Skip to main content

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Phoenix Chamber, Phoenix House, Tiverton

Contact: Sally Gabriel  Member Services Manager

Link: audiorecording

Items
No. Item

124.

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 R J Dolley.

125.

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME (00-02-55)

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 Wood, referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Crediton Garden Centre) stated: I am a veterinary surgeon and I have a point about the Crediton Garden Centre development. I have lived opposite this proposed development site for roughly six years and this area will always be designated as open countryside. I would like to ask the planning people why this has not been taken into account. 45% of this application site was land only purchased by the applicant in 2017, this land as I said has always been designated as open countryside and has previously had planning permission refused 6 times plus twice on appeal. This was to prevent harm to this countryside area and landscape so surely this should be a material consideration now. I would also like to know why a full landscape assessment has not been carried out, the independent landscape assessment from Cambrian Landscape Architects strongly concluded this development would have a harmful effect on the landscape despite the revisions. Allowing this development would have a major negative effect on the surrounding area and especially the landscape. In addition it will affect my home where I have lived for 6 years and my business as well by making the traffic considerably more congested in this area. It’s already difficult for traffic anyway and this will make it much much worse. Our residential amenity and privacy will also be affected by the noise and disturbance of the delivery and staff vehicles using entrances opposite our property. I hope the councillors will take account of the harm to the landscape and also our local residents’ objections.

 

Mr Adams, referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Crediton Garden Centre) stated: – Can the planning officer please explain how the proposed retail restriction could possibly protect gardening retailers in Crediton such as Adams, Tuckers Country Store and Mole Avon?  25% of the footfall in Crediton High Street was shown by the Mid Devon retail study to be generated by my shop Adams. However we and other garden retailers would not be protected at all by the restrictions proposed. If we or other garden retailers in Crediton were to close it could be a tipping point for the towns future. Footfall on the high street would dramatically drop and the town centre would go into decline. Tesco and other supermarkets have some restrictions on general merchandise such as gardening items. However a garden centre just on the edge of town with 4800sq metres of space selling garden items would have an even stronger harmful effect on garden retailers in the town. This harm has not been taken into account in the retail implications report and so the actual impact would be much greater than that reported.

 

Mr Bond, referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Crediton Garden Centre) stated: – I own a greengrocers on the high street in Crediton. Can the officer please advise how the retail restrictions would protect the town at Christmas time? The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 125.

126.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT

Councillors are reminded of the requirement to declare any interest, including the type of interest, and reason for that interest at each item.

 

Minutes:

Members were reminded of the need to declare any interests when appropriate.  At this point, the Group Manager for Legal Services and Monitoring Officer also spoke to Members generally about their right to speak freely and predetermination.

 

 

 

127.

MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING pdf icon PDF 159 KB

Members to consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 6 March 2019.

Minutes:

Subject to the inclusion of Cllrs R F Radford and R L Stanley in the attendance list, the minutes of the meeting held on 6 March 2019 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

 

 

128.

CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (00-29-14)

         To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make. 

 

Minutes:

The Chairman had the following announcements to make:

 

·         She informed Members of a special meeting taking place at Cullompton Town Hall on 17 April at 10.00am.  A site visit to the NW Cullompton site would take place on Tuesday 16 April leaving Phoenix House at 10.30am and meeting on site at 11.00am.

·         The next ordinary meeting would take place on Tuesday 23 April at Phoenix House, any site visits for that meeting would be held on Thursday 18 April.

·         She introduced the 2 new members of staff who were present, Jake Choules, Planning Assistant and Oliver Dorrell, Planning Officer.

129.

MOTION 553 - (COUNCILLOR R B EVANS - 13 FEBRUARY 2019) (00-33-08

To consider the following motion forwarded by Council for consideration:

(1)          Motion 533 (Councillor R B Evans – 13 February 2019)

The Council has before it a MOTION submitted for the first time:

 

Background

Members are aware that a number of planning applications need to go to Planning Committee for consideration; these applications have an array of detail and associated information for members to consider along with an officer recommendation and report.

Within this suite of reports there is often a detail on affordable housing and the section 106 agreement outlining jointly agreed contributions that will be applied to the build should the application be successful, these agreements are evidently part of the detail members are asked to consider and naturally will assist members in making their informed decision .

It has become apparent that after approval has been received, it is not uncommon for developers/ applicants to seek to alter such agreements retrospectively via negotiations with officers, common reasons cited are funding/ budget related.

