Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from Councillors Mrs C Collis and Mrs C P Daw who were substituted by Councillors C J Eginton and B A Moore.

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.

Paul Elstone a local resident referring to item 8 on the agenda asked:

Question 1:

The briefing note state that 3 Rivers have advised MDDC Officer that 3 Rivers own the full site having purchased from the owners in the entirety. That a section of the land immediately adjacent to the river as with possessory title.

Have MDDC Officers including solicitors carried out any due diligence on this statement?

Planning Law it is understood requires the applicant to either own the land or have permission from the rightful owner on which he wishes to build.

It is strongly considered that the owners and who operate a commercial business very close to the Memorial Hall did not have either possessory title rights or adverse possession rights.

Possession title rights requiring the following criteria:

·         Have possessed the land to the exclusion of anyone else

·         Have shown an interest in the land by fencing it off and performing maintenance

The sellers did not meet either of these criteria, something that would have been clearly evident during any site visit.

There is good reason to believe the residents whose properties back onto this plot of land or the residents of Ham Place or the residents of Tiverton have a claim over this plot. This given the lands former use.

Question 2:

Why are 3 Rivers being given preferential treatment in planning terms compared to other developers and private applicants?

This when not submitting revised drawings for approval by Planning officers. Changes which are significant including material planning approval changes.

Drawings which formed the basis of the original planning application.

Provision of an access road to new parking spaces requiring the removal of a cycle store.

Very substantial changes to underground parking provision.

Major changes to retaining walls. Something used by the Cabinet Member for Finance to justify significant project overspends and yesterday’s Cabinet meeting.

Question 3:

3 Rivers are using the justification that they have lost 8 parking spaces requiring these additional 10 parking spaces has the MDDC Planning officer carried out any due diligence on this claim.

Question 4:

Why are 3 Rivers stating they have lost 8 parking spaces when they have actually only lost 5? Seems a problem with the maths.

Even then there is a question why they have lost 2 spaces for provision for electric charging points.

Why can electric charging points be fitted on the walls in the Phoenix House multi storey car park and using standard parking bays yet 3 Rivers state they need long spaces reducing available spaces from 5 to 3

Question 5:

It is noted that 3 Rivers just 8 days ago submitted an application for a modification to the underground car park ventilation system. Condition 2.

Increasing ventilation they estimate from 30 to 80%.

Given the very close proximity of the Memorial Hall Social Club open space and the chimney effect of the retaining walls has the environmental and health impacts been considered.

Jamie Byrom a local resident stated:

I am Jamie Byrom  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

To record any interests on agenda matters

Members were reminded of the need to make declarations where appropriate

To consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 24^th August 2022

The following amendments were requested to the minutes of the meeting held on 28^th August 2022:

Minute 47 Public Question Time.

(a)    No mention is made in the minutes of the Chairman's statement in relation to restricting members of the public as to what they could say in their three minutes.  There is also no mention of the advice from the Legal Officer and then later clarification when challenged.

(b)    At 1 Hayley Keary - there is recorded in the printed minutes a detailed narrative allegedly made by her.  This is not what she said as shown on the transcript of the recording I have received from a member of the public.  The minute shows some of the content of what she said but it also contains more.

(c)  Minute 48 Declaration of Interests Under Code of Conduct.

It is shown in the minute that under 22/00040/MARM Councillor Warren had made a declaration that I received correspondence from objectors.  In fact I wrote, and the recording has the Legal Officer reading out my words that I declared receiving correspondence from applicant agent and objectors [28.56].  I was very specific about that as we had been sent correspondence and a map by the agent which was not put into the public domain and was used for a briefing by the applicants which I did not attend.  I know that a number of the planning committee received the same email and attachment as I did but they are only shown as declaring correspondence from objectors BUT the recording just says received correspondence and in my view that covers them for receiving the email which I was deliberately more specific about.

For 22/000687/HOUSE Councillor Warren also made the same declaration as Councillors Heal and Letch so my name needs to be added there please.

(d) Minute 52a) The second paragraph at the top of page 12 of the bundle is correct as far as it goes but the point was raised that 71 further documents had been added since the meeting of 29 June 2022 and this is relevant if the indicated public complaint materialises.

(e)  Under Consideration was given to: there is a list of bullet points which goes over the page onto 13.  I would like to see added to that please - "Separate access for 3 self-build plots".  This is a very relevant point for the future I can assure you.

These were AGREED and the amended minutes would be brought back to the next meeting for signature.

In response to public questions asked the Interim Monitoring Officer stated that the agreed amendments answered the questions asked and that the Director of Place would consider the request made in question 5.  

         To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make. 

