Venue: Phoenix Chamber, Phoenix House
Contact: Sally Gabriel Member Services Manager
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 R F Radford who was substituted by Cllr Mrs B M Hull. |
|
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: With regard to the following questions the Head of Planning and Regeneration provided answers later in the meeting however for clarity the answers have been provided underneath the questions.
Mr Byron referring to Item 11 (Land west of Paullett) stated that in 2013 outline planning permission was given for development on this site with 3 dwellings and 2 cars each (6 vehicles). At that point Highways described access arrangements as not ideal. The Chair of this committee said at that time that access was suitable for a maximum of three dwellings; it was approved on that basis. In 2015 Reserved Matters on the 2013 outline permission accepted 3 dwellings but with 3 cars each (9 vehicles): an increase of 50% on the 2013 expected traffic. Worse than not ideal. This 2015 application seeks to allow 4 dwellings with 3 cars each (12 vehicles). This is an increase of 33% on the Reserved Matters and a 100% increase on the original outline application where access was not ideal. From not ideal to worse than not ideal to even worse than worse than not ideal. Members will see the direction of travel in this application.
How is this incremental lowering of standards from something that started as not ideal a sign of Mid Devon's commitment to high quality design?
Are Members happy to allow a fourth dwelling that allows 100% more traffic to use the access road than was first accepted in the 2013 outline plan.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that as the Local Planning Authority it was necessary to decide why not to approve planning permission. Therefore not ideal was not necessarily not high quality design or unacceptable. The question has to be asked, is it bad enough to refuse and you have to justify refusal.
The Highway Authority had considered the access to the site, the length of the access, the width and whether vehicles would meet. The update provides further information on this.
In terms of highway issues we take advice from Devon County Council Highways Authority. The Highways officer had visited the site, we have had a response and he had discussed the issues with local residents. He had no objection to the proposal.
Mr Byrom continued stating that officers have told Members that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. But the context is developments that generate significant amounts of movement and the focus of the bullet is traffic flow and queues, not safety, which is our chief concern. An extra dwelling does, however increase by 33% from Reserved Matters, the likelihood of cars having to reverse into Paullett. The increase is 100% from 2013. Severe. Officers choose not to quote the more relevant previous bullet point that says plans and decisions should take accounts of whether.....safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people. How do officers ... view the full minutes text for item 109. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (00-24-53) PDF 370 KB To receive the minutes of the previous meeting (attached).
Minutes: Subject to the following amendment to the first paragraph of public question time by removing the wording: “If you refuse permission it is likely that an appeal will lead to costs, the credibility and diligence of the officer will be judged; and replacing it with “If you refuse permission for the Planning Application, the Applicant is likely to Appeal against that decision and MDDC risks the very unwelcome costs involved in addressing the Appeal process. The Officer’s scrutiny of the Planning Applications would be called into question if the Appeal is upheld. In that event the credibility and diligence of the Planning Officers would be seriously challenged together with your integrity as Decision maker”.
The minutes of the meeting held on 13 January 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
|
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (00-27-19) To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
Minutes: The Chairman had the following announcements to make:
a) Prior to the committee meeting on 9 March there would be a pre-application presentation from the agents for the Pedlerspool site (Creedy Bridge) on the edge of Crediton. b) The meeting of the Scrutiny Committee on 22 February would be looking at enforcement issues, Members may like to attend. |
|
ENFORCEMENT LIST (00-29-16) PDF 86 KB To consider the items contained in the Enforcement List.
Additional documents: Minutes: Consideration was given to a case in the Enforcement List *.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to signed Minutes.
Arising thereon:
a) No. 1 in the Enforcement List (Enforcement Case ENF/11/00034/UCU – unauthorised material change of use of land for private park to mixed use of private parks and use for the siting of caravans for human habitation – Langford Park Limited, Langford Road, Langford, Newton St Cyres).
The Enforcement Officer outlined the contents of the report highlighting the issues of caravans being used to accommodate staff without the required permission, there was the possibility that an application may be received to rectify the issue, however there was a need to control the situation.
RESOLVED that the Legal Services Manager be given delegated authority to take any appropriate legal action including the service of a notice or notices seeking the removal of the caravans and the cessation of the use of the land for the unauthorised siting of caravans for human habitation. In addition, in the event of a failure to comply with any notice issued authority be given to prosecute, take direct action and/or authority to seek a court injunction.
