Agenda and draft minutes

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

Apologies were received from:

·         Cllr G DuChesne who was substituted by Cllr L G J Kennedy.

·         Cllr N Letch who was substituted by Cllr L Knight.

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.

Councillor David Parker objecting to application 25/00356/FULL -  Crediton Hamlets Parish Council spoke on behalf of Crediton Hamlets Parish Council as he was unable to address the Committee when the application was being considered under the “Plans List”

Marthe Gomer referred to Application No 25/00356/FULL.

The applicant, and their agent, ecologist, drainage experts, land surveyor, the St Francis Trust, the Parish Council and finally the people who live at Posbury all agree that the application site is a green field site, sometimes referred to by the applicant's team as: "a grass land field".  This is the one thing we all agree on.

There are only four exceptions to building a house on a green field site. These are:

1* Re use of a heritage site.

2* Re use of a redundant farm building.

3* Construction of an agriculturally tied dwelling.

4* The design of the dwelling is so exceptional and unique as to be given consideration.

The application fails on all four counts.

Question 1: Why has this come before the Committee when it clearly should have been stopped in its tracks by the Planning Officer months ago?"

I appreciate there is always a presumption of approval for applications but this is not bending the rules to allow a house to be built in the middle of a field - it's disregarding them entirely.  This field was used as a landfill site for two years by the applicant to dispose of builder's rubble including toxic and hazardous waste, in particular large quantities of asbestos are buried in huge pits all over the site.

Question 2: Should the Committee approve the application can there be a condition attached regarding the safe disposal of this material, not just for the resident’s safety but also the general public using the popular footpath which runs along two sides of the field?

Beverley Seal referred to Application No. 25/00356/FULL

My husband and I bought and converted the Old Chapel. We live immediately next to Nazareth and support its demolition.

Question 1: The Parish Council claim that if the application is allowed, a precedent for demolishing houses and building elsewhere on greenfield sites, would be created. Can the officers advise whether this is actually the case? Is it not the case that every planning application is treated on its own merits?

Question 2: Can the officers confirm that the Replacement Dwellings Policy DM10 of the local plan already allows the rebuilding of houses elsewhere on plots and hence the claim that allowing a relocation here is unusual or unprecedented in policy terms, is incorrect?

Chris Howard referred to Application Number 254/00752/FULL

I am objecting to 25/00752/FULL. I would really like the opportunity to object to the discharge of a condition of 19/00914/FULL that approved a plan to run sewage pipes across our gardens and along two elevations of our and our neighbour’s houses. However, this opportunity was not forthcoming, which I believe is a staggeringly unreasonable omission in planning process. However, as the two developments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

To record any interests on agenda matters.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 30 July 2025.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 30 July 2025 were agreed as a true record and SIGNED by the Chair.  This included the agreed removal of the words “Conservation Officer” and addition of “Area Team Leader” in its place in minute 30.

         To receive any announcements the Chair may wish to make. 

The Chair reminded Members of the Planning Committee that training would take place on Wednesday 10September at 10.00am.   The Planning Committee would follow at 2.15pm.

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.

1.      25/00752/FULL - Variation of Condition 3 of planning permission 22/00432/FULL (Erection of 5 dwellings) to allow substitute plans relating drainage at Land at NGR 306758 113093, (South of Allotment Gardens), Clay Lane, Uffculme.

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

·       The site had extant planning permission for 5 dwellings as did the adjacent site to the east.   The sites were not in the same ownership but developers were working collaboratively on some matters which included drainage.

·       An application to vary the drainage scheme had previously been refused by the Committee.  This application sought to address the Committee’s refusal reasons which related to a lack of information for the foul water scheme and insufficient infiltration testing.

·       The applicant engaged a planning agent who had provided more information in relation to the proposals and additional infiltration testing had been carried out which included 5 additional trial pits.

·       The previously approved drainage scheme was for infiltration however that approach was not feasible due to the clay-like surface with water levels not dropping sufficiently at testing stage.

·       The next option was connection to a waterbody with the River Culm however this was not a suitable option.

·       Connection to a surface water sewer was required and as this had been approved as part of the adjacent site application, it was logical for this development to use the same drain.

·       Whilst it was unfortunate the scheme would result in some works on third party land, those works would be taking place as part of the adjacent development.   In addition, South West Water (SWW) had requisition powers to undertake those works.  Permitted development rights required SWW to restore the land to its previous condition as soon as was reasonably practicable.

·       With regard to foul drainage, the previous refusal reason referred to a lack of information as to why the specific connection point was chosen.  It had since been clarified that the previously approved connection at Clay Lane would result in significant road closures on a 90 metre stretch of road.  The approach proposed for this application was designed by professional engineers and was considered safe and policy compliant with no objections from professional consultees.   The lack of road closure was considered to be a betterment compared with the previously approved approach.

In response to public questions the Principal Planning Officer answered as follows:-

          Chris Howard

Question 1: Do Members feel that the values and priorities of Mid Devon District Council’s Corporate Plan are being upheld within this planning process? For example: Involving and engaging with our communities, ensuring everyone is treated with equity. 

Answer 1: Consultation requirements are generally set nationally and there is no requirement to consult on discharge of condition applications.

Question 2: Should these plans go ahead, do Members agree that third parties who will have land requisitioned to lay pipes from this tank, should be actively informed of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

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 the following:-

25/00996/MFUL - Variation of conditions 3, 5 and 6 of planning permission 20/00273/MFUL (Erection of 9 dwellings, conversion of barns to 5 dwellings, with associated works including access improvements and landscaping (Revised Scheme)) in relation to highways and drainage matters - to remain delegated as per the report.

Note:  *List previously circulated.

To receive a list of recent appeal decisions.

The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a *list of appeal decisions.

Note: *List previously circulated.