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: There were no apologies for absence. |
|
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME (00:01:18) 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: Ken Warren spoke in relation to item 11 on the agenda, Dulings Farm, Copplestone, and asked the following questions:
Helen Olsson, also speaking in relation to Dulings Farm asked the following:
1. Why did the developer, once again, not seek community consultation before submitting this duplicate application, despite there being evident flaws, errors and huge public concern with the previous application?
2. Hasn’t the developer submitted exactly the same Flood Risk Assessment, which still does not satisfactorily demonstrate that surface water can be controlled and discharged to the Salix Stream channel without resulting in unacceptable flood risk downstream, which was a key reason for your rejection of the last application?
Again, in relation to Dulings Farm, Alice Fraser asked:
1. Could the officer please explain in more detail how a large HGV turning into Elston Lane from the A377 and meeting a tractor or lorry coming down Elston Lane, could safely manoeuvre around the proposed new junction without being forced to reverse onto the A377? Particularly when the ‘realignment’ of Elston Lane means that the junction onto the lane from the A377 will be narrower, sharper and without passing place, than it is currently.
2. Could the Planning Officer please explain what is the difference in this application compared to the one discussed in January – particularly on sustainability, cumulative impact, neighbourhood consultation and flooding, which may cause the committee members to reach a different decision?
The Chairman indicated that the questions would be dealt with when item 11 was discussed.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (00:05:50) PDF 583 KB To receive the minutes of the previous meeting.
Minutes: Subject to an amendment to Minute 158 Notes (ii) removing reference to Cllr R L Stanley and replacing with Cllr C R Slade, the minutes of the meeting held on 29 March were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. |
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (00:07:20) To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
Minutes: The Chairman had no announcements to make. |
|
ENFORCEMENT LIST (00:09:03) PDF 170 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/17/00066/LB – Listed building in a poor state of repair – Manor House Hotel, Fore Street, Cullompton).
The Head of Planning and Regeneration outlined the contents of the report by way of photographs showing water ingress and failing render on the outside of the building. Discussions had been ongoing with the owner and scaffolding erected for the protection of the public. She explained the previous enforcement history of the site.
Consideration was given to the continued deterioration of the building and its impact, the various other buildings owned by the same person within Cullompton was noted with concern also being expressed over their condition.
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 repair and redecoration of the exterior of the listed building. In addition, in the event of a failure to comply with any notice served to authorise prosecution and/or direct action.
(Proposed Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge and seconded by Cllr R J Dolley)
Notes:
(i) Councillor R J Dolley declared a personal interest as he knew the owner of the property;
(ii) Cllr Iain Emmett from Cullompton Town Council spoke. |
|
DEFERRALS FROM THE PLANS LIST (00:20:38) 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 (00:20:45) PDF 648 KB To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
Minutes:
(a) No 6 on the Plans List (17/00323/FULL– Erection of 3 dwellings (revised scheme) – land at NGR 296643 113493 – adjacent to 37 Beech Road, Tiverton).
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration and payment of a financial contribution of £2,700 towards the provision of public open space.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Notes:
(i) Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as the Cabinet Member for Housing and indicated that he wished to abstain from voting;
(ii) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe declared a personal interest as the County Councillor for the area.
(b) No 1 on the Plans List (16/001888/MOUT – Outline for the erection of up to 40 dwellings, formation of 64 space car park to service Copplestone Railway Station, public open space, vehicular access from Shambles Drive, pedestrian links and associated infrastructure – Land at NGR 276566 103177 (Old Abattoir Site (Shambles Drive), Copplestone.)
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation showing photographs of the site in question which included the frontage arrangements on to the A377, views back towards the existing site and looking back towards the main village of Copplestone. Panoramic views across the site were also shown. The officer explained that pre-application discussions had taken place and a summary of the key issues was given. The requirement to provide 24% affordable housing was also confirmed.
Revised conditions on the update sheet were explained.
