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 00-03-00 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: Mrs Vinton referring to Item 5 (Red Linhay) on the agenda spoke regarding traffic monitoring, I understand that difficulty of monitoring traffic to the site as the traffic statement refers only to the number of loads being delivered and not to traffic as a whole, thus excluding general farm traffic. The number of proposed traffic movements per annum is given by the applicant as 784 but nowhere can I see this figure in Condition 10. Surely, without this figure, monitoring of log books or weighbridge records is futile? And, if this figure were to be exceeded, what enforcement action would be taken?
Energy Output – GFL have expressed concern regarding Condition 23 relating to the output from the plant. As it stands, an exceedance of just one kw would put them in breach. If the wording was changed to “an average output of 500kw” over a given period, surely this would allow for any day to day fluctuations? During a recent conversation with Mr Clapp he told me that he will be responsible for the day to day operation of the plant and that he can easily increase the energy output up to 1MW using feedstock from his own farm. This is, apparently, why the plan is the size it is and why 2 CHP units are on site. GFL, however state that the second CHP unit is only for back up and maintenance purposes. If the second unit remains onsite, is there anyway that it could be made impossible to use both units simultaneously?
Mr White again referring to Item 5 (Red Linhay) on the agenda stated that at the last meeting we were shown a drawing, number WIN01_REDLINHAY2_e10V_001 Fig 3 south elevation overlay. It was explained that this drawing was an overlay of the original granted permission (shown in black) compared with the new application (shown in red). The purpose being to show how moving the digester to its new position down the slope would result in the overall height of the digester being lower despite its increased size to allow for a 1000kw capacity. Unfortunately, what has been built does not match the drawing. Yet again, the application does not match the actual.
In the drawing the proposed dome is a shallow arc, unlike the original application which is a hemisphere. What has been built is clearly a hemisphere as all the photo’s taken by the planning officer clearly show. This results in the final height being greater than claimed in the application.
The technical report presented at the last meeting confirmed this, saying that the dome was at least equal to or higher than the adjacent farm buildings, despite the application claiming that it would be lower. This is clearly yet another example of GFL’s cynical and deceitful approach to planning applications. Will the committee confirm that GFL will be asked to ensure the finished construction will match the application.
Cllr Mrs J B Binks referring to Item 6 (Enforcement),Item 5 Furzeland stated that ... view the full minutes text for item 36. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (00-20-04) PDF 378 KB To receive the minutes of the previous meeting (attached).
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 8 June 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. |
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (00-20-35) To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
Minutes: The Chairman had the following announcements to make:
· Item 14 (Chettiscombe Estate) had been deferred to allow further consultation to take place. · She welcomed Mr Keith Palmer (Senior Enforcement Officer) to his first meeting. · She reminded Members that the planning tour of the district would take place on 14 July. |
|
To consider a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding this application which had been deferred from the previous meeting for further consideration of conditions. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee had before it a further *report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration following discussions at the previous meetings where Members had requested that a full set of conditions be produced to include monitoring arrangements as follows:
She outlined the contents of the report highlighting the site location plan and the additional conditions that had been proposed and that how they must meet all 6 tests as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, she also highlighted a previous appeal decision which stated that all conditions must be seen to be reasonable and to not require an intolerable level of supervision. With regard to vehicle movement and weight recording she highlighted the amendments made to Condition 10 which considered the weighbridge data. Vehicle monitoring equipment was addressed through an additional condition 22, she added that the entrance did not just serve the AD plant but also an agricultural building and therefore there could be some confusion as to the vehicle movement on the site. Control of digestate destination was addressed through Condition 10. With regard to records of power output, she had visited the site and there were 2 CHP units on site, the application was for only 1 unit, the second plant on the plan was where the office and containers should be. The applicant had stated that a second unit was on site in order that maintenance could take place on the original CHP unit. She felt that the second CHP unit was unnecessary and therefore this had been covered by a separate enforcement recommendation to service a notice to remove the 2nd CHP unit. With regard to access to the monitoring systems, there was a need to consider necessity and reasonableness. A monitoring liaison group would have be voluntary and should not be conditioned, the applicant had been contacted and was willing to set up such a group.
