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: Apologies were received from Cllr R F Radford and from Cllr K Busch who was substituted by Cllr Mrs G Doe. |
|
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: Referring to item 5 on the agenda Mr B Govett, a resident of Nomansland, said I would like to firstly correct a statement made by your planning officer Mr S Trafford at the planning meeting on April 6th. It was stated that lorries have been going off the lane into the ditch for the last 18 months. This is a totally incorrect statement and misleading to you all. Photo A (provided to Chair) shows the ditch bank undamaged. In fact the problem only started as a result of damage and bank eradication caused by the large lorry unit which undertook the laser pipe installation for connecting Edgeworthy Farm to Menchine farm (photos B and C). Note ditch bank still intact at commencement of the work.
The road verge was destroyed by the large unit and as a result, lorries have gone off the road into the ditch as it was continually filled with water. As the road had no denotation drivers assumed it was a puddle, not a ditch and tried to drive through it (photos d and e) illustrates.
As there have not been problems in the past the only works necessary is the reinstatement of the ditch bank. It must be appreciated the installation of a passing bay has never been and is not required now or in the future. The only thing the passing bay will do is to encourage vehicles to drive faster down the lane which will result in further eradication of our quality of life. It will also exacerbate the probability of a road traffic collision which could be overcome.
Members should be aware of their responsibility to ensure the safety of rate payers and visitors using the facilities, the countryside, in the district which must not be overridden by profit for a company.
Any monies available from the county council should be used to introduce road calming measures by width restrictions in Nomansland. Members should already be aware that there is a perpetual problem of traffic illegally speeding through our hamlet. This can, and should, be overcome by reducing the road width in places similar to those used and work well in other villages in Devon. Regrettably, the police do not have the resources to continually monitor and therefore overcome speeding in locations. Therefore installing a passing bay will not solve any problems, only exacerbate them.
Members, please be aware, if a road traffic collision occurs as a result of an incorrect decision, you will be morally responsible. Therefore I would like my comments recorded in the minutes please as I may refer to them if a traffic collision does occur in the future.
Mrs K Govett, referring to item 5 on the agenda asked why is there is a need for the proposed passing bay in the back lane if there are only going to be 9 tractor units going to Menchine per cycle, from Gibbett Moor? Could the Planning Department please make it clear as to how many units ... view the full minutes text for item 149. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING PDF 390 KB To receive the minutes of the previous meeting (attached).
Minutes: The Minutes of the last meeting were approved as a true record and signed by the Chairman. |
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
Minutes: The Chairman informed the Committee that Mr R Willing, Enforcement Officer, was leaving the authority and that she wished to thank him for all the work that he had done with this committee and to wish him the best for the future.
The Chairman reminded Members that there would be a pre-application presentation on Monday 25th April at 3.30pm for Members and the public to receive a presentation from potential developers explaining what they hoped to provide at Well Parks, Crediton and asking for comment and advice. |
|
To receive an implications report from the Head of Planning and Regeneration following discussions at the previous meeting where Members were minded to refuse the application.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee had before it * an implications report from the Head of Planning and Regeneration following discussions at the previous meeting where Members were minded to refuse the application.
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report, highlighting the application by way of presentation outlining 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. Members viewed photographs from various aspects of the site.
The Officer set out potential reasons for refusal identified by Members at the meeting of Planning Committee at the meeting of 6th April 2016. Which were:
1. Cumulative impact of the number of operations in the area particularly in respect of traffic generation. 2. Insufficient, inconsistent and inaccurate information in order for the Local Planning Authority to adequately access the impact of the application. 3. Access and traffic – the unacceptable impact of traffic generation and on highway safety 4. Landscape and visual impact.
The officer informed the Committee that, in the opinion of officers, although not risk free, there were 2 reasons which could be promoted as reasons to refuse the application.
Referring to the questions posed in public question time:
· Reference was made within the report to vehicles passing down Back Lane and driving into the ditches was a reference to information passed on by local people and was not the reason for the bay to be included;
· Road calming measures to slow traffic – as part of the assessment the views of Devon County Council Highways (DCC) had been sought and in its view the network would be safe with the incorporation of the passing bay and they had not recommended any other road safety measures;
· With regard to how many road trips would be taken this was set out on page 27 of the report which stated 9 per cycle and 54 per year in respect to the removal of chicken waste;
· Due to timing of the report some information had been shared on the update sheet. This advice was with regard to the cumulative impact on the highway and the response from DCC did not uphold this.
· Enforceability of the route – a condition could be imposed to give control and if conditions were breached this would be enforceable;
· A waste management plan could be imposed as a condition if permission was granted;
· Page 29 of the report highlighted the appeal decision for Menchine Farm which could be used to support the reasons for refusal;
· The Head of Planning and Regeneration apologised that the information regarding the Menchine Farm appeal gave the impression that the appeal had be allowed which was not the case;
Consideration was given to:
· The location of the passing bays;
· Site visits and the volume of traffic witnessed;
· The size of farm vehicles;
· Locations that chicken waste was being transported from;
· The impact on the landscape of industrial style farming;
· The ... view the full minutes text for item 152. |
|
REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMITTEE PROCEDURES PDF 478 KB To receive a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration (deferred from a previous meeting) requesting Members to review Planning Committee Procedures in light of issues that have arisen and following visits to other Local Planning Authorities undertaken in 2012/13. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee had before it a report * of the Head of Planning and Regeneration requesting that Members review Planning Committee Procedures in light of issues that have arisen and following visits to other Local Planning Authorities undertaken in 2012/13.
The Chairman introduced the report, reminding Members that it has been instigated at the request of Members of the Planning Committee in 2013.
Cllr Mrs J Roach raised some matters that had come to her attention when she was Chair of the Scrutiny Committee. She informed the Committee that issues regarding planning and enforcement had been raised at Scrutiny over a period of time but had not been looked at individually as the Committee had been informed that the review being undertaken would encompass these areas. The report subsequently took a long time and would now appear to have addressed most issues that were reported. However following consultation, which involved town and parish councils, other issues were raised that had not been addressed. She also considered that Ward Members on Planning Committee had an advantage in being able to vote on applications in their ward. Single Member wards were disadvantaged when extra meetings were called as they could not always be available to attend. Councillor Roach suggested that Special Meetings were held on the morning of a scheduled meeting to avoid this problem. She also raised the matter of the lack of dimensions on plans, stating that it was not easy to see from plans the dimensions of what was being put forward. She raised the matter of validity of information given to support business plans, referring to a previous application where she had not believed the business plan to be accurate. At committee, photographs were used to support applications which were not available on line and therefore the public did not get to see them.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration responded that there had been a wide range of issues raised but the scope of the report was set by the Planning Committee. She said that pertinent issues had been raised by Cllr Roach but that those concerns fell outside of the remit of this report.
The Chairman thanked Cllr Mrs Roach for her comments.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration outlined the contents of the report, reminding Members that the review of the operational procedures in connection with Planning Committee was requested by Members of that Committee. Members of Committee had defined the scope of that review. A report was considered at the meeting of 19th June 2013. A review was undertaken by a member working group in 2012/13 in conjunction with an officer. This included visits to a range of other councils to compare and contrast planning committee procedures with the aim of identifying best practice. The report identified a series of issues for consideration within the review of Planning Committee procedures. These were endorsed by Planning Committee:
• Information publicising committee procedures. • Layout of venue. • Participants. • Agenda format and order. • Report ... view the full minutes text for item 153. |
|