(Proposed Cllr P H Heal and seconded by Cllr S G Flaws)
|
|
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 (00-34-39) PDF 240 KB To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
Minutes: RESOLVED that the following application be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the various recommendations contained in the list namely:
(i) No 2 on the Plans List (15//01672/FULL – Removal of Condition 3 (holiday occupancy condition) of planning permission 05/01218/FULL – The Barn, Pugham Farm, Westleigh, Tiverton) be refused as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration (Proposed by the Chairman)
(b) No 1 on the Plans List (15//01622/FULL – Erection of an agricultural work’s dwelling and an agricultural livestock building at land at NGR 316711 110152 (Ten Oaks farm), Clayhidon). The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report which had been deferred from a previous meeting so that further information could be obtained with regard to financial sustainability, the water supply and the sufficiency of the land area available for the enterprise. He highlighted the block plan and proposed elevations of the dwelling and additional barn and provided photographs from various aspects of the site.
Consideration was given: · To the possible use of a borehole and whether this was feasible · Whether there was a need for the applicant to live on site · Concerns of the local residents with regard to whether the business was financially viable · The absence of effective business plans and financial data · The cost of a borehole · The need for stock movement information to be made available
RESOLVED that Members were minded to refuse the application and therefore wished to defer the decision to allow for a report to be received setting out the implications for the proposed reasons for refusal based on the following issues:
· Insufficient size of holding to sustain the proposed activity upon which the need for a dwelling was based. · Information to support the applications did not adequately demonstrate that the business will be sustained and financially viable. Members also requested receipt on a confidential basis of the applicant’s stock movement records for the past two years and any audited accounts or financial information in support of the application.
(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr Mrs B M Hull)
Notes:
i) Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge, K I Busch, Mrs C Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, J M Downes, S G Flaws, P J Heal, D J Knowles, F W Letch, B A Moore, J D Squire and R L Stanley made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning matters as they had all received additional information from the applicant;
ii) Mr Greenhill (Applicant) spoke;
iii) Mr Catley (Objector) spoke;
iv) Cllr Langford (Clayhidon Parish Council) spoke;
v) Cllr F J Rosamond spoke as Ward Member;
vi) Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge ... view the full minutes text for item 114. |
|
THE DELEGATED LIST (1-20-00) PDF 215 KB To be noted.
Minutes: The Committee NOTED the decisions contained in the Delegated List *.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to Minutes.
|
|
MAJOR APPLICATIONS WITH NO DECISION (1-20-53) PDF 20 KB List attached for consideration of major applications and potential site visits.
Minutes: The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a list * of major applications with no decision.
It was AGREED that application 15/01996/MFUL Lower Newton Farm, Zeal Monachorum be determined by the Committee and that a site visit take place.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to the Minutes
|
|
APPEAL DECISIONS (1-23-00) PDF 11 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 recent planning appeals.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to signed Minutes.
|
|
To receive an implications report from the Head of Planning and Regeneration following discussions at the previous meeting where Members were minded to refuse the application.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee had before it an * implications report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration following discussions at the previous meeting where Members were minded to refuse the application.
The Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site plan and the proposal for 4 dwellings one of which would be affordable compared to the approved application for 3 dwellings on the site. Consideration was given to the main difference in the applications that of Plot 1, the affordable dwelling. The proposed floor plans and elevations were explained and photographs were shown from various aspects of the site.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration provided answers to the questions posed in Public Question Time (answers available in Minute 109)
Consideration was given to:
· Additional traffic caused by the additional dwelling · The collection point for waste and the additional waste being presented · Access issues and whether the private drive would be adopted · The number of dwellings off a private drive · The transfer of the affordable dwelling to a Registered Social Provider · Possible screening of the development · The National Planning Policy Framework and the Manual for Streets
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration
(Proposed by Cllr K I Busch and seconded by Cllr R L Stanley)
Notes-:
i) Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge, K I Busch, Mrs C Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, J M Downes, S G Flaws, P J Heal, D J Knowles, F W Letch, B A Moore, J D Squire and R L Stanley made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning matters as they had all received additional information from the applicant;
ii) Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as the former landowner was known to him;
iii) Cllr F W Letch declared a personal interest as he knew residents in Paullett;
iv) Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge made an additional declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning matters as she had provided procedural advice to local residents;
v) Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge spoke as Ward Member;
vi) Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge and Mrs C Collis requested that their vote against the decision be recorded;
vii) Cllr F W Letch requested that his abstention from voting be recorded;
(viii) The following late information was reported: Since the Committee on the 16th of December, reserved matters have been granted for three dwellings, application reference 15/01899/ARM following the previous outline permission 12/01213/OUT.