In response to questions posed in Public Question Time:
· Traffic movements and the number of loads, this was covered within condition 2 and 10. · Energy Output of the plant – condition wording was provided, nut Members would need to consider if this met the test for conditions. · The overlay plan, this was the plan prepared by the Council’s consultants. She considered the profile of the dome to appear flatter due to its base being shown on drawings as obscured behind a gantry. The drawing was therefore unclear, however she had no issue with the profile of the dome. The levels were different as the ground levels had been reduced, therefore that was the difference on the plan. However she would expect compliance with the details. · With regard to unauthorised development being a material planning ... view the full minutes text for item 39. |
|
ENFORCEMENT LIST (1-37-00) PDF 183 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:
a) No. 1 in the Enforcement List (Enforcement Case ENF/15/00100/UCU – Unauthorised material change of use of land from agriculture to a mixed use comprising agriculture and use as a caravan site for human habitation – land and buildings at NGR 306655 224226 (Kerrells), Burlescombe).
The Enforcement Officer outlined the contents of the report providing Members with photographs from the site and stating that the landowner had applied for a certificate of lawful use which had been refused and appealed. Consideration was given to the period for compliance which would allow those in residence to seek alternative accommodation.
RESOLVED that the Legal Services Manager be given delegated authority to issue a change of use enforcement notice, requiring the cessation of use as a caravan site and the removal of 2 x caravans from the land, together with all domestic paraphernalia associated with the use of the land as a caravan site. In addition, that legal action deemed appropriate be taken including prosecution or Direct Action in the event of non-compliance with the notice.
(Proposed Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr J D Squire)
b) No. 2 in the Enforcement List (Enforcement Case ENF/13/00036/UDUR – unauthorised removal of timber windows and replacement with uPVC windows in a Grade II listed building – 5 Ways Lane, Cullompton).
The Enforcement Officer outlined the contents of the report stating that this issue had previously been discussed in November 2013, at that time, the issue had been deferred to allow the property owner to submit an application, an application was submitted but not implemented and had now lapsed. The previous authority did not cover this and therefore permission was now sought to issue a listed building enforcement notice.
RESOLVED that the Legal Services Manager be given delegated authority to issue a listed building enforcement notice, requiring the removal of the two uPVC windows on the elevation, and the replacement with wooden windows to a specification provided by the Local Planning Authority. In addition that legal action deemed appropriate be taken to include prosecution or direct action in the event of non-compliance with the notice.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
c) No. 3 in the Enforcement List (Enforcement Case ENF/15/00042/UNLD – the condition of the land has been allowed to deteriorate causing adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area – Land at NGR 295600 102934, Fore Street, Silverton).
The Enforcement Officer outlined the contents of the report stating that she had been working with the landowner and local residents to rectify the situation, which had been successful. Most of the works that would be required had been completed. The appearance of the site would be monitored.
It was therefore
RESOLVED that no further action take place at the present time.
(Proposed by the Chairman
Note: Cllr Mrs J Roach (Ward Member) stated that she was satisfied ... view the full minutes text for item 40. |
|
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 (2-24-00) PDF 548 KB To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
Minutes: RESOLVED that the following applications be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the various recommendations contained in the list namely:
(i) No 2 on the Plans List (16/00665/HOUSE – Erection of single storey rear extension – 11 Chinon Place, Tiverton) be approved subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration. (Proposed by the Chairman)
(ii) No 3 on the Plans List (16/00712/HOUSE – Erection of single storey rear extension – 5 St Johns Close Tiverton) be approved subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration. (Proposed by the Chairman)
(iii) No 4 on the Plans List (16/00756/FULL – Erection of gates across existing drive entrance, Old Bartows, Bartows Causeway, Tiverton) be approved subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration. (Proposed by the Chairman)
Note: Cllr D J Knowles declared a personal interest as the applicant was known to him.
