Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from:

·         Cllr S Clist who was substituted by Cllr J Downes

·         Cllr L J Cruwys (who was not able to attend the meeting in person by joined via Zoom)

·         Cllr R F Radford        

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.

Public questions were received from:

Elizabeth Dalton

22/02220/MFUL Land at NGR 283084 102432 (Fanny's Lane) Sandford Devon.

I wish to register my strong objection to the revised planning permission for the above site, on the following basis:-

Application for Removal or Variation of a Condition following Grant of Planning Permission submitted on behalf of Belfield Developments states incorrectly that the works have not been started but the site works have been in progress for many months:  Why the discrepancy?

‘Following the late receipt of the External Levels Plan from the Civil Engineers, the following drawing amendments have been revised and substituted on the following drawings: 

1445-P04 (Rev A) 

1445-P201 (Rev A) Section A-A behind No. 3 Creedy View shows levels on site but does not include Plot 3 Creedy View ground level. Why was the difference in levels not shown?

1445-P202 (Rev A) Section B -B behind between Nos 4 and 3 Creedy View shows levels on site but not the adjacent dwellings. Why was the difference in levels not shown?

 In the absence of the sections through the existing surrounding properties together with the adjoining new site the Committee cannot fully appreciate the extent of loss of amenity Bellfield’s construction has on the Creedy View residents. What effect will this omission have on the Committee’s decision?

The proximity of (Now) number 7 Weaver’s Way to Plot No. 2 Creedy View ensures that the garden of No. 2 CV will be completely overshadowed and dark.  How can this be ameliorated?

1445-P203 (Rev A) Section C - C behind No. 1 Creedy View shows levels on site and not the adjacent dwellings – specifically does not show the level of No. 1 Creedy View’s garden that has had the ground cut away around two external edges of the garden, leaving No. 1’s garden with an unsupported sheer drop of several metres.   Why has the original proposed supporting structure been omitted?

Plots 1 and 2 Creedy View have been substantially affected by the Weaver’s Way excavations that undermine the stability of their ground so what stabilisation works would the committee recommend?

1445-P204 (Rev A) Shows the fence line that now goes right up to the public right of way. Will these gardens be fenced to delineate the land ownership?

Dwg. No:32002 Rev.1 dated 13.06.22 Rev: F shows retaining walls removed and earth bank added, thereby creating instability of the garden of No. 1 Creedy View and the area supporting the communal LPG tank for Creedy View residents.  Has the stability of the Garden and gas tank been assessed by a professional structural engineer?

32001-BPC-XX-XX-DR-C-0001 (Rev I) Engineer's drawing has a scale 1:200 and refers to sheets 1 - 3 and to the steep banking being to 'contractor's design' but only sheet 1 appears. Where are sheets 2-3 and have they been submitted to MDDC Planners? Does the contractor have sufficient professional expertise?

·       Dwg No: PO3 refers to the Existing Public Right of Way path to remain unsurfaced and unaffected by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.

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 1^st March 2023.

The minutes of the meeting held on 1^st March 2023 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 the Committee that the next meeting would be held on 5^th April 2023.

To report any items withdrawn from the agenda.

The Chairman announced that application 22/00067/MFUL had been 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)    22/02220/MFUL - Variation of Condition 2 of Planning Permission 21/00276/MFUL - Erection of 13 dwellings to include associated landscaping, public open space and infrastructure - Substitution of agreed drawings to incorporate revised site drawings at Land at NGR 283084 102432 (Fanny's Lane), Sandford, Devon.

The Area Team Leader explained that the Legal Team had dealt with the matter of h the signing of a Deed of Variation for the S106 agreement therefore the Recommendation had been amended to read ‘Grant permission subject to conditions’. In addition, the drawing number for the Landscaping scheme to be secured under condition 4 was now 2437 01 C (rather than B).

The officer outlined the application by way of a presentation which highlighted the site location plan, aerial views showing the access points, the affordable housing units, the surrounding residential properties, public open spaces, refuse and parking areas. The Committee were also shown images of the stepped access to the south, the drainage plans and terraced gardens.

The changes between the original planning application and the revised application were also summarised including changes to boundary treatments, gradient levels, which were designed to improve disability access, pedestrian access points and the provision of banks rather than retaining walls to the site area. Proposed changes also included a change to the use of certain materials such as render replacing stone, slates tiles proposed for the roofs, the provision of air source heat pumps and electric car charging points. The officer summarised the particular proposed changes to each plot where they existed.

In response to the public questions asked he stated that:

·         The original application had been approved, implemented and development had started.

·         The revised application had come about as a result of local concerns and an investigation hence the proposed changes to the stepped nature of the site and the change in materials.

·         Professional officers had no concerns about the site levels and were content that hedgerows were being proposed to improve the appearance of boundary edges.

·         Information had been provided only where there were proposed changes.

·         Devon County Council had not raised any concerns regarding the Public Right of Way following confirmation that levels to the PROW remain unchanged.

·         The spoil would be removed from the site.

·         Drainage and flooding issues had been dealt with at the original application stage.

Consideration was given to:

·         Materials had been chosen so as to be in keeping with the surrounding area.

·         Concerns regarding giving permission originally based on a number of conditions (such as retention of the Right of Way and fitting in with the Conservation area) and now receiving a revised application with additional proposed changes to the stepped nature of the site, boundary treatments and materials used. What purpose had the original approval therefore served and what was the point of approving conditions if they could then be altered at a later stage? It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 125.