Venue: Phoenix Chamber, Phoenix House, Tiverton
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 G Doe.
Apologies were also received from Cllr D J Knowles and J D Squire. |
|
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME (00-02-02) 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:
Heather Woodman, representing her client and referring to item 12 (19 Exeter Road) on the agenda, stated that at the last meeting the Committee had spoken about the merits of the proposal. The implications report before you today sets out in detail the fact that this application does introduce change to this part of Exeter Road and that the decision on this application requires a very balanced judgement. We listened to the Members discussion on the website and looked again at the scheme following the meeting in July and the revised plans that you have today have been submitted for your consideration that address those concerns that you raised and as your planning and conservation officers advise they do improve the proposal. It is still considered that to provide two three bedroomed houses on this site is more desirable for the village in principle. Silverton property prices are at a premium, it would be for more affordable for local people who wish to trade up to have a family house rather than a single four plus bedroomed house on this site. The two dwellings have now been set back further into the site as the Members and conservation officer indicated they wanted and this has reduced the impact of the building on the street scene. The access into the site has been moved into the centre so that much of the stone boundary wall along the frontage is now retained and the sense of enclosure is maintained and the conservation area is enhanced because there were concerns about the loss of this stone wall so parking and turning for vehicles has now been provided behind the wall so that vehicles can enter and leave in forward gear as you indicated you desired.
Further landscaping is also proposed with the site especially on the boundary with Orchard Jeffrey, that’s the house that is 22 metres to the north, so the new landscaping breaks up the gable of the north building and the modest increase in height will subsequently have little impact now. Conditions can be attached to this landscaping so that it can be maintained in perpetuity. The consultation responses on the new plans are that the highways authority has no objection and the conservation officer has advised that this scheme is far less harmful so her previous recommendation for refusal is not repeated. The planning officer’s recommendations are that the new plans are an improvement. It’s considered that your previously stated concerns have now been fully considered and addressed. The consultation responses from your various officers on the changes to the submitted plans that improve the siting, scale and parking and effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area show that the reasons suggested for refusal cannot now be sustained so on the balance of consideration of all material considerations, the scheme before you is now acceptable under your planning policies and the applicant asks that you approve it now please.
Mr Ian Pike speaking in relation to ... view the full minutes text for item 65. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (00-30-18) PDF 380 KB To receive the minutes of the previous meeting.
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 3 August 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
|
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (00-31-12) To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
Minutes: The Chairman had the following announcements to make:
· She reported that Cllr Knowles was still in hospital following surgery and on behalf of the Committee conveyed her best wishes to him.
· Following decisions at Full Council (31 August 2016), some changes had been made to procedures followed by the Committee, the objector would now speak before the applicant and Ward Members would be given 5 minutes to speak on Ward issues whether or not they were on the Planning Committee. |
|
ENFORCEMENT LIST (00-33-05) PDF 6 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/16/00131/AGTIE– Breach of Condition (f) of planning permission 88/1726/OUT which states: the occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed; or last employed in the locality in agriculture, as defined in Section 290(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (including dependants of such person residing with him or her) or widow or widower of such a person - Nethercott, Brithem Bottom).
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report stating that the issue to be discussed was non-compliance with an agricultural occupancy condition. An application had been received to amend the condition which had been refused on the grounds that no information had been provided to demonstrate that the property had been marketed for sale under the terms of the condition, in an appropriate way for an appropriate period of time or at an appropriate price. No substantive evidence had been provided to indicate that there was no need for an agricultural occupancy condition on the property.
The property owner stated that she had had some tenants who had complied with the agricultural occupancy but that she would like to rent the property out at a reasonable rent so she could keep the property for the family and wanted the agricultural tie lifted.
Consideration was given to the agricultural occupancy condition, the size of the dwelling and the evidence required to instigate the lifting of the condition.
RESOLVED that having regard to the provisions of the Mid Devon Development Plan and all other material planning considerations in accordance with Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) as amended; the Legal Services Manager be given delegated authority to issue a breach of condition enforcement notice and to take any legal action deemed appropriate including prosecution in the event of non-compliance with the notice.
