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: There were no apologies. |
|
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 Tony White, referring to item 11 on the agenda, asked how confident are the committee that what has been built already and what remains to be built will actually follow any permission granted? An example of this are the two driers, the synopsis of changes states that there will be two dryers of 43m in length, drawings show two drawings end to end which should total 86m, they are next to the silage clamps which are 60m long but the drawing shows the clamps as longer. Which is correct and who is checking on this sort of thing? Given GFL’s contempt for the planning process on this site what steps will the planning officer take to ensure that the end result is within the parameters allowed? Also as a large part of the site has been built without planning permission do the Councillors agree with the officers previous assertion that this in no way sets a precedent. Another authority has recently been quoted as saying that a similar situation “a pattern of behaviour has characterised the permissions at this site, essentially the planning process has been treated with contempt and a loss of faith in the public in the planning process makes future planning decisions on biogas plants much harder to achieve “. Mr Peter Robins, referring to item 11 on the agenda, said that given the history of what has gone on local residents have no confidence that Greener for Life will stay within any permission granted. Referring to the report it appears that the original plan for the AD unit can no longer be implemented. Can they explain why this is? If Greener for Life have created the problem by not providing a coherent report in the first place Members of the Council should not feel responsible for the predicament that the company now finds itself in. Hopefully the Committee Members will vote with their consciences and not how any political party dictates. If it does get approval how long will it take for the trees to grow to give sufficient screen from the site from public view and who is going to monitor this site to ensure that everything is carried out correctly? Mrs A Vinton, referring to item 11, said that the transport statement provided by the applicant relies heavily on the fact that 251 of the acres to be used for food stocks and digester spreading are accessible land without the use of the public highway. However 119 of these acres, that’s over a 3rd, are not part of Hartnoll Farm and lie to the west of Manley Lane and are within the area marked out as part of the Eastern Urban Extension. That is the 26 acres in the amended statement in the additional statement added to the acres in the original document. Can your officers tell us what Greener for Life intend to do if and when this acreage is no longer available and have they supplied your officers with ... view the full minutes text for item 138. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING PDF 367 KB To receive the minutes of the previous meeting (attached).
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 9 March 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. |
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (00-30-57) To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
Minutes: The Chairman had the following announcements to make:
· A special meeting of the Committee would take place on 20 April 2016 to discuss the Planning Procedures report deferred from a previous meeting.
· The Planning Advisory Service training day that had been provisionally arranged for 14th April had been postponed and would be rescheduled. |
|
ENFORCEMENT LIST (00-31-34) PDF 178 KB To consider the items contained in the Enforcement List.
Additional documents: Minutes: Consideration was given to the cases in the Enforcement List *.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to signed Minutes.
Arising thereon:
(i) No. 1 in the Enforcement List (Enforcement Case ENF/15/00075/BRE – failure to comply with Condition 1 and Condition 4 on appeal decision in relation to Planning Application 10/00160/FULL – Willtown Mobile Home, Clayhidon).
The Enforcement Officer outlined the contents of the report highlighting the history of the site and the fact that an application granted at appeal had added a personal condition naming the applicant. Following the death of the original applicant, enforcement was now proposed. The issue of a Breach of Condition Enforcement Notice was proposed which would allow the widow to appeal any decision.
Consideration was given to personal circumstances of the widow and her previous work on the land.
RESOLVED that the Legal Services Manager be authorised to take any appropriate legal action including the service of a Notice or Notices, seeking compliance with a residency condition imposed at appeal following the refusal to grant planning permission by the Local Planning Authority, in respect of planning reference 10/00160/FULL. In addition, in the event of a failure to comply with any Notice issued authority to prosecute, take direct action and/or authority to seek a court injunction.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr B A Moore)
Note: Mr Brown (Agent) spoke.
(ii) No. 2 in the Enforcement List (Enforcement Case ENF/16/00064/UCU – Unauthorised material change of use of land from agriculture to a mixed use of agriculture and use for the siting of a caravan for human habitation – Green Acres, Coldridge, Crediton).
The Enforcement Officer outlined the contents of the report explaining the history of the site and that permitted development allowed a mobile home to be placed on site for the purpose of carrying out the development of the shed, this would have to be removed once the structure was complete. He outlined the works that had taken place to date and how slow the process was; he felt that the erection of the shed was now a secondary matter and therefore proposed enforcement action seeking the cessation of the land for human habitation.
Consideration was given to: · Recent bad weather · Whether the landowner owned another dwelling · The period of compliance
RESOLVED that the Legal Services Manager be authorised to take any appropriate enforcement action including the service of a Notice or Notices seeking the cessation of the use of the land for human habitation, the removal of any caravans and any associated containers used in connection with the human habitation of the land and the restoration of the land to agricultural use. In addition, in the event of a failure to comply with any Notice issued authority to prosecute, take direct action and/or authority to seek a court injunction.
