2 bedroomed flats had shifted, the 2 access points, the reduction in the size of the parking deck, part of the building has been pulled away from the boundary with properties at Ham Place, elevation and accommodation details had been amended and there were changes to the garage areas. Members viewed photographs from various aspects of the site and computerised frontage images.
Consideration was given to the existing parking arrangements behind the Town Hall and any additional traffic using the archway; the sheet bulk of the development in the Conservation Area and the impact on Ham Place; and the improvements to the original plans
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration.
(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr M D Binks)
Notes-:
Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as Cabinet Member for Housing;
Cllr D J Knowles declared a personal interest as a Member of the British Legion;
Cllr K D Wilson declared a personal interest as he had been in discussion with local residents and the British Legion as Ward Member;
Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge, M D Binks, Mrs D L Brandon, Mrs F J Colthorpe, A V G Griffiths, P J Heal, Mrs L J Holloway, D J Knowles, E G Luxton, R F Radford, J D Squire, Mrs M E Squires, R L Stanley, K D Wilson and P F Williams made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good practice for Councillor dealing in planning matters as they had received correspondence regarding this application;
Mr Williams (Agent) spoke;
Mr Davey (Objector) spoke;
Cllr W Burke (Tiverton Town Council) spoke;
Cllrs P F Williams and K D Wilson spoke as Ward Members;
Cllr K D Wilson requested that his vote against the decision be recorded.
|
|
DEFERRALS FROM THE PLANS LIST 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 (1-52-00) PDF 460 KB To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
Additional documents: 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 (14/01915/FULL – Variation of Condition 10 of Planning Permission 14/00575/MFUL to allow for the erection of an Anerobic Digestions (1,000Kw installed capacity) Facility –Land at NGR 283096 113579 (Menchine Farm, Nomansland)
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report informing Members that this application had already been appealed for non-determination and therefore Members were requested to consider what decision they would have come to if they had been able to consider the application. He outlined the history of the site and the result of the previous appeal that had been granted planning permission at appeal. Members considered the site location plan and an aerial photograph, and received information regarding the increase in feedstock required to increase the fuel production. The officer explained that there was he felt a lot of outstanding issues that needed to be addressed and therefore he was recommending refusal of the application as set out in the report.
He considered the questions put forward at the beginning of the meeting, he agreed that there was a certain amount of uncertainty with regard to the feedstock, including: where they were coming from and the number of trips to the site. He added that with regard to the pollution issues, he was aware of these and that they were being dealt with by the Environment Agency.
Consideration was given to where the additional feedstock was coming from, whether there were any binding agreements with farms who were supplying the plant; the imposition of the application on local residents, the impact on the roads surrounding the site and proposed vehicle movements. A number of Members asked whether the application could be refused having regard to Development Management Policies DM6 and DM22.
RESOLVED that had the Committee had the opportunity to determine the application the application would have been refused for the following reasons:
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority (LPA) it is considered that there is insufficient information available to be able to accurately predict, and subsequently control, the likely increase in movements on the highway that would arise, and the nature of the vehicles involved in the transportation process to and from the application site, and how it would affect the environmental amenity of near properties and the local environment (in terms of noise, congestion and general disturbance. On this basis the application proposals are considered to be contrary to policies: DM1, DM2, DM5 and DM7 of Mid Devon Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies).
(Proposed by Cllr Mrs M E Squires and seconded by Cllr P F Williams)
Notes:
Cllr R F Radford declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest as a chicken farmer and that he may in future be involved in the production of feed for the AD plant and therefore left the meeting during the discussion thereon;
Cllrs M D Binks, Mrs F J ... view the full minutes text for item 170. |
|
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 identifying the location plan, the master-plan area, the location of the left in and left out junction (LILO) and the full junction on the A361 (which had the benefit of planning permission), the indicative layout, the proposed buffer zone adjacent to Mayfair, the area of development to the south of West Manley Lane. It was confirmed that the application sought planning permission for a form and quantum of development which was in accordance with the adopted Masterplan, with all matters relating except means of access to be considered at the reserved matters stage. The APO then went onto to confirm the proposed access arrangements, and highlighted a number of conditions in the report and the terms of the S016 agreement that would control and manage the delivery of the access arrangement, including Condition 13 which required passing places to West Manley Lane to be incorporated into the development scheme design.
He addressed the questions presented earlier in the meeting: Natural England had previously objected to the application, however further information had been submitted and they had now withdrawn their objection subject to the provisions of Condition 15. Other conditions dealt with flooding issues and the single track lane. With regard to development on West Manley Lane, that was for Members to decide but it was confirmed that the application proposals was in accordance with the adopted masterplan.
With regard to Dr Bell’s questions, the noise survey had been completed and Devon County Council had received it although it had not been reviewed. With regard to air quality issues, the application was supported by Environmental Impact Assessment, which included a review of air quality issues. This information had been considered by officers, including Environmental Health Officers and that the updated Condition 2 was relevant to this issue. The issue of employing a district heating system was referenced in the the Allocations and Infrastructure Development Plan Document, however the size and amount of development proposed as part of the masterplan area is unlikely to generate sufficient demand for a district heating scheme.
Discussion took place regarding the traffic calming on Blundells Road with Mr Sorenson (Devon County Council – Highways Authority) informing the Committee that the LILO would not be constructed before the summer of 2016 as further design work was necessary. The traffic calming in Blundells Road could only take place during the school summer holidays because of the impact on Blundells School, the summer of 2015 was too early for any development and therefore there would be no development on the Eastern Urban Extension before the summer of 2016, this gave the Highway Authority an opportunity to look at the design of the scheme with regard to materials and appearance.
Further discussion took place the trigger points set out in the Masterplan, a low ... view the full minutes text for item 171. |
|
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. He outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site plan and the proposed split curtilage, the existing and proposed elevations and the site access. He explained a previous application which was very similar on a site near Tiverton which had been refused by the Planning Committee, and dismissed at appeal.
Consideration was given to the National Planning Policy Framework and building outside of an adopted settlement limit and in the countryside.
RESOLVED that this application be refused as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr Mrs D L Brandon)
Notes:
Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge, Mrs D L Brandon, Mrs F J Colthorpe, P J Heal, D J Knowles, E G Luxton, R F Radford, J D Squire, Mrs M E Squires, R L Stanley, K D Wilson and P F Williams made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good practice for Councillor dealing in planning matters as they had received correspondence regarding this application;
Mr York (Applicant) spoke;
The Chairman read a message from the Ward Member, Cllr D F Pugsley
Cllr K D Wilson requested that his vote against the decision be recorded;
Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge requested that her abstention from voting be recorded;
The following late information was reported, the omission from the report stating that: this application was called to Committee by Cllr D Pugsley for the following reasons:
It will not affect the appearance of the place. The access is already there. Extra traffic will be minimal and the road is quite adequate for it. The Parish Council have considered it carefully and in detail, and are happy with it.
*Report previously circulated, copy attached to signed minutes.
|
|
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 Chairman informed Members that this application had been withdrawn. |
|