Venue: Phoenix Chamber, Phoenix House, Tiverton
Contact: Carole Oliphant Member Services Officer
APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS (0.04.47)
To receive any apologies for absence and notices of appointment of substitute.
Apologies were received from Cllr G Barnell who was substituted by Cllr B Holdman.
Members to note the Hybrid Meetings Protocol
The Committee had before it, and NOTED, the Hybrid Meetings Protocol.
Note: *Protocol previously circulated and attached to the minutes.
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT (0.05.33)
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.
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME (0.05.44)
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.
1. Pat Pratley referring to item 10 on the agenda stated
Question one: will the committee explain why they believe that this site, adjoining the settlement of Tiverton, defined in the Local Plan as a Market Town, qualifies as an exception site within the context of policy of DM6 which states that an exception site must adjoin a settlement which will usually mean one of the settlements, defined in policy S13 which is concerned with the development of 22 village locations and settlements which do not function as Market Towns?
Question two: If the interpretation placed on S13 and DM6 in the report is accepted, what does the committee consider will be the spatial implications for the three Market Towns with regard to future applications for affordable housing outside but adjacent to their settlement boundaries?
Question three: Members have been asked to consider the Local Plan in its totality and policy S10 states that the Council will guide development to retain the green setting provided by the green steep open hillsides particularly to the west and south. Policy S14 states in its introduction ‘Development outside the settlements defined by policy S10 to S13 will preserve and where possible enhance the character, appearance and biodiversity of the countryside'. What is the committee’s view of the ability of the development to achieve these objectives?
2. Major Jenkins referring to item 11 on the agenda provided the following questions which were read out by the Chairman:
Would the Committee agree that the 2 month delay in bringing this hearing back before the Planning Committee, requested by the applicants agent on the 22 March 2021 has tactically and unnecessarily moved the application into a time frame where it could be considered the building becomes exempt under the ’four year rule’, a mitigating factor that the ‘Implications Report’ now raises, and that the decision should be firmly based on the date that the first request for a ‘Certificate of Lawfulness’ was applied for on 24 June 2020, at which point it was a further 13 months before it would be 4 years old, cognisant of the fact that the building first came to the attention of the Council in August 2019 as being in continuous occupation at which point the building was just over 2 years old.
Could it please be explained as to why the applicants agent has been able to submit further evidence, by way of yet further revised plans for consideration that have effectively changed the application, after the 14 day period, during which written objection had to be submitted which raised issues that were based on the evidence that had been previously submitted (prior to the14 day period) and on which, notification of receipt and publication had been sent by the Planning Services Department on 13 May 21?
3. Lisa Clifford referring to item 11 on the agenda provided the following questions which were read out by the Chairman:
Why is there no reference to the installation of a WC and ... view the full minutes text for item 21.
Members to consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 26th May 2021
The minutes of the meeting held on 26th May 2021 were agreed as a true record and duly signed by the Chairman.
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (0.25.04)
To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
The Chairman introduced Myles Joyce the interim Development Management Manager and Michelle Woodgates the DCC Highways Officer.
ENFORCEMENT LIST (0.27.06)
To consider the items contained in the Enforcement List.
The were no enforcement cases to report.
DEFERRALS FROM THE PLANS LIST (0.27.13)
To report any items appearing in the Plans List which have been deferred.
There were no deferrals 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 minutes.
a) 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 at Land at NGR 298088 113134 (Adjacent Barnesmead), Blundells Road, Tiverton.
The Planning Officer explained that the application before Members was reserved matters and part of the spine road which was previously the subject of an outline planning application.
The Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report via a presentation which highlighted site location plan, Tiverton EUE illustrative framework plan, aerial view, general arrangements plan, detailed landscape details and photographs of the site.
The officer explained that Adopted Masterplan SPD sets out the ambition for a roundabout on Blundells Road. Whilst a roundabout is visible on the plans it is outside the red line boundary of this application site, and officers the construction of the spine road will, in the first instance, be constructed with a T junction, on to Blundells Road. The application had footway provision on both sides of the road and incorporated sustainable drainage provision. Changes had been made to the outline application which included an extension of the hedgerow and relocation of the electricity sub station. She confirmed that no trees were planned to the felled and a community space included seating, formal planting and a trim trail are to be provided.
She confirmed that the minimum 9 metre buffer width between the spine road and Barnsmead commenced at the boundary of Barnsmead.
In response to a question from Members, the officer confirmed that the application, if approved, gave certainty for future phases of development but did not predetermine where future phases would be situated.
The DCC Highways Officer confirmed that the T Junction on Blundells Road was a temporary solution until the proposed roundabout was delivered and that safety audits had been completed and confirmed that the junction was acceptable.