This motion is sought to be applied to any planning application that has been considered by the planning committee and evidently agreed where a retrospective application to alter the affordable housing or the section 106 agreement is then received.

Proposed motion

Any planning application that is approved by Committee giving specific affordable housing provision and or a detailed section 106 agreement as part of the information for members to consider that subsequently receives any application to  alter all or part of these agreements must be referred to the relevant ward member/s for their consideration and input.

Should both the officer dealing and the ward member/s agree to the changes these can be allowed to form the new affordable housing agreement and or section 106 agreements.

Should the ward member/s and officer dealing fail to agree on the proposed changes or cannot negotiate agreeable alternatives then the application to change the affordable housing and or section 106 agreement should be referred back to the committee for their consideration and agreement / disagreement .

 

 

Minutes:

The Committee had before it a motion that had been passed to this Committee from Council for consideration.

 

Background

Members are aware that a number of planning applications need to go to Planning Committee for consideration; these applications have an array of detail and associated information for members to consider along with an officer recommendation and report.

Within this suite of reports there is often a detail on affordable housing and the section 106 agreement outlining jointly agreed contributions that will be applied to the build should the application be successful, these agreements are evidently part of the detail members are asked to consider and naturally will assist members in making their informed decision .

It has become apparent that after approval has been received, it is not uncommon for developers/ applicants to seek to alter such agreements retrospectively via negotiations with officers, common reasons cited are funding/ budget related.

This motion is sought to be applied to any planning application that has been considered by the planning committee and evidently agreed where a retrospective application to alter the affordable housing or the section 106 agreement is then received.

Proposed motion

Any planning application that is approved by Committee giving specific affordable housing provision and or a detailed section 106 agreement as part of the information for members to consider that subsequently receives any application to  alter all or part of these agreements must be referred to the relevant ward member/s for their consideration and input.

Should both the officer dealing and the ward member/s agree to the changes these can be allowed to form the new affordable housing agreement and or section 106 agreements.

Should the ward member/s and officer dealing fail to agree on the proposed changes or cannot negotiate agreeable alternatives then the application to change the affordable housing and or section 106 agreement should be referred back to the committee for their consideration and agreement / disagreement .

 

Cllr Evans was invited to speak to his motion; he addressed the meeting highlighting the procedure for amending Section 106 agreements approved in July 2016 and the fact that the procedure was not always followed and that some S106 agreements had been amended without Ward Members being informed.  He had canvassed his thoughts among other members and it was suggested that the situation was not isolated to his ward.  There was a need for the approved procedure to be implemented by officers and he therefore requested that the committee support his motion.

 

Consideration was given to individual cases and the need for the procedure to be followed with a possible signing off form.  The Group Manager for Development requested that he be informed about individual cases which he would follow up.

 

It was therefore RECOMMENDED to Council that Motion 553 be supported.

 

(Proposed by the Chairman)

130.

DEFERRALS FROM THE PLANS LIST (00-45-59)

To report any items appearing in the Plans List which have been deferred.           

 

Minutes:

The Chairman advised the meeting that item 2 on the Plans List, application 18/01800/MFUL – AD Plant and associated infrastructure at land east of Lords Meadow Industrial Estate, Crediton had been deferred.

131.

THE PLANS LIST (00-46-00) pdf icon PDF 711 KB

To consider the planning applications contained in the list.

 

Minutes:

The Committee considered the applications in the plans list *. 

 

Note:   *List previously circulated; copy attached to the signed Minutes.

 

(a)       Applications dealt with without debate.

 

In accordance with its agreed procedure the Committee identified those applications contained in the Plans List which could be dealt with without debate.

 

RESOLVED that the following application be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the various recommendations contained in the list namely:

 

(i)            No 6 on the Plans List (19/00272/FULL   Erection of a single storey extension – 1 Burrington Drive, Shobrooke, Crediton) be approved subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.

(Proposed by the Chairman)

 

Note:  The following late information was reported on the update sheet:  14th March 2019 - Shobrooke Parish Council have no comment on this application.

 

 

(ii)            No 7 on the Plans List (19/00225/FULL – installation of air conditioning units to western elevations and revised path access – Exe Valley Leisure Centre, Bolham Road, Tiverton) be approved subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.

(Proposed by the Chairman)

 

Note: Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as the applicationwould be funded from within his Cabinet Member portfolio and he stated that he would abstain from voting.