(Proposed Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge and seconded by Cllr P J Heal)
Note: Mrs Emmet, property owner, spoke.
b) No. 2 in the Enforcement List (Enforcement Case ENF/09/00048/LIS– without listed building consent the execution of works for the alteration (the works) to the listed building namely the removal of timber windows and doors in the facade and inserting uPVC windows and a door – 5 Dukes Cottages, Bow).
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report highlighting the breach via a selection of photographs. He explained that the cottages had been listed in 1986 and that works to No 1 Dukes Cottages had taken place prior to the listing. The owners of No. 5 Dukes cottages had been requested to rectify the breach with regard to the windows and the door, but had not done so.
Consideration was given to whether the windows at the rear of the property were also uPVC and the steps required to rectify the breach.
RESOLVED ... view the full minutes text for item 68. |
|
DEFERRALS FROM THE PLANS LIST (00-53-57) To report any items appearing in the Plans List which have been deferred.
Minutes: The Chairman informed the meeting that Item 1 (Hayden End, Blackborough) on the Plans List had been deferred. |
|
THE PLANS LIST (00-54-40) PDF 236 KB To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
Minutes:
a) No 1 on the Plans List (16/00817/FULL – Construction of an all-weather riding arena at Land at NGR 311229 111913 (Hayden End) Blackborough)
This item had been deferred as stated in Minute 69.
(b) No 2 on the Plans List (16/01007/FULL– Variation of Condition (7) of planning permission 00/01534/FULL to allow the holiday lodge to be used as a dwelling from September to April inclusive and remain as a holiday let at all other times - Gilberts Lodge, Morebath. The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report and explained that it had been demonstrated that the property was not viable as a holiday cottage in the winter months and that the applicant had requested that the condition be varied to allow short term lets in the winter months and that it would return to holiday lodge for the summer. Consideration was given to: · Planning policy · Whether enough evidence had been gathered to demonstrate the lack of viability for holiday use throughout the winter months. RESOLVED that permission be granted to vary Condition 8 of planning permission 00/01534/FULL to allow the holiday lodge to be used as a dwelling from September to April inclusive and remain as a holiday let at all other times subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration. (Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr R J Dolley)
Notes:
(i) Cllr B A Moore declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest as he was the applicant and left the meeting whilst a decision was taken;
(ii) Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as the applicant was a fellow Ward Member and close associate;
(iii) Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge declared a personal interest as she owned holiday cottages;
(iv) Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge requested that her vote against the decision be recorded;
(v) Cllr F W Letch requested that his abstention from voting be recorded;
(vi) The following late information was reported: Morebath Parish Council had considered the planning at its meeting yesterday evening, and their comments are:"Morebath Parish Council has no grounds for objection, however if the property was to be converted to a dwelling on a permanent basis, the Council would expect to see a new planning application for change of use, so as to not set a precedent for development creep."
(c) No 3 on the Plans List (16/01090/FULL– Installation of 2 replacement windows with doors at Tiverton Library and Learning Centre, Phoenix House, Tiverton) The Head of Planning and Regeneration outlined the contents of the report stating that the application to remove windows and replace with doors would allow weekend access to the Library without the entire Council building being unlocked. RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration. (Proposed by the Chairman)
Note: Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as the Cabinet Member for Housing.
|
|
THE DELEGATED LIST (1-12-05) PDF 305 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 (1-12-32) 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.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to the Minutes
|
|
APPEAL DECISIONS (1-14-22) PDF 26 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. Additional documents: 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 explanation, highlighting the illustrative masterplan for the site and explaining the history to the site and the outline application determined by the Committee in 2014. Following consideration of the S106 agreement, the developers had requested that Condition 6 and 10 be amended changing pre commencement to pre-occupation.
He referred the Committee to the access issues to the site and the programme of works identified (highlighted in appendices A and B) and the original formation of a two way access to Station Road from the A377. The Road Safety Audit had however stated that a one way system would be appropriate. This would also allay problems with attaining a piece of land owned by an adjoining resident.