Consideration was given as to:
· The formula used by Devon County Council to allocate school places. It was explained that Devon County Council used a standard formula that was applied consistently across the whole of Devon. · How the affordable housing percentage had been calculated. · The provision of car parking spaces to serve the station being welcomed. · Development would bring a much needed ‘tidying up’ of the site.
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and the prior signing of the provision of a Section 106 Agreement to secure:
1. The delivery of 24 % affordable housing on-site, and the submission of an affordable housing delivery plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in advance of any reserved matters applications being submitted for formal consideration. The reserved matters submissions will be required to reflect the terms of the approved delivery plan.
2. A combined primary school and early years education contribution of £146,520.00 to be used to provide facilities within the Copplestone catchment area.
3. A secondary school contribution of £15,960.00 towards school transport to Queen Elizabeth's Academy Trust.
4. Specification for car park and transfer arrangements.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr J D Squire)
Notes:
(i) Cllrs P J Heal and Cllr D R Coren made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice ... view the full minutes text for item 168. |
|
THE DELEGATED LIST (02:19:02) PDF 242 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 (02:19:23) PDF 21 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
|
|
To receive a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration considering amendments to the conditions to be imposed under planning application reference 14/00604/MFUL prior to the decision notice being issued. 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 stating that a S106 agreement had been signed and its content had resulted in condition 12 no longer being required. Also, following the issuing of a ministerial statement in March 2015 some planning policy requirements/development standards had been removed resulting in fewer planning conditions required. It was now proposed to delete planning conditions 12, 16, 17, 18 and 19.
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the signed S106 and a revised set of conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Notes-:
(i) Cllr D J Knowles declared a personal interest as he had had a lot to do with the area and previous planning application.
(ii) *Report previously circulated copy attached to minutes.
|
|
To receive a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding the application requesting Members to determine this new planning application following the refusal of an earlier application for 60 dwellings on this site.
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 stating that this was a new planning application following refusal of an earlier application. Five reasons had previously been given for this refusal. An appeal had been lodged by the applicant and a statement of case would need to be supplied by the local planning authority by the end of the week.
Aerial photographs were shown illustrating various boundaries and the location of the school in relation to the footpath and the community playing fields. A close up of the new junction arrangements was also provided.
In discussing the previous 5 reasons for refusal the officer explained that reason number 4 and 5 would be difficult to defend without any objection from the relevant statutory consultee and as such were not deemed to be as robust a pair of reasons as previously discussed, however, arguments could be made to continue to justify refusal of this application on reasons 1, 2 and 3.
In answer to the questions raised during Public Question Time it was stated that the Local Plan Review had established the Council’s position with regard to the growth of Copplestone. It was confirmed that the site was outside the current settlement limit. He could not comment on why the developer had not sought community consultation before submitting this revised application but confirmed that they had not. He also confirmed that the same suite of documents had been submitted including the Flood Risk Assessment. He further confirmed that there were new proposed junction arrangements and showed the tracking plan that had been submitted and again reiterated the fact that Devon County’s Highways Authority had endorsed these new junction arrangements. He confirmed that there were no significant difference between this and the previous application.
Consideration was given to:
· The way in which school places are allocated by Devon County Council. · Resulting traffic problems if the application was approved. · The lack of any change between the previous application and the new one. · The site being outside the settlement limit.
RESOLVED that planning permission be further refused based upon the following reasons:
1. The application site is outside the current settlement limit boundaries of the village of Copplestone and is in the open countryside. Policy COR18 of the adopted Mid Devon Core Strategy (Local Plan Part 1) seeks to strictly control development outside settlement limits and a development in this location of the scale as proposed would not be permitted under criteria a - f of this adopted policy. Neither is the site proposed to be allocated for housing within the Councils Local Plan Review 2013 -2033. The applicant asserts that the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate that it has an adequate five year supply of housing land as required by the National Planning Policy Framework, and therefore Policy COR18 should be afforded limited weight and that the application should be determined against ... view the full minutes text for item 172. |
|
To receive a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration with regard to this application that was deferred from the previous meeting to allow for a site visit by the Planning Working Group to take place (notes of site visit to follow). Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee had before it a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration which had been deferred from the previous meeting so that a site visit could be made by the Planning Working Group.
