Venue: Phoenix Chamber, Phoenix House, Tiverton
Contact: Sally Gabriel Member Services Manager
Link: audiorecording
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS To receive any apologies for absence and notices of appointment of substitute.
Minutes: Apologies were received from Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge, who was substituted by Cllr R B Evans and Cllr B A Moore who was substituted by Cllr Mrs B M Hull. |
|
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 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.
Minutes:
Cllr Mrs Binks referring to Item 9 on the agenda (Major Applications) and identifying 65 dwellings at Higher Road, Crediton and 257 dwellings at Creedy Bridge stated that the records still show that Simon Trafford is the lead officer, could this be updated? She requested a brief written update on both applications as she had to report to the Parish Council. She also asked if consideration could be given to whether the Ward Members could be consulted with regard to the S106 agreements when the time came for further discussions.
Mr Milverton referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Cleave Barton) asked the following questions:
1. Where there is a flood issue, applicants have to submit both a Flood Risk. Assessment identifying the risks, and a Flood Warning and Emergency Plan to address those risks. The EA repeatedly say that it is their role to point out the risks, but not to assess the mitigation in the Flood Warning and Emergency Plan, that being the role of the Local Planning Authority. This being the case, what weight should be given to an objection from the Environment Agency to a proposed development which has not taken into account the contents of the Flood Warding and Emergency Plan? 2. In the instance of Cleave Barton, the Environment Agency state that it is not their role to assess the FWEP but within the report the planning officer says MDDC does not have the expertise to do so either. How can the Local Planning Authority arrive at an assessment of the application where a FWEP has been submitted? 3. If the Environment Agency advise that they have evidence which directly affects an application and which they rely on to justify an objection, is it not fair and reasonable for that evidence to be put in the public realm so it can be seen by all and responded to by applicants and their agents? At Cleave Barton, the Environment Agency have advised that they have evidence that Cleave Barton could not be evacuated in advance of less than 1 in a 100 year frequency and that waters on the edge of the flood plain would not be tranquil. This directly affects the assessment of the application - what is that evidence and why cannot it be produced. 4. The MDDC website states that all objections will be put in the public realm and my understanding is that it is actually a legal requirement to do so. With respect to Cleave Barton, both the Environment Agency and MDDC received material from the objector which has been treated as confidential and neither party would reveal to the applicant that material and neither the applicant, their agents or the ward member have seen it. Can officers advise what material submitted by the objector has been treated as confidential; why officers accepted it could be treated as confidential and have committee members been made aware that there is confidential material on the planning file and have they been ... view the full minutes text for item 113. |
|
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT (00-09-25) Councillors are reminded of the requirement to declare any interest, including the type of interest, and reason for that interest at each item.
Minutes: Members were reminded of the need to declare any interests when appropriate.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (00-09-39) PDF 120 KB Members to consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 6 February 2019. Minutes: The Minutes of the meeting held on 6 February 2019 were approved as a correct record and SIGNED by the Chairman.
|
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (00-10-15) To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.
Minutes: The Chairman had no announcements to make. |
|
ENFORCEMENT LIST (00-10-27) PDF 43 KB To consider the items contained in the Enforcement List.
Additional documents:
Minutes: Consideration was given to the cases in the Enforcement List *.
Note: * List previously circulated; copy attached to the signed Minutes.
Arising thereon:
a) No. 1 in the Enforcement List (Enforcement Case ENF/17/00326/RURAL – Unauthorised operational development in the permanent fixing of a shipping container on the land and unauthorised material change of use from agriculture to a mixed use of agriculture and the storage of materials not required for agriculture – Bradford farm, Uplowman)
The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report highlighting by way of presentation the site location plan, the location of the shipping container and the enforcement action proposed.
Consideration was given to:
· The views of the neighbour with regard to the impact of the container on his dwelling and his concerns about apparent unauthorised uses on the property. · The views of one of the Ward Members . · What the container was being used for.
RESOLVED that authority be given to the Group Manager for Legal Services and Monitoring Officer to take all such steps and action necessary to secure the removal of the unauthorised shipping container from the land and the cessation of the unauthorised use, including the issue of an enforcement notice and prosecution and/or Direct Action in the event of non-compliance with the notice.
(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr D J Knowles)
Note:
(i) Cllrs R B Evans, Mrs B M Hull, D J Knowles and R F Radford declared personal interests as the neighbour was known to them;
(ii) Mr Blackmore (neighbour) spoke;
(iii) Cllr C R Slade spoke as Ward Member.
b) No. 2 in the Enforcement List (Enforcement Case ENF/19/00036/LB – without listed building consent, the insertion of uPVC sliding doors and windows to the 20th century rear single storey extension and uPVC dormer windows to the south elevation – Loram Cottage, Copplestone)
The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report highlighting by way of presentation the location of the property, explaining the uPVC windows to the rear and that it was not considered expedient to take further enforcement action against the existing unauthorised doors and windows to the south elevation as it was considered that they did not harm the architectural or historic interest of the building. She explained the negotiations that had taken place to replace the windows on the front elevations with timber flush fitting casements windows to the first floor and timber sliding sash windows to the ground floor.
RESOLVED that having regard to the provisions of the Mid Devon Development Plan and all other material planning consideration in accordance with Section 38 of the Town and County Planning Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; the recent approval of Listed Building Consent follow negotiated improvement through replacement windows on the front (north) election from (i) unauthorised uPVC windows to (ii) timber, slim double glazed, sliding sash and casement windows, the effect of the works on the character and historic interest ... view the full minutes text for item 117. |
|
DEFERRALS FROM THE PLANS LIST (00-20-47) To report any items appearing in the Plans List which have been deferred.