A representative from Devon County Council Highways Authority outlined the pre application discussions that had taken place regarding a priority scheme and the road safety audit stages that had taken place. He informed the meeting that there were concerns regarding a one way system but that it was not possible to impose a condition that required the purchase of 3rd party land.
The Area Planning Officer provided answers to questions posed in public question time:
· Why Appendix B was not included in the signed S106 agreement – ongoing work had taken place with the Highway Authority, there had been a need to discharge Condition 10, however the plan had not been discharged and that was why it was before the Committee today. · The officer report ignored advice in the Road Safety Assessment process - Mr Sorenson had answered that, the issue was about road safety. · The advice had been contrary to the Road Safety Audit – that was the Highway Authority view. · The recommendation is being put to the meeting because the land had not been acquired – the update sheet clarified the situation with regard to advice from the Highway Authority, a detailed response set out in the report justified the recommendation.
Consideration was given to:
· Road safety and the issue of backing-up onto the A377 and the results of the road safety audit · The preference of the Highway Authority · Issues regarding the purchase of 3rd party land to progress a two way system · The need for the developer and the 3rd party land owner to negotiate further · Construction traffic entering the site
RESOLVED that
a) agreement in principle be confirmed (subject to the submission and resolution of a formal application – section 73A) that conditions 6 and 10 are amended so that they are not pre-commencement conditions, with the trigger for the completion of the works covered by each condition set as.
6. Neither the new school building and associated facilities nor the new housing shall be occupied until the following works have been completed:
a) The access road has been laid out, kerbed, drained and constructed ... view the full minutes text for item 74. |
|
To receive an implications report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration as at a previous meeting Members had been 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 Area Planning Officer answered questions posed in public question time:
· With regard to the visibility splay and the height of the bank - the Manual for Streets requires visibility up to 25 metres above a height of 600mm with no obstruction. The height of the hedge bank at 900 mm was acceptable as it was still below driver eye line. Part of the visibility splay was outside the control of the application in that it crossed the neighbouring property, but this was acceptable to the Highway Authority as at this point it crossed the neighbour’s drive
· The scale and massing remained the same, the application had been considered on balance and would still sit in line with No 21 Exeter Road, there would be reasonable sized gardens and acceptable separation.
She outlined the contents of the report reminding the meeting of the site location plan, and providing photographs of the property to be demolished and the street scene; Members viewed the original plans and the revised drawings which would move the property back marginally and the amendment to the access which would allow a turning point, therefore removing the need to reverse onto the highway.
Consideration was given to:
· The revised plans that had been submitted · The fact that some people had not been able to comment on the revised plans · The policy for speaking to an implications report · The consultation that had taken place · Design issues and possible overdevelopment of the site
RESOLVED that the application be deferred to allow public speaking to take place at the next meeting in the interest of fairness.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge)
Notes:
(i) Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge, Mrs C A Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, R J Dolley, P J Heal, F W Letch, B A Moore and R L Stanley made declarations in accordance with the protocol of good practice for Councillors dealing in planning matters as they had received correspondence regarding the application. (ii) Cllr Mrs J Roach spoke as Ward Member; (iii) A proposal to refuse the application was not supported; (iv) The following late information was reported: SILVERTON PARISH COUNCIL (6/9/16): the proposed development is too large, represents overdevelopment of the site, is overbearing and will dominate and change the appearance of Exeter Road. Concerns are also expressed relating to loss of Devon hedge bank and volume of traffic that will use the proposed access.
Resident (31/8/16): concern that the Conservation officer has misunderstood the revised proposal that the height of the hedgebank is ambiguously labelled as ‘below 900mm’. The revised drawings indicate that the visibility splay cuts across the neighbouring property – land beyond the applicants control.
Resident (26/8.16): comments of support withdrawn.
