Skip to main content

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Remote Meeting

Contact: Carole Oliphant  Member Services Officer

Link: audiorecording

Items
No. Item

148.

HRH, THE PRINCE PHILIP DUKE OF EDINBURGH AND COUNCILLOR GLANMOR HUGHES

Minutes:

A  minute silence took place in memory of HRH, The Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh and Councillor Glanmor Hughes at the start of the meeting.

149.

APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS (0.03.25)

To receive any apologies for absence and notices of appointment of substitute.

 

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Cllr E J Berry.

150.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT (0.03.38)

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.

151.

REMOTE MEETINGS PROTOCOL (0.03.45) pdf icon PDF 313 KB

Committee to note the Remote Meetings Protocol.

Minutes:

The Committee had before it, and NOTED, the *Remote Meetings Protocol.

 

Note: *Protocol previously circulated and attached to the Minutes

152.

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME (0.03.59)

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 Winter referring to Item 12 (Duvale Barton) on the agenda stated that - the input from Environmental Health seems very hypothetical to me and ignores the real problem we have with sound historically and the issues we have had with enforcement historically and really bears no weight whatsoever in my opinion. Obviously they only apply if passed.

 

Yesterday, I did send into the committee a satellite picture of the barn in question, this rather begs the question why the planning conditions set to have doors and windows shut with the large agricultural vents in the roof to allow livestock to breath - this seems rather strange. This also begs the question as to what survey the planning department performed on the building.  I didn’t have to leave my office to discover this.

 

Mrs Jacobs referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Tumbling Fields) stated that she lived at 12 Tumbling Fields and asked whether the committee had been to visit the site where they are proposing to build these houses at the access to the back of my property up into Hamblin Close, where there are disabled people, OAPs and small children and lots of traffic already going in on this site and also on Tumbling Fields Lane where there is also a lot of traffic, particularly agricultural traffic coming down. I am very frightened about my personal safety and the safety of small children and a very disabled young man who lives on that site.

 

Miss Chee Wong representing Angela Clyburn again referring to Item 1 on the Plans List stated that there is a report that there are a number of legally protected species on the site, so surely it is illegal for the applicant to deliberately go out of their way to disturb and disrupt breeding and frighten species away. Surely the requirements protecting these are already being broken, they should be protected under the statutory obligations in the species protection law. We need to be sure that if this building goes ahead that the wildlife will be adequately protected without further disruption to their habitat and their breeding.

 

Mr Baker referring to Item 12 on the agenda stated: can the committee explain why both agricultural buildings/barns were not demolished when 6 units were granted permission on the condition that both barns were to be taken down and removed from the site. This I believe to be a failure by the enforcement team. Can the committee confirm if any members have visited the site to see if the barns are fit for purpose, if not please show the members the photos that you have had presented to you. Can the committee explain why the planning officer is concentrating on door slamming and movements when the issue has always been the loud music and the noise of people escalating from the function hall?

 

Gill Hookins again referring to Item 12 stated that she was the immediate neighbour to Duvale Priory, how does the committee perceive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

153.

MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (0.23.29) pdf icon PDF 433 KB

Members to consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meetings held on 10th & 31st March 2021.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meetings held on 10th and 31st March were agreed as a true record subject to some typographical amendments (minute no 138) and the inclusion of correspondence received from applicants and developers for application 19/01679/MFUL (minute no 147).

154.

CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (0.26.47)

         To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make. 

 

Minutes:

The Chairman announced that this was the last Planning Committee for the Development Management Manager, Eileen Paterson, who was leaving the authority. She thanked her for her time and service to the Planning Committee.

155.

DEFERRALS FROM THE PLANS LIST (0.28.04)

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

 

Minutes:

There were no deferrals from the plans list.

156.

THE PLANS LIST (0.28.16) pdf icon PDF 478 KB

To consider the planning applications contained in the list.

 

Minutes:

The Committee considered the applications in the *Plans List.

 

Note: *List previously circulated and attached to the minutes.

 

a)    Application 20/01263/MFUL - Erection of 22 dwellings with parking, landscaping and construction of new access at Allotments, Tumbling Field Lane, Tiverton.