 

(b)            No 1 on the Plans List (17/02061/MFUL – Remodelling and modernisation of existing garden centre following demolition  of existing structures, to include erection of retails areas, café and warehouse, formation of new vehicular access, provision of parking areas and landscaping – Crediton Garden Centre, Barnstaple Cross, Crediton).

The Group Manager for Development provided an update to the report stating that further representations in objection to the application had been received along with 44 letters of support and  2 petitions in support of the application.  He was also in receipt of further correspondence from the objectors highway engineer which reiterated the argument with regard to road safety.

 

He provided answers to questions posed in public question time:

 

·         With regard to a landscape assessment, this was not a requirement of the policy; officers would have assessed any landscape issues in relation to the impact of the existing buildings on site when considering the application.

·         With regard to any retail restrictions, the PPG and the NPPF did not require an assessment of small shops, he had raised this issue with the Retail Consultant who had provided his opinion,  that subject to the imposition of the retail sales conditions  he had  proposed  the impact on surrounding businesses was acceptable.

·         With regard to seasonal goods, this had also been raised with the Retail Consultant and this had been covered in Conditions 13, 14 and 15.  Any seasonal goods not restricted would have to be within the 198 sq m of retail space.

·         With regard to the café, Condition 16 restricts it to ancillary use and that this would address any impact on cafes within the town.

·         With regard to highways issues, Mr Sorenson was present and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

132.

MAJOR APPLICATIONS WITH NO DECISION (3-00-06) pdf icon PDF 22 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 19/00075/MFUL – Kelly Farm, Nomansland be brought before Committee for determination and that a site visit take place if the officer recommendation was one of approval.

 

Application 19/00210/MFUL – 36 Post Hill, Tiverton be brought before the Committee for determination, no site visit was required.

 

Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to the Minutes

 

 

133.

APPEAL DECISIONS (3-07-01) pdf icon PDF 5 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 Minutes.

 

 

 

134.

APPLICATION 18/02071/FULL - RETENTION OF LOG STORE - BRADFORD FARM, UPLOWMAN (3-07-19) pdf icon PDF 117 KB

To consider an implications report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application.  Members at the meeting on 6 March 2019 were minded to refuse planning permission but a final decision was deferred pending consideration of this implications report.

 

Minutes:

The Committee had before it an * implications report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application; Members at the meeting on 6 March 2019, were minded to refuse planning permission, but a final decision was deferred pending consideration of an implications report.

 

The Area Team Leader addressed the meeting highlighting the location of the proposal, the block plan of the log store, the floor plan and dimensions of the building.  He provided an old aerial photograph which identified the original log store in situ and informed the meeting that he did not feel that the retention of the store had a detrimental impact on the amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring property or the character of the site and surrounding area in general.  Members also viewed photographs from various aspects of the site.

Consideration was given to: the scope of Permitted Development Rights and the ongoing enforcement issues

 

It was therefore

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.

 

(Proposed by  the Chairman)

 

Notes: 

 

i)             Cllr R J Dolley  and R F Radford declared personal interests as the neighbour was known to them;

 

ii)            Cllrs R F Radford and R L Stanley requested that their votes against the decision be recorded;

 

iii)          The following late information was reported:

 

3/4/2019 - A letter has been received from an Ian Firth of Bondstones writing on behalf of the applicant asking that the following observations be brought to the attention of the committee:

 

1. The building has, by all accounts, been used for the benefit of the farmhouse (as a wood/fuel store - with or without a roof) for decades

 

2. The site is located within the curtilage of Bradford Farm - i.e. its location, historic ownership, functional association, and use are all directly connected and subservient to the residential enjoyment of the dwelling and thus fall within the established curtilage.

 

3. The building has been constructed within / over an existing structure and is a part of a larger, existing building – also within the curtilage of the house and which, incidentally, features a dual pitch roof. 

 

4. The log store and workshop – as built – is approximately 2.65m to the eaves (i.e. the point at which the external wall intersects the roof covering) and 3.3m to the apex of the roof (where the roof intersects the parent building to the rear).

 

5. The location of the structure is well in excess of 2m from the property boundary

 

6. The footprint of the store is very significantly less than 50% of the curtilage of the farm house.

 

7. No part of Bradford Farm is listed or located in a ‘designated’ area and therefore would have been permitted development if constructed slight lower in height.

 

 

 

 

Update Sheet pdf icon PDF 125 KB