(v) *Report previously circulated copy attached to signed minutes.
|
|
To receive a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration deferred from the previous meeting for a site visit by the Planning Working Group. 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 Principal Planning Officer and the Head of Planning and Regeneration provided responses to questions posed within public question time:
· The views of the residents had been taken into consideration; there had been opportunity for involvement in the application as there were 2 stages of consultation and at the previous committee meeting along with involvement in the site visit. · The application had to be determined on the basis of national and local policy evidence and material consideration. A number of revisions had been made to the scheme in response to objections from the parish Council and local residents. · The impact on the historic environment had been considered and 3 stakeholders including Historic England and the Conservation Officer had provided responses None were recommending refusal, Mid Devon’s Conservation Officer noted that only less than substantial harm arose. Devon County Council’s archaeology team were satisfied that mitigation via the use of conditions was acceptable. · With regard to the local heritage asset listing, the site was originally identified on the heritage asset list, this was subject to information coming from local parties, some of which agreed and some disagreed. The site was removed from the register and a letter sent on 16 November 2015 to that effect, having reassessed the issues against criteria for selection. · The Conservation Officer had stated that more information was required to assess the impact – this was provided by the applicant and used to inform the assessment of impact to the historic environment. · With regard to green space – the site was proposed as Local Green Space in the Local Plan Review – however the Local Plan Review had yet to be adopted and there were objections to the designation, it would now rest with the inspector at examination. · With regard to the application being less damaging than the previous with regard to the historic environment - more information was available to enable a fuller assessment of the scheme’s impact. · With regard to relevant planning policies, consideration had to be given to the Uffculme appeal decision regarding land supply, in which the inspector concluded policies COR 3, COR 17 and COR 18 were not up to date. The Local Plan Review would rectify this. · Reference to the Core Strategy and services and infrastructure, the 4 dwellings would not lead to an increase in services or facilities, however the level of facilities within the village was a consideration in reaching the recommendation to approve the scheme.
He continued by outlining the contents of the report by way of presentation, highlighting the site plan, the proposed elevations of the development, the proposed section drawings and photographs from various aspects of the site.
The representative from Devon County Council Highway Authority stated that with regard to the visibility splay, as the ... view the full minutes text for item 76. |
|
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. The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report highlighting the proposal for 14 market dwellings and 8 affordable homes. The proposed development was outside the settlement limit and she explained the policy issues with regard to the principles for development and the 5 year land supply issue. Members viewed a presentation which highlighted the proposed site layout, the extension to Griffin Close the retention of the trees and photographs from various aspects of the site.
Consideration was given to:
· The work taking place between the Community Land Trust and West of England Homes · The application had been worked up over a period of time in response to local need · The cascading process with regard to the affordable homes.
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to:
The signing of a Section 106 agreement in respect of :
a) The provision of 8 affordable dwellings on the site
b) A financial contribution of £26,510 towards improvements to Higher and Lower Millhayes open spaces
c) A financial contribution of £73,495 towards additional secondary education infrastructure and secondary education transport costs
Conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration with an amendment to Condition 14 to state: No development shall begin until a detailed permanent surface water drainage management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to include details of the gradients of the attenuation pond and long term management and maintenance plans for the SUDS scheme. The detailed permanent surface water drainage management plan shall be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Report (No. FRA01 Rev – dated May 2016).
And that negotiations take place on the allocation cascade agreement for the affordable homes
(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge)
Notes:
(i) Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as Cabinet Member for Housing (ii) Cllr P J Heal declared a personal interest as Chairman of the Homes Policy Development Group; (iii) Mr Punnet spoke as a supporter of the scheme; (iv) Cllr F J Rosamond spoke as Ward Member; (v) The following late information was reported: 2nd September 2016 –
Hemyock Parish Council has noted that their comments on foul drainage have not been addressed in the officer’s report. South West Water has a duty to accept connections into its system for new dwellings. SWW receives a list of all planning applications and comments only on those applications where it has concerns, for example it will object if it has concerns over the capacity of the sewage system to take additional foul drainage. SWW has not commented on this proposal and it is therefore accepted that the SWW has no issues with the additional foul drainage from this development.
6th September 2016 –
Additional ... view the full minutes text for item 77. |
|