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 D J Knowles who was substituted by Cllr Mrs J Roach.
Cllr Dolley thought that he had given his apologies for the previous meeting and therefore apologised retrospectively for his absence for the meeting on 4 January 2017. |
|
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME (00-02-40) 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 Andrew Herniman spoke in relation to item 10 on the agenda, Howden Court, he asked, are the committee members aware of the recommendations on footpaths in the latest Official Police Security Initiative document Secured by Design 2016? The following is verbatim from that document and is highly pertinent to today’s determinations:
‘Routes for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles should be integrated to provide a network of supervised areas to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour. Public footpaths should not run to the rear of and provide access to gardens, rear yards or dwellings as these have been proven to generate crime. Designers should consider making the footpath a focus of the development and ensure that they are:
It is important that the user has good visibility along the route of the footpath. The footpath should be as much ‘designed’ as the buildings.
The need for lighting will be determined by local circumstances. In an inner city environment the lighting of a footpath is generally only effective in reducing crime levels (or preventing them from arsing) if it is matched with a high degree of natural surveillance from surrounding buildings where reaction to an identified incident can be expected i.e. a witness calls the police, or the footpath is well used.’
In the light of that document, are the committee members aware that the proposed footpath:
It is hoped that due consideration will be given by the committee to the Police Security Initiative document, Secured by Design 2016, when a decision is made about this proposed footpath.
Mrs Herniman, also speaking in relation to item 10, Howden Court, asked, are the committee members aware that at the time the planning application was submitted for approval, it was pointed out by the developer to the Planning Officers that the pathway, because of the variance in elevations, would be impossible to be built to adoptable standard? I’m wondering if anyone from the planning committee came to see these difficult elevations prior to granting consent?
In recent weeks, councillors on the planning committee, who have made a site visit, have been appalled that this was part of the consent in the first place. It seems ridiculous that originally, when Heritage was granted planning permission, Heritage had to put in a road, which curved three times to get to the top. Now you are deliberating on a footpath, which was also going to include a cycle path originally, which is to have forty steps to ... view the full minutes text for item 128. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING PDF 363 KB To receive the minutes of the previous meeting (attached).
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 4 January 2017 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. |
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (00-15-45) To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
Minutes: The Chairman had no announcements to make. |
|
DEFERRALS FROM THE PLANS LIST (00-16-00) To report any items appearing in the Plans List which have been deferred.
Minutes: The Chairman informed the meeting that Item 2 (Land South of Lea Road, Tiverton) had been deferred to allow additional time for further consideration of the application. |
|
THE PLANS LIST (00-17-03) PDF 2 MB To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
Minutes:
(a) No 1 on the Plans List (16/01699/FULL – Erection of 8 affordable dwellings with associated access, parking, drainage and landscaping at land at NGR 271041 93178, Yeoford Road, Cheriton Bishop)
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location plan and the scope of the application site. He outlined the planning history for the site and the already approved scheme that had not been progressed because of funding issues. A new funding stream had been identified and therefore a fresh application was before Members today. He explained the proposed layout of the affordable dwellings, the dimensions and design details which had a similar approach to existing dwellings in the area. Members were shown photographs from various aspects of the site which highlighted the distance from the village centre.
Consideration was given to:
· The history of the Community Land Trust, its work in progressing the project and the local housing need for affordable dwellings in the area. · The need for the affordable housing to go to local people and the use of the local cascade system. · The details of the proposed S106 Agreement. · Issues relating to the lack of a footpath close to the site and the need for safe access. · The possibility of the speed limit being managed.
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the prior signing of a S106 agreement to secure an education contribution (£13,652 and £2,603) and to ensure the retention of all the housing as affordable housing in perpetuity, the inclusion of a local allocations policy, that the Community Land Trust retains a legal interest and 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 D R Coren and P J Heal made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning matters as they were Ward Members and had been involved in discussions regarding the application;
(ii) The Chairman read a letter on behalf of the Objectors to the application;
(iii) Mr Gorringe spoke on behalf of the applicant;
(iv) Mr Byron-Edmond read a representation from the Vice Chairman of the Parish Council;
(v) Cllrs D R Coren and P J Heal spoke as Ward Members.
