Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from Cllrs R F Radford, E J Berry and Mrs C P Daw who were substituted by Cllr B A Moore and Cllr C J Eginton

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.

Prior to questions being asked the Chairman sought advice which was expanded upon by the Interim Monitoring Officer with regard to the content of public statements and questions.

1.         Hayley Keary, referring to No 1 on the Plans list asked:

I’m Hayley Keary, 44 Higher Town heritage asset on the north east of the site.

Your poor land levels means the windows of our home can easily be overlooked from the site. The committee has not seen the situation from inside the home but did accept the problem last time. I’ll ask my question and just put a little bit of context afterwards. So, my question is to the officers and the councillors. If you are minded to approve this application, will you please reinstate condition 7 which was before you on the 29th June, to ensure the wording allows for land levels to be changed? Chair, please will you make sure this is discussed during this meeting?

Since June the applicant has removed trees from land opposite 42 and 46 which is helpful, but more is needed. In June the officer confirmed to you that condition 7 would allow the cycle way beside the site would be lowered. To lower the path to match the email that the officer sent us, which where he says, and I quote.

The question, which I’ve just said, is if you are minded to approve this application, will you please reinstate condition 7, that was before you on the 29th June, to ensure the wording allows for land levels to be changed?.

2.         Stewart Smith, also referring to No 1 on the Plans list asked:

My name is Stewart Smith and I live at 13d, adjacent to the sites eastern boundary. It is the nearest property to any of the plots on the site.

In an illustrated plan at the Inquiry, the nearest proposed dwelling to my property was 45 metres away, with a wide green buffer zone between.

In a plan used for the community consultation, this had reduced to 25 metres. In the plans before you today, the boundary of this nearest new building is just 15 metres away, and the green buffer zone by our garden fence has shrunk to a laughable half metre.

I’ve sent the councillors an email and diagram showing a sections views through the applicant’s plans of 37, which proves that the residents of plot 37 would have clear line of sight into the floor to ceiling windows of my home.

Worse still, the new dwelling on plot 36 is even higher up the slope. A full two metres higher than my property, you may wish to have a look yourselves. In 2017, my bungalow was built. The planning inspector then ruled various major changes had to be made to the heights and proposed plans to ensure that the development would not harm the privacy of gardens numbers 42 and numbers 44 Higher Town. So, why on earth are the proposed buildings being allowed to look  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

To record any interests on agenda matters

Cllrs P J Heal, S J Clist, Mrs C Collis, L J Cruwys, C J Eginton, B Holdman, F W Letch, B A Moore and B G J Warren all made declarations in accordance with protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters for application 22/00040/MARM as they had received correspondence

Cllrs B Holdman and F W Letch made personal declarations for 22/000408/MARM as they knew residents living next to the site

Cllr S J Clist made a personal declaration for application 21/01420/FULL as he knew the applicant

Cllr B A Moore made a personal declaration for application 21/01420/FULL as he was the Ward Member

Cllrs F W Letch and B G J Warren made declarations in accordance with protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters for application 21/01420/FULL as they had received correspondence from objectors

Cllrs P J Heal, F W Letch and B G J Warren made declarations in accordance with protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters for application 22/000687/HOUSE as they had received correspondence from objectors

Cllr B G J Warren made a declaration in accordance with protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters for TPO 22/0003/TPO as he was Chairman of Willand Parish Council and had attended a meeting where the application was discussed

To consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on

The minutes of the meeting held on 10^th August 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 withdrawn from the agenda

There were no items withdrawn 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 22/00040/MARM - Reserved Matters for the erection of 60 dwellings and construction of new vehicular access onto highway to the west of the site (with access reserved) following outline approval 17/01359/MOUT at Land and Buildings at NGR 302469 114078, Higher Town, Sampford Peverell.

The Area Team Leader outlined the application by way of a presentation which highlighted the site location plan, aerial view, site layout, affordable housing layout, street scenes, housing types, green infrastructure, play space design, cross sections, road hierarchy, cycleway details and photographs of the site.

The officer explained that the application before Members was Reserved Matters following outline approval 17/01359/MOUT granted by the Planning Inspectorate on 7^th April 2021. He explained that a decision had been deferred by Committee so that further information set out in the minutes of the meeting on 29^th June could be provided. As a result the applicant had submitted information which addressed the 13 specific concerns of Members. 71 documents had been added since the meeting on 29^th June.

