Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from Cllrs Mrs F J Colthorpe, B A Moore and L J Cruwys

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.

Jamie Byrom, a local resident referring to no 5 on the plans list stated:

Question 1 – With reference to evidence I have provided to her in advance of this meeting, please would the Legal Officer confirm (with relevant explanation and supporting evidence) whether or not the application as made on 26 August 2022 was valid?

Question 2 – During the Inquiry site visit, the Inspector found the required visibility along the line now shown on S278 plans for the NE access to be unachievable. What evidence (if any) has been provided to the case officer to justify the LHA’s decision to accept the S278 plan that applies exactly the same visibility that she has proved not to work?

Question 3 – Will the officer confirm to the Planning Committee that the Local

Highway Authority responded to consultation in September and that among their comments they told him that “DCC could not give you [the applicant] permission to open a new access”?

Q4. The covering letter from the applicant’s agent supports variation on the grounds that inspectors wording of the relevant conditions is flawed. I’ve searched the officers report to this committee and I can’t find his view on that crucial claim whether its flawed or not. So, I ask just for clarity is it the officers professional opinion that in her appeal decision of April 2021 his majesty’s inspector wrote flawed conditions that were unreasonable, unnecessary or unlawful?

Q5. Please will the officer inform us precisely what changes in laws, regulations, policies, guidance, or even local circumstance unknown to the inspector in April 2021, now mean that her wording of the conditions must be varied?

Q6. Will the officer confirm that the wording that went out to publication in September retained the inspectors requirement that S278 plans must be approved by the local planning authority, but that this requirement has been very recently dropped from the wording that’s before the committee today, and that it never went out to public consultation?

Mr Elstone, a local resident asked:

AGENDA ITEM 10 – PLANNING COMMITTEE PROCEDURE

QUESTION 1.

The proposed changes to the Planning Committee Procedure focus on Public Question time.

Why is it deemed a requirement to make Public Questions far more prescriptive and with increased editorial rights?

Changes it would seem to further stifle the Democratic Process and Public Engagement in MDDC.

RED LINHAY ANEAROBIC DIGESTER – REMOVAL OF NOISE CONDITION 13.

QUESTION 1

A Red Linhay Noise Survey dated March 2018 shows sound levels significantly exceeded Planning Condition requirements.

Rather than the applicant showing he has remedied the high noise level, he seeks not to have further noise assessments undertaken. 

Why after over 4 years has this breach of planning condition 13 not to been enforced?

QUESTION 2

In early 2020 the MDDC Specialist Environmental Protection Officer raises concerns about the sound level produced by a conveyer dryer and mentions the requirement for a noise assessment against BS4142.

Conveyor driers can loud. Around 100dB under full load  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

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 2^nd November 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 2^nd November 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 reminded Members of the two meetings to be held in January on 4^th and 18^th.

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

Applications dealt with without debate.

In accordance with its agreed procedure the Committee identified those applications contained in the Plans List which could be dealt with without debate.

RESOLVED that the following applications be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the various recommendations contained in the list namely:

a)    Application 22/01556/MFUL - Erection of new external heat pump systems, installation of solar car ports to parking areas and installation of photovoltaic panels to existing roofs at Exe Valley Leisure Centre, Bolham Road, Tiverton. Planning Permission subject to conditions be granted as recommended by the Development Management Manager

(Proposed by the Chairman)

Reason for the decision: As set out in the report

Notes:

·         Cllr D J Knowles made a declaration in accordance with protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as he was Cabinet Member for Community Wellbeing

·         The Chairman provided the following updates:

Since the writing of the committee report, and publication of the agenda, the Tiverton Neighbourhood Plan has been approved at Referendum. As such, it now forms part of the statutory development plan. As such, it now carries full weight when considering planning application.

The proposal is not considered to be affected by the addition of the Tiverton Neighbourhood Plan to the development plan but consideration should be given to the relevant policies contained within the neighbourhood plan. For the record, the relevant policies are:

Policy T4: Character of Development

Policy T5: Design of Development

Policy T6: Energy Efficiency and Design

Policy T7: Minimising the Risk of Flooding

The development is considered to comply with these policies of the Tiverton Neighbourhood Plan.

Since the writing of the committee report, and publication of the agenda, the Lead Local Flood Authority (Devon County Council Flood and Coastal Risk Management Team), have provided last minute comments.

No further issues have been raised with reference made to reviewing the possibility of providing rain gardens or SuDS planters, which is the reason why condition 3 was imposed. Nothing changes in that respect.

The LLFA have also asked, if it is not too late, whether a pre-commencement condition could be added for managing surface water during the construction stage, as follows:

“No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a detailed surface water drainage management plan for the full period of the development’s construction, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, with consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system shall then be constructed in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, with consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority, and shall thereafter be so maintained.

Reason: To ensure that surface water from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

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:

1.    22/02102/MFUL – To Committee if officer was minded to approve and a full site visit be arranged (on a Tuesday if possible)

2.    22/01492/MFUL – remain delegated

3.    22/0191/MFUL- remain delegated

4.    22/00505/MFUL – remain delegated

5.    22/01901/MFUL – remain delegated

6.    22/01893/MFUL - To Committee if officer was minded to approve – No site visit required

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

Members to consider adopting changes to the Planning Committee Procedure

The Committee had before it some suggested amendments to the Planning Committee Procedure.

In response to questions asked by the public the District Solicitor and Monitoring Officer stated that the requirement for the public to submit questions in advance was to assist both the public and officers in being able to receive comprehensive replies to sometimes very complex and technical questions

Consideration was given to:

·         The reasons why it was preferable for officers to receive questions in advance so that full and concise answers could be provided

·         If implemented there would be cost savings by not having to defer applications for further answers to be investigated

·         That the procedure should be further updated to state that adjacent Ward Members could speak at the Chairman’s discretion

It was therefore RESOLVED that the Planning Committee Procedure be updated with the suggested amendments

(Proposed by the Chairman)

Reason for the Decision: To ensure that the Council rules for public questions were aligned to the Planning Committee Procedure and to ensure that Planning Officers received questions in advance to facilitate full responses in meetings