(b) No 2 on the Plans List (16/01707/FULL – Outline for the erection of 41 dwellings and formation of vehicular aces – land at NGR 295527 113644 (South of Lea Road) Tiverton).
This item had been deferred as outlined in Minute 131.
(c) No 3 on the Plans List (16/01773/MARM – Reserved Matters for the erection of mixed use facilities building with associated parking and highway works following outline approval 13/00947/MOUT – land at NGR 305036 113872 (Junction 27) Sampford Peverell)
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way ... view the full minutes text for item 132. |
|
THE DELEGATED LIST (1-47-09) PDF 265 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 (1-50-00) PDF 31 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 17/00001/MOUT – land adjacent to Highfield, Bickleigh be brought before the committee for determination and that a site visit take place.
Application 16/01988/MOUT – Knowle Lane, Cullompton be brought before committee for determination if minded to approve.
Application 16/01932/MFUL – land at Higher Barn, Bampton be brought before committee for determination but that no site visit take place.
Members were also asked to consider whether a new application at Dulings Farm, Copplestone (which had only recently been validated) should be brought before the committee for determination – this was agreed.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to the Minutes
|
|
APPEAL DECISIONS (1-54-55) PDF 18 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 updated report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration following consideration of the proposed footpath link between the new housing estate and Palmerston Park at the meeting on 30 November 2016. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee had before it a *report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration providing updated information following consideration of the proposed footpath link between the new housing estate and Palmerston Park at a previous meeting.
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report highlighting discussions at a previous meeting when Members had deferred the decision to allow further discussion to take place with the developer with regard to the formation of a footpath between Howden Court and Palmerston Park. He outlined the revised route shown in appendix 2 of the report and the officer’s recommendation that policy AL/TIV/10 should be followed.
He explained by way of presentation the site layout and the route of the footpath as stated in the approved application, Members viewed photographs from various aspects of the site which included the existing footpath to Exeter Road.
Consideration was given to:
· Who would use the proposed footpath · The fact that the Highway Authority did not propose to adopt the footpath · Whether the footpath would improve the connectivity of the site to Palmerston Park · Whether the area would be lit · The area was not in the ownership of the developer and whether access would be restricted · An offsite financial contribution towards the Palmerston Park play area that that had been paid as part of the original S106 agreement · The Crime Support Officer’s original representation to the application · Whether a financial contribution could be sought in place of a footpath in this instance · The fact that the proposed footpath would be difficult for pushchair users or cyclists · The fact that 95% of the residents did not want the path · There were other footpaths/steps in Tiverton which were as steep · The policy requirement
RESOLVED that: the requirement for the footpath link between the Howden Court development and Palmerston Park be waived and instead an offsite financial contribution be made towards enhanced pedestrian facilities in Tiverton town centre and that delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and Regeneration to negotiate this in consultation with the Ward Members.
(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr B A Moore)
Notes:
(i) Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge, Mrs Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, R J Dolley, P J Heal, F W Letch, B A Moore, R F Radford, Mrs J Roach, 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 correspondence regarding the application;
(ii) Cllr R J Dolley declared a personal interest as Ward Member as he had been involved in discussions regarding the application;
(iii) Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as he knew some of the objectors;
(iv) Mr Reetz spoke on behalf of the objectors;
(v) Cllr Mrs Harrower spoke on behalf of Tiverton Town Council;
(vi) Cllr R J Dolley spoke as Ward Member and voiced the concerns of local people;
(vii) Cllr P J Heal requested ... view the full minutes text for item 136. |
|
PLANNING PERFORMANCE (3-00-35) PDF 234 KB To receive a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration providing the Committee with information on the performance of Planning Services for the quarter 3 of the 2016/17 financial year
Minutes: The Committee had before it and NOTED a report * of the Head of Planning and Regeneration providing the Committee with information on the performance of Planning Services for quarter 3 of the 2016/17 financial year. She outlined the contents of the report highlighting the performance to date and stating that the Government had set a range of additional performance targets in order to drive performance, speed and quality were now being measured and non-majors were now a requirement in that 65% needed to be determined within 8 weeks (over a 2 year period). Consideration was given to the number of enforcement cases outstanding and the measure of quality being addressed by the number of appeals overturned.
Note: *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes;
|
|