The Conservation Officer outlined the contents of the report stating that the officers recommendation for refusal was based upon design, over use of the space as well as structural concerns and standard requirements regarding unilateral agreements. The main issues related to whether the application complied with policies DM11 and DM27. Photographs were shown illustrating the elevations concerned and the layout of the interiors. A key issue for the planning authority was in weighing up the balance of harm to heritage assets versus public benefit. It was further explained that officers had tried to reach an amicable agreement with the applicant but had been unsuccessful.
Consideration was given to:
· A site visit which had recently taken place. · What was perceived to be the inappropriate use of the barns for agricultural use today. · Whether or not there was sufficient car parking on site. · The sensitivity of future design.
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted for the conversion of 5 redundant agricultural buildings to 5 residential dwellings subject to securing a S106 Agreement for £7,210 for public open space and £22,170 towards air quality mitigation measure contributions and that delegated authority to be given to the Head of Planning and Regeneration to draft a set of conditions.
Reason: It was felt that it made appropriate use of buildings not suitable for modern agricultural needs and secured their future. It provided new residential accommodation. Five units were considered to be acceptable and that the scheme did not detract from the setting of the listing building and the parking provision was also felt to be acceptable.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr R J Dolley)
(Vote: 6 for, 5 against)
Notes-:
(i) Cllr P J Heal declared a personal interest as he had been at the Parish Council meeting where the application had been discussed. He also knew the land owner.
(ii) Cllr F W Letch declared a personal interest as he knew some members of the family.
(iii) Keith Garside, the agent, spoke.
(iv) Cllr P J Heal spoke as Ward Member.
(v) Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge, Mrs C Collis, J D Squire and R L Stanley requested that their vote against the decision be recorded.
(vi) *Report previously circulated copy attached to minutes.
|
|
To receive a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding Tree Preservations Orders in the Howden Court Area. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee had before it and NOTED a report * of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding the above application.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration outlined the contents of the report stating the proposal was to delete a single Tree Preservation Order (TPO) covering the whole of the site and to replace it with 11 separate TPO’s. This proposal represented good practice which was to put in place early protection but to then subsequently review that. An objection had been received; but that there was a process whereby the property owners would be formally notified and given opportunity to comment. If any objections were received a report would be brought before the committee.
Consideration was given to whether or not this would reduce the number of trees which were protected. It was confirmed that this was the case as the previous TPO covered the whole area and it was now proposed to rationalise protection through 11 separate orders having conducted a more detailed survey of the trees on the site.
Notes-:
(i) Cllrs R J Dolley and D J Knowles declared personal interests as they knew some of the residents of Howden Court.
(ii) Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as he knew the person who owned Howden Court.
(iii) *Report previously circulated copy attached to minutes.
|
|
PLANNING PRODUCTIVITY REVIEW (03:44:33) PDF 215 KB To receive a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration (deferred from the previous meeting) updating the Planning Committee on the recent assessment of productivity in the Planning Service. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee had before it and NOTED a report * of the Head of Planning and Regeneration updating the Committee on the recent assessment of productivity in the Planning Service.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration outlined the contents of the report stating that officers were putting together a service improvement plan and enforcement vacancies within the service were currently being advertised. She highlighted the need for the Committee to consider the procedures in place for Planning Committee meetings and during discussion the following feedback was provided:
· Reports needed to be as succinct as possible. · Information relating to consultations did not need to be so lengthy. · More proof reading need to take place.
The following was AGREED:
(i) The Head of Planning and Regeneration would contact Devon County Council to arrange for a briefing to Members in order to provide an understanding as to how school places were allocated locally or for a briefing paper to be circulated explaining this process.
(ii) The Delegated List to not be included in the agenda pack from now on but to be circulated electronically to the Committee once a month.
(iii) The Head of Planning and Regeneration would bring a report to the Committee, as per their wishes, proposing the expansion of her delegated powers in relation to enforcement.
Note-: *Report previously circulated copy attached to minutes.
|
|