(iv) No 5 on the Plans List (16/00757/LBC – Listed Building Consent for erection of gates across existing drive entrance, installation of ground floor window and other internal alterations –Old Bartows, Bartows Causeway, Tiverton) be approved subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration. (Proposed by the Chairman)
Note: Cllr D J Knowles declared a personal interest as the applicant was known to him.
(b) No 1 on the Plans List (16/00588/HOUSE – Erection of first floor extension with Juliet balcony, detached garage and formation of new access to replace existing – 22 Turnpike, Sampford Peverell)
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report highlighting by way of presentation the proposed site plan, the new access and proposed parking, the existing and proposed elevations, floor plans and sections. Photographs were shown from various aspects of the site emphasising the impact of the development on the neighbouring property.
Consideration was given to:
· The need for the property to be modernised · The scale and massing of properties in the area and relationship between them · Amendments that had been made to the proposal to lessen the effect on the neighbouring property · The concerns of the neighbour objecting to the application
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted for the following reasons:
· The proposal was in keeping with the surrounding area · The proposal did not detract from the overall visual appearance of the property · The relationship with the adjacent property was acceptable
And that delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and Regeneration to create a set of conditions for the development.
(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge)
Notes:
(i) Cllr Mrs C A Collis declared a personal ... view the full minutes text for item 42. |
|
THE DELEGATED LIST (2-59-49) PDF 280 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 (3-00-39) 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 16/00918/MOUT - Culmstock Roaad, Hemyock, be brought before the committee for determination but that no site visit take place.
Application 16/00924/MOUT – Dulings Farm, Copplestone be brought before committee for determination and that a site visit take place.
Application 16/00825/MFUL – Lords Meadow Industrial Estate be brought before committee for determination and that a site visit take place.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to the Minutes
|
|
APPEAL DECISIONS (3-05-51) PDF 25 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 a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding this application which had been deferred from the previous meeting to allow for a site visit by the Planning Working Group to take place. Minutes: The Committee had before it a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding the above application which had been deferred from the previous meeting so that a site visit could be made by the Planning Working Group.
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report highlighting the site location plan, the proposal for the siting of 2 dwellings and photographs from various aspects of the site.
Consideration was given to:
· The recent views of the Conservation officer and the impact of the proposal on the conservation area · Possible overdevelopment of the site · The impact on the street scene · The removal of the hedge and wall · The views of Members of the Planning Working Group · The applicant’s wish to defer the decision to allow for revisions to be made to the scheme in line with the Conservation Officer’s report.
RESOLVED that members were minded to refuse the application and deferred the application to allow for the receipt of a report setting out the implications of the proposed reasons for refusal based on the following issues:
· Overdevelopment of the site. · That the development was not in keeping with the street scene. · The impact of the development on the setting of the conservation area. · Parking arrangements were insufficient.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr R F Radford)
Notes-:
(i) Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge, Mrs C A Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, R J Dolley, P J Heal, D J Knowles, F W Letch, B A Moore, R F Radford, J D Squire and R L Stanley made declarations in accordance with Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in deal with Planning matters as they had received correspondence regarding the application;
(ii) Mrs Woodman (Agent) spoke;
(iii) Mr Higman spoke on behalf of the objectors;
(iv) Cllr Mrs J Roach spoke as Ward Member;
(v) The following late information was reported: MDDC Conservation: The character is one of transition between the rural fields and the denser housing of the historic village. The house itself has no historic merit and I have no objection to its demolition. The plot is not large and fitting two properties into the site along with parking creates negative impacts, especially on the street scene. Because the majority of the low boundary wall and hedging will be removed to create parking spaces, a large open frontage with ‘porous tarmac’ as a surface creates a very suburban feel and leads to a loss of enclosure. Whilst other properties on the row have visibility splays they also have a hard boundary - with fencing and planting or the small hedge banks which helps create character. I therefore think that the frontage / open boundary is a negative impact and does not preserve or enhance the setting of the conservation area. The house design is reasonable but I do think that the gable end facing the road brings the sense of height and dominance a lot closer to the boundary – other properties have ... view the full minutes text for item 46. |
|
To receive a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding a change to the S106 agreement to substitute parcels of land. Minutes: The Committee had before it a * report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding an alteration to the Section 106 Agreement tying the dwelling to the holding in respect of substituting two existing parcels of land with two new parcels of land.