 

The Area Team Leader outlined the application by way of a presentation detailing the site location plan, site layout, accommodation and tenure, elevations and photographs of the site and the access.

 

In response to questions asked by the public she explained:

 

·         Members had not undertaken a site visit due to current Covid 19 restrictions

·         The Highways Authority had been consulted and had confirmed there had been no incidents since 2015 and that the visibility splay was adequate and recommended a number of conditions

·         Protected species are afforded protection under The Habitat and Species Regulations and therefore it is the applicant’s responsibility as much as the LPA to ensure protection. An Ecological Survey had been commissioned and harm had also been mitigated by way of conditions to specifically rehome reptiles prior to any development. The application was supported by an Ecological Survey which advised that if scrub land was to be removed on site then a European Protected Species Licence would be required. The competent authority was therefore required to undertake 3 tests of the development

·         Condition 18 protected ecology

·         Policy S10 was not considered relevant as the site was outside of the settlement boundary

·         Policy S14 was relevant and allowed development outside of the settlement if it provided predominately affordable housing

·         The site was considered as it was a rural exception site which allowed development of affordable housing in the open countryside

·         The previous allotments were privately owned and rented to Tiverton Town Council. As they were not owned by MDDC they were not classed as statutory allotments

·         Planners did not have control over internal finishes to ensure fire safety

·         Four units would be wheelchair accessible

·         Building regulations would be required but that was a post decision process

·         The report detailed why Planning Officers had considered the development to be appropriate

·         The footpath would remain in place and if diverted in the future would need permission from Devon County

·         The site was in flood zone 1 with the access only being within flood zone 3 and conditions stipulated full drainage details be provided to alleviate risk of flooding

·         The Highways Authority stated the visibility was adequate for the site

 

The Area Team Leader confirmed that the Planning Committee at its meeting of 9th September 2020 agreed to bring the application to Committee if officers were minded to approve the application.

 

The officer explained that the application was for 22 units, 12 of which would be affordable housing. The applicant had submitted a viability assessment and the Local Planning Authority had commissioned an independent assessment which had agreed with the proposal.

 

The S106 agreement would outline who could accommodate the units and applicants would need to apply through legal channels to prove local links to the area.

 

The development was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156.

157.

MAJOR APPLICATIONS WITH NO DECISION (2.51.07) pdf icon PDF 195 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:

 

a)    21/00454/MARM Reserved Matters (appearance, landscaping, layout

and scale) for 166 dwellings with the provision of public open space, vehicular and pedestrian access, landscaping, drainage and related infrastructure and engineering works following Outline approval 14/00881/MOUT be brought before the committee for determination and that a site visit take place if the officers recommendation was one of approval.

b)    21/00374/MARM Reserved Matters in respect of (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for infrastructure associated with initial phases of development, following Outline approval 14/00881/MOUT be brought before the committee for determination and that a site visit take place if the officers recommendation was one of approval.

 

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

 

158.

APPEAL DECISIONS (02.58.03) pdf icon PDF 307 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.

159.

APPLICATION 18/01814/MFUL - CHANGE OF USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR THE SITING OF 3 HOLIDAY LODGES AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING ACCESS - LAND AT NGR 299526 113232, CROWN HILL, HALBERTON (3.01.59) pdf icon PDF 511 KB

At the Planning Committee meeting on 4 March 2021, Members advised that they were minded to refuse the above application and invited an implications report for further consideration.

 

Minutes:

At the Planning Committee meeting on 10th March 2021, 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 a *report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration setting out the implications of refusal.

 

The Development Management Manager reminded Members of the application by way of a presentation outlining the site location, site plan, block plan, elevations, internal plans and photographs of the site and access.