(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr B A Moore)
Note: Mr Claye (Landowner) spoke.
(iii) No. 3 in the Enforcement ... view the full minutes text for item 141. |
|
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 (1-05-15) PDF 752 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 (15/01604/MFUL – Erection of 5 poultry units (5040 sq.m) and biomass boiler unit; formation of attenuation pond, access track, and hardstanding; landscaping; and associated infrastructure – Land at NGR 288027 116786 (Gibbett Moor Farm) Templeton).
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location plan, the details of the development, the access route to the site and the proposed passing place, the site layout, attenuation ponds, proposed elevations and dimensions of the office buildings. He explained the proposed route outlined in the Waste Management Strategy for the movement of the waste to Menchine Farm. Members viewed photographs from various aspects of the site.
Referring to the questions posed in public question time:
· With regard to the proposed passing place, the Highway officer had felt that it would help the management of the traffic along that section of the network · Members were well aware of the appeal decision for Menchine Farm · With regard to the provision of the passing bay, initially the Highway Authority were seeking a financial contribution, however the Highway Authority considered that a passing bay would suffice. We are now bound by the legislation and cannot take money unless there was a specific need and the passing bay had been proposed · With regard to the Environmental Health comments, the Environmental Health Officer had been involved with discussions · With regard to the condition of the roads in the area, there were outstanding issues with drainage problems, but these were pre-existing, therefore the LPA could not require the applicant to address the issues, however highway improvements were proposed within the application with the inclusion of a passing place
Consideration was given to:
· The minimum width of vehicles on the roads in question · The cumulative effect of applications in the area feeding the AD plant at Menchine Farm and the incremental increase in traffic flows as a result of the chicken houses being erected in the area. · The impact of the appeal decision at Menchine · If the amount of birds were increased to 95,000 what would the impact be with regard to environmental health issues · Concerns regarding the information being received from the applicant · Concerns that the conditions put in place for the Tollgate application and why such conditions were not being requested for this application · The impact of the application on the local road network and possible highway safety · Visual impact on the landscape
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:
· Cumulative impact of the number of operations in the area particularly in respect of traffic generation. · Insufficient, inconsistent and inaccurate information in order for the Local Planning Authority to ... view the full minutes text for item 143. |
|
THE DELEGATED LIST (3-55-49) PDF 269 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 (3-56-45) PDF 18 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 16/00352/MFUL (Castle Primary School) be determined by the Committee and that a site visit take place.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to the Minutes
|
|
APPEAL DECISIONS (3-58-14) PDF 14 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 a 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 a previous meeting where Members were minded to refuse the application.
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report highlighting by way of presentation the original application that had been approved and the revised application which showed the reorientation and slightly larger site, the bund and the additional planting. He outlined the area from which the silage feedstock would be sourced, the proposed layout of the site, the 2 driers and silage clamps, the planting plan and general photographs were shown taken from the canal and bridges at different times of the year. The two site plans were also identified, the original approved application and the revised scheme. He outlined the Committee’s reasons for refusal and the supporting evidence outlined in the report along with legal advice that had been received.
Answers to questions posed in public question time were provided:
· The site had been visited by officers at least three times and by the Committee twice · With regard to the gas line, this had been referred to at a previous meeting but had not formed part of the application · Road issues at Crown Hill were a highway issue · The overlapping of land to be used as part of the Eastern Urban Extension; this was highlighted within the report · The fact that the application was retrospective, Members/Officers would not advocate a retrospective application but there was an opportunity for the applicant to seek to regularise the scheme · Planting issues – yes it would take time to screen the application site, possibly multiple years · How could the original plan be implemented and the condition monitored, the Enforcement Team would monitor any conditions alongside the Environment Agency with regard to permitting aspects · The appeal decision for Menchine Farm, Members and officers were aware of the Menchine appeal which was dismissed on the impact on the local amenity and transport issues · With regard to resources to defend an appeal, the Local Planning Authority would put the necessary resources into defending any reasons for refusal.
The Legal Services Manager explained the information received from Counsel and requested that Members focus on the difference between the two schemes, if the application was to be refused it would be necessary to gain expert advice.
Consideration was given to:
· Whether the applicant was continuing work at his own risk; the Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that the applicant was not complying with the previous application and had been advised as such, works had taken place and Members needed to look at the application on its merits · The gas pipe line between Red Linhay and Willand and because this had not been progressed, the plans had had to be changed · The impact of the application on the canal and the local area · The legal advice received · The need for expert advice on the proposed reasons for refusal · The need to write again to the applicant advising ... view the full minutes text for item 147. |
|