Minutes: There were no deferrals from the Plans List.
|
|
THE PLANS LIST (00-20-51) PDF 300 KB To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
Minutes:
(a) No 1 on the Plans List (18/00874/FULL – Conversion of artist studios to 2 holiday lets - Cleave Barton, Bickleigh) The Area Team Leader addressed the meeting highlighting the contents of the update sheet which contained additional comments by the agent and the removal of the second reason for refusal as the issue had been addressed. She outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the location of the application site, the position of the leat and the low lying land, the proximity of the buildings to one another, the distance from the site to the River Exe, the existing and proposed plans, floor plans and the escape route back to Cleave Barton House. Members also viewed photographs from various aspects of the site including the public footpath and an information sheet which provided evidence of previous flood damage (provided by the Environment Agency). The Flood and Coastal Risk Engineer representing the Environment Agency was invited to address the meeting. He outlined the guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework and the strict tests that should be applied, he emphasised that the development could not be made safe from flooding and should not be permitted. He outlined the flood issues in the area and the magnitude of previous floods. He outlined the modelling that had taken place and the depth of water calculated which could be fatal. He addressed the flood mitigation for Cleave Barton House, the evacuation plan and whether the house would be able to withstand an extreme event even though it was tanked and whether visitors to the site would be able to react effectively to an extreme event. The Area Team Leader then addressed the questions posed at public question time and provided the following answers: · The Environment Agency was a statutory consultant and it helped identify matters to be addressed and reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment. An objection from the Environment Agency together with information and guidance within the NPPF and planning practice guides had led to the recommendation of refusal. · With regard to question 2, the application was before the committee for determination. · With regard to the evidence to justify an objection, the evidence was the flood risk. · With regard to objections in the public domain, she stated that the objections to the application were in the public domain, however she had been sent some photographs from the objector who had requested that they remain confidential, the photographs had remained confidential and were therefore not mentioned in the officer report. · Members had all the information to assess the case. Consideration was given to: · The National Planning Policy Framework · The size of the floodplain · Recent flooding events and climate change · The change of use of the building from a gallery to overnight accommodation · The views of the objector with regard to having observed the flooding of Cleave Barton site that ... view the full minutes text for item 119. |
|
MAJOR APPLICATIONS WITH NO DECISION (2-16-00) PDF 21 KB List attached for consideration of major applications and potential site visits.
Minutes: The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a list * of major applications with no decision.
It was AGREED that:
Application 19/00118/MOUT – (land west of Siskin Chase) Colebrooke Lane, Cullompton be brought before the Committee for determination and that a site visit take place if the officer recommendation was one of approval.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to the Minutes
|
|
APPEAL DECISIONS (2-17-00) PDF 13 KB To receive for information a list of recent appeal decisions.
Minutes: The Committee had before it and NOTED a list of appeal decisions * providing information on the outcome of recent planning appeals.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to Minutes.
|
|
To consider a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application. Minutes: The Committee had before it * report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above application. The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report highlighting by way of presentation the widening of the walkway through to the market area, the proposed demolition works, proposed illuminated floorspace and the elevations and section plans for the proposed buildings. Members viewed photographs from various aspects of the site including that from the Fore Street and the market. Discussion took place regarding: · The views of the applicant highlighting the proposed connection from Fore Street to the market, the widening of the walkway to provide a safer movement for people to move around the town, the 3 retail units and proposed residences in the centre of the town. · The view of the Town Council with regard to the architectural heritage, the impact of the proposal on the Conservation Area, whether the development was sensitive and in line with the NPPF and whether the proposal was in accordance with Policy DM2. · The views of the Ward Members with regard to the fact that the scheme was critical for the town and the market, there were 3 obvious benefits in that the scheme would enhance the area, there would be new retail units and 3 new flats in the town centre. · Whether the design of the shops was in keeping with the area, although it was felt that there was no particular theme in the design of adjacent buildings.
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration with the following additional conditions: No work shall be carried out on site to any external walls or roofs unless particulars of the materials (including the provision of samples where appropriate) to be used for external walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such particulars will include the detailed finish (rough sawn, hand tooled, etc.) Slate hooks shall not be used. Reason: To preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area in accordance with policies DM2 and DM27 Local plan part 3 (Development Management Policies). No work shall be carried construct any external wall unless full details of the coursing, bonding and coping; mortar profile, colour, and texture along with a written detail of the mortar mix, have been be provided in writing and supported with a sample panel to be provided at a time to be agreed in writing. The work shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details, and the sample panel shall remain available for inspection throughout the duration of the work. Note: on sloping sites, the top of the wall should run with the slope of the land and not be stepped. Reason: To preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area in accordance with policies DM2 and DM27 Local plan part 3 (Development Management Policies).
No repointing shall be undertaken on site unless full details, including ... view the full minutes text for item 122. |
|
COSTS IN THE PLANNING SERVICE (2-47-00) PDF 84 KB To consider a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration highlighting some of the headline findings of the recent costs exercise to provide Members with background information on suggested service improvements and changes. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee had before it and NOTED * report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration highlighting some of the headline findings of the recent costs exercise to provide Members with background information on suggested service improvements and changes.
The Group Manager for Development stated that work had taken pace with regard to improving the efficiency of the Planning Service. He explained the time recording exercise that had taken place and the report subsequently produced by CIPFA which had highlighted a number of efficiencies and cost recovery opportunities for discretionary services.
Consideration was given to:
· The service cost headlines · How the duty planning officer service costs would be covered · The period of the time recording exercise
Note: *Report previously circulated copy attached to signed minutes.
|
|