Venue: Virtual Meeting
Contact: Carole Oliphant Member Services Officer
The Committee to note the remote meeting protocol.
The *Remote meeting protocol was NOTED.
Note: *Remote meeting protocol was previously circulated and attached to the minutes.
APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS (00.04.13)
To receive any apologies for absence and notices of appointment of a substitute.
Apologies were received from Cllr L Cruwys who was substituted by Cllr J Cairney.
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME (00.04.45)
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.
Mr Roderick Crawford referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Shortacombe Lane) stated that: the report that was developed for 19/01118/FUL refers solely to flood risk from the sea and rivers, the Council and LPA were sent video evidence of flooding caused by rain water, I would like to know why the LPA did not undertake a flood risk assessment at the site, given that they had this evidence. The site is officially categorised by DEFRA as being at risk of flooding and both DEFRA’s and your own guidance state that an assessment must be undertaken for sites in Flood Zone 1 when a change of use in development type is for a more vulnerable class, e.g. in this instance from agricultural to residential where the site could be affected by sources of flooding other than by rivers and the sea.
James Hudson referring to the same application stated: we have lived in Binneford for about 16 years we came for the tranquillity of the place and for the outstanding natural beauty. We came for dark skies and we came for a real sense for the seasons changing and in relation to the seasons changing it is very apparent in Binneford. In the winter, it can be really sharp and there are many times when we have been snowed in for 3 or 4 days and even with a 4 wheel drive, you still slither around. I take an interest in the weather and I check the temperatures every morning. The coldest that it has been here, since I have lived here was minus 15 degrees Celsius which felt very cold and this leads me on to ask. The LPA’s report is materially misleading, it fails to mention that the proposed site is located on a high ridge line plateau , exposed to high winds, dangerous flash flooding and falling mature trees. When it freezes or snows, the site is regularly cut off in winter, often for days. So why is the Council choosing to discriminate between gypsy travellers by placing them in a dangerous unsustainable location?
Mr Crane referring to Items 2/3 (Blackborough House) on the Plans List stated that: these applications have been with the planning department for over two and a half years and have come across so many of the planning rules and regulations with little concern and regard to the actual building which is in a declining state of dereliction and will not survive much longer without positive intervention. This is a golden opportunity to both restore a once magnificent Grade II listed building and to add something special to Blackborough. I believe that I can work with the residents of the village with regard to issues which will no doubt arise and together we can move forward to provide more facilities and amenities for Blackborough. Having lost one significant asset in the village with the destruction of All Saints Church, lets not make any similar mistake with Blackborough ... view the full minutes text for item 42.
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT (00.26.35)
Councillors are reminded of the requirement to declare any interest, including the type of interest, and reason for that interest at each item.
Members were reminded of the need to declare any interests when appropriate.
Members to consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 15th July 2020.
The minutes of the meeting held on 15th July 2020 were agreed as a true record.
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (00.27.48)
To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
The Chairman made the following announcements:
· That she was delighted that the Local Plan review had been adopted on 29th July 2020. She reminded members that the planning policy numbers referred to in today’s reports are from the previous Local Plan and may not coincide with the planning policy numbers under the new plan.
· As Members of the Planning Committee may be aware the virtual public inquiry for the refusal of planning permission for 60 dwellings at Higher Town , Sampford Peverell, was due to start on Tuesday 11th August. The virtual inquiry has been postponed as result of the third Inspector, being appointed to hold the Inquiry, being unable to meet the agreed timetable of dates to hold the Inquiry over 6 consecutive days. The Planning Inspectorate would now review available dates of all parties to the appeal. It is anticipated that the virtual inquiry would now be held in October 2020.
ENFORCEMENT LIST (00.29.58)
To consider the items contained in the Enforcement List.
There were no items on the enforcement list.
DEFERRALS FROM THE PLANS LIST (00.30.01)
To report any items appearing in the Plans List which have been deferred.
No items had been deferred from the plans list.
To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
The Committee considered the applications in the *Plans list.
Note: *List previously circulated and attached to the signed minutes.
a) 19/01188/FULL - Change of use of agricultural land to allow 1 pitch for the siting of 1 static caravan, 2 touring caravans and associated works for the use of gypsy and traveller family at Land at NGR 276600 96594 (North of Shortacombe Farm), Shortacombe Lane, Yeoford
The Planning Team Leader addressed questions asked at public question time:
· The Environment Agency and the Public Health team were consulted in regard to drainage. The site was not within a functional flood plain or within flood zones 2 and 3 and our records show it is not within a surface water area where flooding of 1 in a 1000 years is expected and so it was decided to use the Environment Agency standing advice in regard to the type of drainage required. The proposals started out as a reed bed system which was then altered to a packaged treatment plant preferred by the Public Health team.
· In regard to the location it was not a site that the applicant had been told that they needed to go to, it was an application that they had submitted and that this is where they wanted to be.
· Location and impact to services would be covered in his presentation.
· With regard to the power to the drainage system it must be noted that this was not for 18 people it was for a mother and son, one family pitch. They have outlined a portable solar panel for electricity and they may require additional battery back up power.
