Agenda and draft minutes

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

Apologies were received from Cllr G DuChesne (on-line) with Cllr J Downes substituting and Cllr C Harrower with Cllr L G Kennedy substituting.

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 referred to Application No. 23/00394/MARM and asked the following questions:-

Question 1

The Mid Devon District Council (MDDC) adopted Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension (EUE) Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document SPD) delivers very clear expectations of developers with regard to the EUE Planning Process.

The overriding objective of the document "is to improve the quality of the proposals and the resulting developments to ensure that infrastructure and phases are co-ordinated”.

Please note the comment to ensure infrastructure and phases are co-ordinated.  This as well as for Area ‘A’ also intended for the much larger Area ‘B’. 

Importantly Section 1.7 also states. “MDDC will expect landowners and developers to follow the prescribed design process which is adopted as an integral part of the SPD".  . 

The prescribed design process expects the engagement of a specialist Design Review Panel, plus issue of a related report.

Why have the Design Review Panel reports not been made available for public examination and comment this on the MDDC Planning Portal?

Something that did happen for the previous phase of this applicant’s development and which resulted in public comment. 

Question 2

Will the Planning Committee give full consideration to the lack of provision of visitor parking spaces in the most appropriate locations for this development?

That while there being 71 properties on the easterly section and high density part of the development there are only 3 visitor parking spaces allocated and even then, these spaces are distant and hidden away from the most needed point of use.

As a result, this is clearly going to result in parking on the central spine road. A relatively narrow road and certainly nothing like Lea Road at Moorhayes. A road, which will see high traffic density also which is on a proposed bus route. 

Question 3

Will the Planning Committee give full consideration to the fact that a 3 storey block of flats and which is being built on rising ground and the developer calls a Landmark Building? It is the first and most prominent building that will be visible on entering the site from Blundells Road.

Despite everything said in the Committee report it goes against Policy T4 Character of Development and T5 Design of Development of the Tiverton Neighbourhood Plan.  A 3 storey block of flats and why not 2 storey - in this location beyond any doubt does not conserve or enhance the area and which is a clearly stated policy requirement.

The Chair advised that the questions would be answered when the application was considered on the agenda.

To record any interests on agenda matters.

Members were reminded of the need to declare any interests where appropriate.

There were no interests to declare.

To consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 4^th December 2024.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 4 December 2024 were agreed as a true record and duly SIGNED by the Chair.

         To receive any announcements the Chair may wish to make. 

The Chair informed Committee Members that the order of the Plans List would run differently to that shown in the Agenda pack. 

The new order would be:-

·         Plan 3 - 24/01535/FULL

·         Plan 4 - 24/01539/ADVERT

·         Plan 1 - 23/00394/MARM

·         Plan 2 - 24/01248/PNCOU

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.

3)    24/01535/FULL - Installation of Pulse Smart Hub with integrated digital screens at 2 locations within Tiverton at Market Walk, Bampton Street and Outside Lowman House, Lowman Green, Tiverton.

The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report by way of a presentation and highlighted the following:-

·       The application was for the installation of two Pulse Smart Hubs at locations within Tiverton Town Centre.

·       The Smart Hubs comprised of two large digital screens capable of displaying moving advertisements. The side of each smart hub also contained a user interface with touchscreen.

·       The Smart Hubs had a range of features which included the provision of digital information, advertising, communication, public WI-FI, free telephone calls, mobile phone charging functionality, emergency health support and contact which included a defibrillator and 999 calls along with local information and local maps/wayfinding.

·       The two locations for the Smart Hubs were Market Walk Shopping Precinct and Lowman Green near the Police Station.

·       Each unit measured 2.54m high, 1.28m wide and 0.35m deep.

·       The main issues raised included design and impact; heritage; highway safety; and residential amenity.

·       There would be a total of nine Smart Hubs in other locations around Tiverton on Devon County Council land.  The application today were the final two on Mid Devon District Council land which was why they were being considered by the Planning Committee.

·       There was potential for the Smart Hubs to have a minor impact on the Conservation Area however the public benefits outweighed this.

·       Highways had no objections however they did ask for a Highways Safety Audit to be carried out.  This would be carried out pre-commencement.

·       There had been no objections from Public Health with regard to the lighting levels.  There was an agreement in place that the Smart Hubs would be switched off between the hours of 12am-6am.

·       A Management Scheme would be in place to ensure the Smart Hubs were well maintained and any damages would be rectified and controlled.  The owners would be responsible for this service.

Discussion took place regarding:-

·       The Smart Hubs were not of a Police preferred specification.  It was explained that the Police had not raised any objections and that work was being undertaken with the Police at a national level to certify them in the future.  This was a lengthy process.

·       When the Smart Hubs were switched off would this mean services would not be accessed during this time?  It was clarified that despite the advertising displays being turned off the other functions would continue to be available to use.

·       Whether the Smart Hubs were vandal proof?  It was explained that they were robust and designed to stand up to vandalism.  The Management Scheme would ensure that the Smart Hubs were inspected and cleaned every few weeks and a process would be in place to deal with damage quickly.

·       The accessibility to the Smart Hubs and whether the defibrillator was registered on a network with the emergency services?  It was clarified  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

To consider a Tree Preservation Order for 2 Birch Trees, 72 Langlands Road, Cullompton, Devon EX15 1JB.

The Committee considered the Tree Preservation Order (TPO)24/00009/TPO - 72 Langlands Road, Cullompton, Devon.

The Arboricultural Officer outlined the contents of the *report by way of a presentation and highlighted the following:-

·       The TPO was made on the 9 October 2024 following contact from a resident concerned about two birch trees growing in their garden following a letter from a neighbour with a request for the trees to be reduced in height by 50%.

·       The owners had asked how the trees could be protected and an option was given to assess the trees to determine if they met the criteria for a TPO.

·       A site visit took place on 21 September 2024 to assess the trees and to discuss the future pruning required of the trees if a TPO was made.

·       Following the TPO being made two objections were received on 1 November 2024 from Mr and Mrs Peach whose garden directly borders the garden to the west.

·       The two trees grown were within the garden of 72 Langlands Road.

·       There were a limited number of large and medium sized trees in the area.

·       The canopy when last measured in 2020 stood at a low 4.3%.

·       The upper canopy was visible and would provide a good buffering of the residential area when in leaf.

·       An intermediate evaluation took place of the two trees which having considered the size; potential remaining contribution for visibility, the limited number of large or medium trees that would ordinarily be visible from the public space; suitability; future amenity value; the potential impact on structures and any other factors, the two trees were reviewed to merit a TPO.  The trees collectively scored 18 when 15 was the threshold for consideration.  The maximum score being 32.

·       The two objectors had raised a number of issues which included seeds and leaves rooting in the gravel and lifting the lawn.

·       A TPO was there to ensure that works were reasonable, suitable and adequately justified.

·       The wildlife value for Silver Birch trees were high and any tree works could have a severe impact and could lead to the demise of the tree.

Discussion took place regarding:-

·       Whether the trees were at risk from falling on adjacent buildings?  It was confirmed that despite a risk assessment not being carried out there were no significant defects obvious when the site visit took place in September 2024.

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

(Proposed by Cllr N Letch and seconded by Cllr G Cochran)

Reason for the Decision – as set out in the report.

Notes:

(i)              Mrs Peach spoke as the objector.

(ii)             Mr Rayner spoke as the applicant (which the Chair read on his behalf)

(iii)           Cllr S Clist abstained from voting.

*Report previously circulated.

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 as per the report.

Note:  *List previously circulated, copy 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, copy attached to the minutes.