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report identifying the parcels of land in question and clarifying the size of the land involved.
RESOLVED that the alteration to the Section 106 Agreement to substitute land parcels be approved.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Note: *Report previously circulated copy attached to minutes.
|
|
To receive a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding a proposed change to the previous Committee resolution arising through discussions over the S106 Agreement. Minutes: As reported earlier in the meeting this item had been deferred to allow for further consultation to take place. |
|
To receive a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration in light of ongoing negotiations over this application post Committee, to consider several proposed amendments to the draft S106 and planning conditions as a result.
Minutes: The Committee had before it a report * of the Head of Planning and Regeneration in light of ongoing negotiations over this application post committee, as a result of these discussions to consider several proposed amendments to the draft S106 agreement and planning conditions.
The Area Planning Officer provided answers to the questions posed in public question time:
· With regard to the positioning of the affordable housing, the outline permission stated that the affordable housing be spread across the site, however a commercial decision has been taken by MDDC Housing Service to deliver the affordable housing all on one site due to need and viability. · The policy with regard to pepper-potting remained unchanged · She identified the land for affordable housing · With regard to the total cost of the land, the contribution would be from the developer, any costs would be commercially sensitive. · The costs of building the affordable housing would not be met by the tax payer but by the Housing Revenue Account. She outlined the contents of the report stating that the outline application was for the development of up to 330 dwellings,. The application had been granted consent in September 2015. The Housing Service proposed to acquire the land on the site in order to be the affordable housing provider, under the proposed arrangement the Council would deliver the whole of the affordable housing requirement on the site. The percentage of affordable housing had been reduced to 21.5% (70 properties) due to ground water mains on the site. The changes were seen to be acceptable and would release the developer of the market housing from any affordable housing requirements. The golf club contribution would be amended due to lack of contributory funding from the club. No match funding would be required.
Consideration was given to:
· The lack of pepperpotting of affordable housing · The proposal meant that the Council had control of the delivery of the affordable housing and the quality of the design · The position of the ground water mains RESOLVED that:
1. That subject to the Council remaining the affordable housing provider, the agreed terms of the S106 be amended to allow 21.5% affordable housing together with a financial contribution towards affordable housing of £120,000 which will be delivered through a reduction in the cost of the land to the Council.
2. That the agreed terms of the S106 be amended todischarge market housing developers from all affordable housing requirements upon the completion of the Council’s land purchase of part of the site and the grant to the Council of reserved matters or full planning permission for the affordable housing. 3. That subject to the agreement of recommendation 2 above and the Council remaining the affordable housing provider, the agreed terms of the S106 be amended to allow the open market housing to be constructed and occupied independently of the delivery of the affordable housing.
4. The agreed terms of the S106 be amended to allow a contribution of £125,000 from the developer towards the ... view the full minutes text for item 49. |
|
Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration to amend the way in which proposals to vary or delete planning obligations are dealt with in light of recent requests and to respond to changes introduced by the Government.
Minutes: The Committee had before it a report * of the Head of Planning and Regeneration In order to amend the way in which proposals to vary or delete planning obligations were dealt with in light of recent requests and to respond to changes introduced by the Government.
She outlined the contents of the report stating that there had recently been several instances where proposed changes to S106 agreements which were either acceptable in planning terms or not considered to be significant had had to come before the Committee purely because the planning application that they related to was determined by the Committee rather than under delegated powers. Provisions to deal with applications made under Section 106BA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 may also now be deleted. Under procedure changes introduced in January 2014 certain S106 amendments that related to affordable housing were amended by reference to the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee , the Cabinet Member for Housing and Ward Members without referral to committee it was proposed to extend this approach whilst retaining Member input and building in an opportunity to call the proposed S106 revisions to the Planning Committee. She highlighted the existing and proposed procedures.
RESOLVED that: the amendments to the procedure and the scheme of delegation to the Head of Planning and Regeneration be agreed.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Note:- *Report previously circulated copy attached to signed minutes.
|
|