Consideration was given to:
· The views of the agent who stated that Redrow had been awarded the contract to construct the infrastructure on phase A of the Tiverton EUE and that the application was in accordance with the Local Plan. He explained that the application was before Committee early so that works could start on the spine road before September and the winter period.
· Members views that the site visit had revealed the welcome news that the proposed substation had been moved away from an existing property
· Confirmation that 150-200 dwellings had to be constructed and occupied before DCC Highways could consider the installation of the proposed roundabout onto Blundells Road
· Members views that it was difficult for them to deal with lots of smaller applications which made up the whole picture of the EUE
· Members concerns that if permitted, the siting of the proposed spur road on the spine road would predetermine where future housing would be built out
· Members concerns about the safety of the temporary T ... view the full minutes text for item 26.
At the Planning Committee meeting on 14th April 2021, 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 14th April 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 Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report by way of a presentation highlighting site location plan, site layout, accommodation tenure, elevations and photographs of the site.
She explained the reason for the implications report and the reasons why officers felt that the application was acceptable in terms of the Local Plan and MDDC planning policies.
In response to public questions the officer responded:
· Policy DM6 applied as it was outside the settlement limit of Tiverton but was predominately affordable housing which was acceptable.
· The application would not set a precedent in terms of policies S13 and DM6 as each application would be determined on its own merits. Applications could come forward but each would be determined against MDDC Policy.
· Biodiversity improvements and conditions included a comprehensive landscaping plan and new trees to be planted which were significant reasons for officers to recommended approval of this development.
Consideration was given to:
· Members views that the LPA was on track with it’s 5 year housing plan and concerns that this application had come forward
· Members views that an adjoining disabled resident’s access would be adversely affected during construction of the site
· Members concerns that sites kept being brought forward which were not included within the Local Plan
· Members views that more weight should be attributed to objectors concerns than advice provided by their Planning Officers
· Officers advice that an application for a rural (outside of a settlement) exception site which comprised of predominately affordable housing was not included within the 5 year land supply and could be brought forward under policy DM6
· Members views that the application was contrary to policy S10 as it did not retain the open setting in the south and west of the Town
· The independent viability assessors report which confirmed that the number of affordable units proposed was acceptable
· Members concerns with the visual impact of the proposed development
· The applicant was an affordable housing provider and that with further funding it was hoped that all 22 units would be affordable
· The views of Members that the officer advice regarding the applicants stated desire to appeal if permission was refused as to potential costs award if an appeal failed was intimidating to Members. The officer response was that this was certainly not meant to be the case and that the report followed the same format as all other implication reports which sought to be honest and transparent with Members outlining the information received from applicants.
Therefore the Committee RESOLVED that: Planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
a) The proposed development of 22 dwellings is in open countryside and will not preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the countryside. It ... view the full minutes text for item 27.
Application 20/01537/HOUSE - 19 Lower Millhayes Hemyock Cullompton Devon - Retention of timber outbuilding to be used ancillary to the main house, retention of decking and proposed installation of water supply and drainage pipes underground (2.16.58) PDF 434 KB
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.
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 Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report and reminded Members of the application by way of a presentation which highlighted site location plan, floor plan, elevations, side view plan and photographs of the exterior and interior of the cabin.
The officer explained that the cabin appeared immune from enforcement action as it has been in situ for 4 years, as information had been received it was in situ in June 2017, and was to be used as ancillary to the house.
In response to public questions he responded:
· The WC was not mentioned on the implications report as it was not part of the original reasons for refusal
· The quality of the building was subject to building regulations
· Distance from neighbouring boundaries was not a policy requirement
· Access for maintenance was a civil issue and was no different than extensions built on boundary lines
· There was no planning policy which determined how far out building had to be constructed away from an existing boundary
· It was not considered that additional soundproofing is required
· The use of the outbuilding was a consideration for Members
· An implication report must include possible outcomes for Members if an appeal was lodged against refusal
· Any breach of conditions would be at risk from possible enforcement action from MDDC
· The LPA had not deliberately withheld the application, the applicant wanted to make changes after the last planning committee to alleviate Members concerns over the size of the decking
· Concerns were received in 2019 but an enforcement file was closed following an investigation because the use was considered to be within permitted development rights
Consideration was given to:
Therefore the Committee RESOLVED that: planning permission be refused for the ... view the full minutes text for item 28.
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:
21/00883/MFUL Permanent siting of a Motorcross track, Station Road, East Langford, Bow be brought to Committee and a site visit take place if the officer recommendation was minded to approve.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy 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; copy attached to minutes.