In response to public questions and to the additional questions received (as detailed in the update sheet) the officer detailed the responses from the applicant which directly dealt with the concerns of objectors. He also provided detailed responses to specific questions raised regarding:

·         Drainage

·         Design Review Panel

·         Removal of Permitted Development Rights

·         Allotment

·         Infrastructure pressures

·         Documents available on the planning portal

·         Further reduction of land levels

·         Additional planting

·         Trim trail

·         Gradients

·         Open Space specification and Management companies

·         Site capacity for electrical consumption

·         Solar Panels

·         Archaeological mitigation

Consideration was given to:

·         That a desire by some Members to remove permitted development rights to the new properties was not felt to be reasonable by officers

·         That the Council would enforce the Management Plan if this became necessary in the future

·         The number of electric vehicle charging points provided was above the required level detailed in the adopted policy

·         Plots 57 and 58 where over 40 meters away from the nearest property and would not need to be lowered to prevent overlooking

·         The views of the DCC Highways Officer who stated that the site was hilly and that they had worked with the developer to achieve the best possible solution to the cycleway

·         That there was no adopted policy which could force the developer to make the site electricity only and that information from the electricity distribution company was that they current supply to the site would not facilitate this as there was not enough capacity

·         The views of the objector who stated that there was dodgy data used for the drainage and there was significant overlooking of existing properties. That the insulation proposed had not been independently checked, there were concerns with the separate site construction access and the location of the self-build plots. That the application should be refused due to poor layout and the cycle way gradients.

·         The views of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

To consider an implications report with regard to this application.

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

The Planning Officer reminded Committee of the application by way of a presentation which highlighted the block plan, floor plan, elevations and photographs of the living accommodation.

He explained that the neighbours’ concerns about excess noise could be dealt with through public health legislation.

Consideration was given to:

·         The definition of ancillary accommodation

·         3 objections had been received

·         Members views that an objection on parking issues could not be defended

Members were provided with case studies for previous applications that had been allowed at appeal but felt that the application before them was not similar and should be refused.

It was therefore RESOLVED that planning permission be refused contrary to the recommendation of the Development Management Manager for the following reason:

1.         The proposed annexe, by virtue of its position, setting, scale and design would result in significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of residents of nearby properties contrary to policies S1, DM1 and DM11 of the Mid Devon Local Plan (2013-2033) and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

(Proposed by Cllr S J Clist and seconded by B G J Warren)

Reason for the decision: As set out in the report

Notes:

·         *report previously circulated and attached to the minutes

·         Cllrs B A Moore, D J Knowles, Mrs C Collis and P J Heal requested that their votes against the decision be recorded

·         Cllrs S J Clist, F W Letch and B G J Warren would defend an appeal if required

·         Cllrs Mrs C Collis and F W Letch left the meeting at 17.50pm

To receive the report from the Development Management Manager on a Tree Preservation Order

The Committee had before it a *report of the Development Management Manager with regard to an application for a Tree Preservation Order LAND AT NGR 303250 110816 (9-19 TAMARIND, 26 OAK CRESCENT) MEADOW PARK WILLAND

The Arboricultural Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of a presentation which highlighted the site location plan and photographs of the site and the trees.

He explained that an objection had been received from a resident but that their concerns did not outweigh the amenity value of the tress.

It was RESOLVED that: the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed. 

 (Proposed by Cllr B G J Warren and seconded by B A Moore)

 Reason for the decision: As set out in the report.

Note:

·         *report previously circulated and attached to the minutes

To receive the Q4 Planning performance report from the Development Management Manager

The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a *report from the Development Management Manager providing the Q4 Planning Performance Report.

The officer outlined the contents of the report and highlighted that the results demonstrated what the team were achieving.

She explained that non major applications determined within 8 weeks was at 96% and was a massive achievement. Major applications determined within 13 weeks had dropped slightly due to them taking a long time to consult with applicants.

She explained that there were current difficulties with recruitment but this was industry wide but the teams’ results were holding up well.

Members asked if the following information could be provided:

·         The amount of planning fees returned

·         How many appeals allowed for non-determination

·         How many decision were overturned at appeal

The Chairman and Committee thanked the Planning Service for their continued hard work.

Note: *report previously circulated and attached to the minutes