· With regard to delivery of the caravan on site, the caravan needed to be legally transported along the highway but that didn’t prevent it from being delivered in 2 parts.
· The Highways Authority did not raise the number of vehicle movements for one family as an issue and noted the slight increase from the comparable agricultural use of the site.
He then outlined the contents of the report by way of a presentation highlighting the location, site layout, elevations, proposed shed, visibility splays and photographs of the site.
He explained that SP14 allowed for gypsy and traveller accommodation within the countryside subject to meeting other criteria such as presevering and where possible enhancing the character, appearance and biodiversity of the site. He stated that the applicant met the criteria of gypsy and show travellers.
He reminded members of Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 that local authorities had to have regard to discrimination and their public sector equality duty.
He explained that the application was to approve a site for a mother and son gypsy and traveller family and that policy DM7 of the Local Plan Review indicated that planning permission would allow for new sites within the countryside. He explained that there were currently no gypsy or traveller sites available to the family in tjis part of Mid Devon and no alternative location had been identified by ... view the full minutes text for item 48.
List attached for consideration of major applications and potential site visits.
The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a*list of major applications with no decision.
It was AGREED that:
· Application 20/01174/MOUT (Tidcombe Hall, Tidcombe Lane, Tiverton EX16 4EJ) be brought before the committee for determination if the officer recommendation was minded to approve
Note: *List previously circulated and attached to the minutes
To receive for information a list of recent appeal decisions.
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 and attached to the minutes.
At the Planning Committee meeting on 12th February 2020, Members advised that they were minded to refuse the above application and invited an implications report for further consideration.
At the Planning Committee meeting on 12th February 2020, Members advised that they were minded to refuse the above application and invited an implications report for further consideration. The Committee therefore had before it an *implications report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration setting out the implications of refusal.
The Group Manager, Development Management explained the implications report highlighting the reasons for refusal that members had identified at the previous meeting:
· In the open countryside
· Not producing renewable energy
· Not an energy efficient measure
· Not in accordance to policies COR5, DM5 or COR18 (f) of the Local Plan
· Cumulative impact with other Devon renewable energy plants in the area
The officer reminded members of the application by way of a presentation highlighting the site location, site plans, tree & pipeline, proposed elevations and a current container.
In response to questions from members she advised:
· There was an extension of time on the application due to constraints of virtual committees
· The Council could enforce the conditions attached to the application
· Officers considered the application a renewable energy facility
Consideration was given to:
· Members unwillingness to pursue reason for refusal B
o Taken together with other energy facilities in the locality, the proposal would have an adverse impact on the visual and general amenities of the area, contrary to Policy DM2 of the Mid Devon Local Plan
· Traffic movements in the area
· Members felt that the application was contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reason:
The proposed development would result in the creation of a power plant in the open countryside, which would not generate renewable energy. As such, the proposal does not meet the criteria for acceptable development outside settlement limits and is contrary to Policy COR18 of the Mid Devon Local Plan and was contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework
(Proposed by Cllr R F Radford and seconded by Cllr B G J Warren)
i.) Cllr B G J Warren declared a personal interest as Chairman of Willand Parish Council and made a declaration in accordance with Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as he had received correspondence with regard to this application
ii.) Cllrs R F Radford and B G J Warren would represent the Council should the application be appealed;
iii.) *Implications report previously circulated and attached to the minutes
At the Planning Committee meeting on 17th June 2020, Members advised that they were minded to refuse the above application and invited an implications report for further consideration.
The Committee had before it a *report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration following the submission of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against non-determination, the report requested members to advise how they would have determined the application.
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application by way of a presentation highlighting the location and site plans. He advised members that in the officer’s opinion the reason for refusal A was not applicable to the application and should be avoided.
He further explained that the applicant had withdrawn support for condition 8 for the provision of an acoustic fence and replacement of the car park surface as it had not been a requirement of the Environment Agency.
He explained that none of the original reasons for refusal were reasonably defendable but provided members with 2 alternative reasons.
Consideration was given to:
· Members felt that the building did not comply with policy DM11
· Members were disappointed that the applicant had withdrawn their support for condition 8
It was RESOLVED that had the committee had the opportunity to determine the application then it would have refused the application for the following reason:-
The proposed retention of the shipping container to be used for the storage of bee-keeping equipment and agricultural use, and the gravelled car park, by reason of their siting, layout, scale and appearance, represent incongruous features on site, which fail to respect or relate to its character and rural context. As such they would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the locality due to its failure to demonstrate a clear understanding of the characteristics of the site, its wider rural context and the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies COR2, COR18 of the Mid Devon Core Strategy (Local Plan Part 1), DM2 of the Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies) policies S1, S9, S14 and DM1 of the Mid Devon Local Plan Review 2013-2033: Pre Adoption Draft and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.
(Proposed by Cllr B G J Warren and seconded by Cllr E J Berry)
i.) Cllrs S J Clist and B G J Warren made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had received correspondence with regard to the application;
ii.) Cllrs R F Radford and D J Knowles declared a personal interest as the objector was known to them
iii.) *report previously circulated and attached to the minutes