The Chairman had no announcements to make

To report any items withdrawn from the agenda

There were no withdrawals from the agenda

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)    Application 22/00799/FULL - Change of use from chapel to single dwelling and parking opposite at Yeoford Gospel Hall, Yeoford, Devon.

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application by way of a presentation which highlighted an aerial image, site location plan, a copy of environment agency flood map, existing accommodation and floor plans, proposed floor plans and elevations and photographs of the site.

Consideration was given to:

·         The officer recommendation for refusal was due to insufficient evidence being provided by the applicant in relation to economic viability, protected species and biodiversity and flood risk mitigation

·         The last significant flood event was in 1966

·         The views of the applicant who stated that 80 residents were in support of the Chapel to a dwelling, there was no evidence of bats and that the flood risk was not significant based on past events

·         The views of the Parish Council who stated that the Chapel opened in 1901 and was used until 2016, that there were enough community buildings in the village and that the Chapel was no longer required for the community. The Parish Council supported the conversion to a dwelling

·         The views of the Ward Member who disputed the risk of flooding and asked that the application be approved so that the building could be saved for future generations

It was therefore RESOLVED that planning permission be granted and delegated authority be given to the Director of Place and/or Development Management Manager to consider a set of conditions with regard to:

·         Protected species and biodiversity

·         Flood risk management plan

 (Proposed by Cllr L J Cruwys and seconded by F W Letch)

Reason for the decision: The application broadly complied with policy DM1 and supporting evidence from the Parish Council and Ward Member confirmed that the Church had not been used since 2017. The village was well supported with community buildings and on that basis it was considered that Planning Permission be granted, subject to conditions. It was felt that the flood risk had been overstated.

Notes:

·         Cllr P J Heal requested that his vote against the decision be recorded

·         Cllr F W Letch made a declaration in accordance with protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as the property was in his County Ward and he had visited the site

·         Cllr P J Heal made a declaration in accordance with protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as he had received correspondence

·         John Shelley spoke as the applicant

·         Cllr Edna Beasley spoke on behalf of Yeoford Parish Council

b)   Application 22/01182/MARM - Reserved Matters for appearance, scale, layout and landscaping for the erection of 41 dwellings and formation of vehicular access following Outline permission 16/01707/MOUT at Land at NGR  295494 113719, (South Of Lea Road), Tiverton.

The Area Team Leader outlined the application by way of a presentation which highlighted the site location plan, aerial images, illustrative  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

To consider an implications report with regard to this application.

At the Planning Committee on 27^th July 2022, Members advised that they were minded to refuse the above application and invited an *implications report for further consideration.

The Area Team Leader provided the following responses to questions asked at public question time:

·         It had been confirmed by the Legal department that the application site was wholly owned by the applicant. Notwithstanding this, an applicant did not have to own the land to apply for planning permission

·         The statement related to the original planning application and not the application before Committee today

·         There was a loss of 8 parking spaces and the proposal was for 10 parking spaces

·         3 parking spaces had been lost due to size of the retaining wall required and 3 electric vehicle charging spaces had been made available. The electric vehicle charging spaces were larger than normal parking spaces

·         The statement was not relevant to the application in front of Committee today but any modifications to the original application would be brought to Committee for determination

Consideration was given to:

·         The Interim Monitoring Officer explained that the Committee had dealt with retrospective applications historically and that this application should be dealt with in accordance with normal determinations

It was therefore RESOLVED that the Committee would not determine the application

(Proposed by Cllr B G J Warren and seconded by Cllr F W Letch)

It was further RESOLVED that Committee had made a decision not to determine this application and we will take no further part in it.

(Proposed by Cllr B A Moore and seconded by Cllr S J Clist)

Reason for the decision: No decision was made

Notes:

·         *Implications report previously circulated and attached to the minutes

·         Cllrs B G J Warren, S J Clist, F W Letch, B Holdman and L J Cruwys requested that their votes in support of the initial decision be recorded

·         Cllrs B A Moore, P J Heal, E J Berry and C J Eginton requested that their votes against the initial decision be recorded

·         Cllrs D J Knowles and R F Radford had left the meeting before the commencement of the item and did not take part in the vote

·         Cllrs B G J Warren  and S J Clist made declarations in accordance with protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had been contacted by objectors

·         Cllr C J Eginton made a declaration in accordance with protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as he had attended a Cabinet meeting relating to loans to the applicant but had abstained on the vote

·         Cllr B A Moore made a declaration in accordance with protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as he was the Cabinet Member responsible for the applicant

·         Cllr B Holdman made a declaration in accordance with protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as he was a member of Tiverton Town Council Planning Committee

·         Cllr L J Cruwys made a declaration in accordance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

To receive a list 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 the applications remained delegated.

Note: *list previously circulated and attached to the minutes

To receive 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