Summary of additional objections: · After taking the decision to refuse the application at the December committee members were given little time to summarise their reasons and the loss of the conservation area was overlooked. · The loss of amenity of existing properties was focussed solely on 9 Turnpike, this ignores the impact on the properties in Paullet. It is unsustainable and misleading to focus on this property only in terms ... view the full minutes text for item 118. |
|
Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding this application. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee had before it a report * of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding the above application which had been deferred at an earlier meeting to allow for information regarding case histories of such applications at appeal.
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report stating that both Palfreys Barton and the application at Ellicombe Farm, Morchard Bishop were applications to extend the life of the granted planning permission by 5 years. Both schemes were well contained within the landscape and this was confirmed by way of photographic evidence. The applications had been deferred from a previous meeting to allow investigation of comparable appeals that had taken place. One had been identified in Bodmin which had been overturned by the inspectorate. The inspector had recognised that output may reduce overtime, land had been of moderate quality and that there was no evidence that the PV arrays would affect agricultural production of the site in 30 years. An additional 5 years would not alter the benefits in line with Policy DM5.
Consideration was given to:
· Why an extension of time could not be requested nearer the expiration date · The screening at the sites · The lack of objection from local residents · Panels were now under warranty for 30 years and the applicant did not have this information in 2012 when the previous application was discussed.
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration.
(Proposed by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge and seconded by Cllr P J Heal)
Notes:
i) Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge, K I Busch, Mrs C Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, S G Flaws, P J Heal, D J Knowles, F W Letch, B A Moore, J D Squire and R L Stanley made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning matters as they had all received additional information from the applicant;
ii) Miss Gullen spoke on behalf of the applicant;
iii) Cllrs Mrs C Collis, B A Moore and R L Stanley requested that their vote against the decision be recorded;
iv) *Report previously circulated copy attached to signed minutes.
|
|
Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding this application. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee had before it a report * of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding the above application which had been deferred at an earlier meeting to allow for information regarding case histories of such applications at appeal.
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report stating that both Palfreys Barton and the application at Ellicombe Farm, Morchard Bishop were applications to extend the life of the granted planning permission by 5 years. Both schemes were well contained within the landscape and this was confirmed by way of photographic evidence. The applications had been deferred from a previous meeting to allow investigation of comparable appeals that had taken place. One had been identified in Bodmin which had been overturned by the inspectorate. The inspector had recognised that output may reduce overtime, land had been of moderate quality and that there was no evidence that the PV arrays would affect agricultural production of the site in 30 years. An additional 5 years would not alter the benefits in line with Policy DM5.
Consideration was given to:
· Why am extension of time could not be requested nearer the expiration date · The screening at the sites · The lack of objection from local residents · Panels were now under warranty for 30 years and the applicant did not have this information in 2012 when the previous application was discussed.
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr DJ Knowles)
Notes:
i) Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge, K I Busch, Mrs C Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, S G Flaws, P J Heal, D J Knowles, F W Letch, B A Moore, J D Squire and R L Stanley made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning matters as they had all received additional information from the applicant;
ii) Miss Gullen spoke on behalf of the applicant;
iii) Cllrs Mrs C Collis, B A Moore and R L Stanley requested that their vote against the decision be recorded;
iv) *Report previously circulated copy attached to signed minutes.
|
|
PERFORMANCE REPORT (2-58-00) PDF 129 KB To receive a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration providing the Committee with information on the performance of Planning Services for quarter 3 within the 2015-16 financial year.
Minutes: The Committee had before it and NOTED a report * of the Head of Planning and Regeneration providing information on the performance of the Planning Services for quarter 3 within the 2015-16 financial year and how it related to previous quarters.
She outlined the contents of the report stating that major applications were exceeding the target and was an improvement on the previous quarter, other applications had slipped and would require monitoring and that performance with regard to listed buildings had shown an improvement. The Government had indicated its wish to increase the performance requirement with regard to major applications and this would have to be carefully monitored.
There continued to be issues with staffing due to maternity leave.
Note: *Report previously circulated copy attached to minutes.
|
|