 

The officer explained to Members that Planning Officers had looked at the initial reasons for refusal agreed by the Committee and had felt that reasons 2 and 3 could not be supported on appeal.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         Members views that the Local Plan Policies should be encouraging people to walk

·         The Highways Authority had looked at the safety aspect of the application and had reported that they were satisfied with the proposals

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that: the application be refused on the following grounds:

 

1.    In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the submitted ‘business plan’ and ‘marketing strategy’ do not provide sufficient detail to adequately demonstrate that there is a market for the holiday lodges in this location nor demonstrate its financial viability. To this end, the Local Planning Authority are not satisfied that a countryside location is appropriate and necessary for this development, contrary to policies S14 and DM22 of the adopted Mid Devon Local Plan 2013-2033

2.    The proposal would result in additional pedestrians seeking to use the main road due to the lack of a pedestrian footpath in order to access the canal and other facilities. This would be to the detriment of public safety thereby contrary to policies S1 and DM1 of the adopted Mid Devon Local Plan 2013-2033

 

(Proposed by Cllr B G J Warren and seconded by Cllr Mrs C P Daw)

 

Reason for the decision: As set out in the report

 

Notes:

 

    i.)        Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe requested that her vote against the decision be recorded

   ii.)        The following late information was reported:

 

Letter received from a member of the public advising:

 

‘When this comes to the Committee for final decision, following the March 11th deferral, can you please correct the implication in the original officers' report that users of the lodges would be able to safely use the bus to get into Tiverton.

 

There is no bus stop between Halberton Court Farm shop (half a mile to the East), and the top of Post Hill (half a mile to the West).  Buses passing at 40 mph along this road with no verge would therefore add to the hazard of access to the site, not mitigate it.’

        

 

 

 

160.

APPLICATION 20/01789/FULL - CHANGE OF USE OF HALL SOLELY FOR USE BY HOLIDAY MAKERS TO PUBLIC USE - BUILDINGS AT NGR 2944462 120596 DUVALE PRIORY, BAMPTON (3.33.29) pdf icon PDF 392 KB

At the Planning Committee meeting on 4 March 2021, Members advised that they were minded to refuse the above application and invited an implications report for further consideration.

 

Minutes:

At the Planning Committee meeting on 10th March 2021, 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 a *report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration setting out the implications of refusal.

 

The Principal Planning Officer reminded the Committee of the application by way of a presentation which highlighted the existing plans, elevations, photographs of the site, existing buildings and the driveway.

 

He provided the following answers to questions asked by the public:

 

·         Environmental Health Officers had considered the previous history of the site

·         Conditions did cover ventilation in the original consent and the vents had been sealed

·         No sound surveys had been carried out but the level of noise had been conditioned

·         The venue had been operating for a number of years and no noise complaints had been received

·         Applications in 1989 and 1992 which required the removal of the buildings had been superseded by the appeal in 2013 which granted them permission

·         All aspects of noise were debated at the previous committee meeting and car noise was stated as the reason for refusal

·         There were two permitted uses already on site

·         Members could decide to defer for further information if required

·         Members needed to make clear and informed decisions for refusal and the implications of the costs of an appeal were a consideration

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         Members views that enforcement of noise issues was impossible in the evenings

·         Enforcement and flooding were separate issues from the application in front of Members

·         Members views that members of the public would make more noise than holidaymakers on site

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that: the application be refused on the following grounds:

 

 

1.    The proposed use of the premises as a function room for public use by up to 30 people, and not solely for use by holiday makers, is deemed to be unacceptable and likely to cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of local residents living within the Exe Valley and the enjoyment of their homes late at night. In particular, there is a potential for increased noise and disturbance as a result of increased levels of traffic, associated with members of the public travelling to and from the site, who are not guests at the existing on site holiday accommodation. The suggested controls are not considered to overcome or remove or adequately control the noise and disturbance to the area arising from the use of the premises as a function room for public use and as such would be contrary to policies DM1, DM4 and DM22 of the Mid Devon Local Plan 2013-2033.

 

(Proposed by Cllr S J Clist and seconded by Cllr G Barnell)

 

Reason for the decision:  as set out in the report

 

Notes:

 

    i.)        Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe declared a personal interest as she knew Cllr Knowles from Stoodleigh Parish Council

   ii.)        Cllrs S J Clist, Mrs C P Daw, E J Berry  ...  view the full minutes text for item 160.