Agenda and minutes

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

There were no apologies or substitute Members.

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.

There were no questions from members of the public present.

To record any interests on agenda matters.

Cllrs E J Berry, S J Clist, B Holdman and F W Letch made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had received communications with regard to the West Efford Farm, Shobrooke application.

To consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 30^th March 2022

The minutes if the meeting held on 30^th March 2022 were agreed as a true record and duly SIGNED by the Chairman.

         To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make. 

The Chairman had no announcements to make.

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

The Chairman announced that application 21/00222/MFUL had been withdrawn from the agenda

To consider the planning applications contained in the list.

The Committee considered the applications on the *Plans List.

Note: *List previously circulated and attached to the minutes

a)    Application 22/00371/FULL - Erection of dwelling following demolition of Dutch barn and stable and formation of vehicular access at Land and Buildings at NGR 288969 101209 (West Efford Farm), Efford, Shobrooke

The Area Team Leader outlined the application by way of a presentation which highlighted the site location, the site plan, the ground and first floor plans, the proposed elevations, a CGI of the proposed dwelling and photographs showing the views to and from the application site.

The officer explained that the development proposal was submitted in accordance with the special circumstances identified within Paragraph 80e of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which allowed the development of isolated homes in the countryside, subject to certain criteria, including if it was of exceptional quality in that:

·         Is truly outstanding, reflecting the highest standards in architecture, and would help to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; and

·         Would significantly enhance its immediate setting and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.

The officer further explained that the application site was in flood zone 1 and not close to any heritage assets. The building had been designed using the principles of Passivhaus, optimizing passive solar gains and would be built with airtight fabric first principles to retain heat during the winter months allowing for significantly less energy to be used than normally required. There would be no significant increase in the built form and the structure of the service wing would be of earth walls and a green roof.

The applicants had been advised to pursue review of their schemes (pre-application) with the Design Review Panel. This was a panel of multi-disciplinary professionals (architects, urban designers, landscape architects etc) who offered design critique together with guidance and suggestions with a view to raising the standard of design in the South West. With regards to this application, the proposal had undergone pre-application discussions and had been reviewed three times by the South West Design Review Panel.

Consideration was given to:

·         The green roof of the service wing would be constructed with natural species and it could be conditioned that it was maintained and kept alive

·         Whether planting should include semi mature trees

·         The height of the hedgerow would be conditioned by the requirement of a maintenance plan which ensured it would not exceed 1.5 metres

·         The views of some Members that they would have liked the solar panels to be roof mounted rather than floor mounted

·         The views of the agent who stated that they specialised in exceptional builds in the open country side specifically to comply with paragraph 80 of the NPPF. That the applicants had a strong local connection having farmed the land for a number of years and that the development set the benchmark for sustainable development

·         The views of the ward member who stated that the Parish Council generally supported the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 190.

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.

The Committee agreed that:

Application 22/00642/MFUL Westcott Park, Westcott would be deferred to the next Majors list due to there being some errors in consistency with the applicant’s application form and submission

Application 22/00648/MFUL Manns Newton, Zeal Monachorum would stay as a delegated decision

Application 22/00539/MOUT Sandhurst, Lapford to be determined by Committee if the officer recommendation was one of approval and that a full committee site visit take place

Application 22/000481/MARM West of Willand Road, Cullompton be determined by Committee but no site visit required

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

Note: *List previously circulated and attached to the minutes

To receive the quarter 3 Planning Performance reports.

The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a *report of the Development Management Manager which outlined the performance aspects of the planning function.

The officer explained that it was a good news story for the team and that the speed and quality of processing applications had been maintained even though there were a number of vacancies.

She advised that the reporting of enforcement visits did not necessarily reflect the true number as agency staff had not all received training on how to update the system.

Discussion took place regarding the employment of agency staff to fill the gaps left by the number of permanent vacancies currently available and the cost implications associated with this. The Development Management Manager explained the current difficulties with recruitment which was reflected throughout the sector and the steps the Council were taking to address this. Members asked for a balance sheet to be provided which detailed the costs associated with employing agency staff as opposed to permanent staff.

Members requested that future reports included fees having to be returned due to late applications and that officers investigate the low number of section 215 enforcement notices issued in the past 3 years and the reasons for this.

Members applauded the efforts of the Planning Service staff during this time and commented on the increased quality of reports brought to Committee.

Note: *Report previously circulated and attached to the minutes