To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
Minutes:
RESOLVED that the following application be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the various recommendations contained in the list namely:
(i) No 1 on the Plans List (19/01961/HOUSE Conversion Of garage to additional ancillary accommodation to include extension and alterations to boundary wall – 1 Oak Crescent, Willand) be approved subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Notes:
i) Cllr B G J Warren made a declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as a member of Willand Parish Council;
ii) A question was raised with regard to the conversion of the garage and any loss of parking;
iii) The following late information was available on the update sheet:
All consultation responses have now been received and are summarised below:
Willand Parish Council: 15/12/19 - Willand Parish Council had the following concerns relating to the proposal, firstly as to whether or not the garage extension could become a separate dwelling. Secondly, there does not appear to be sufficient parking for two vehicles and if this is achieved by using part of the front lawn then there is concern as to visibility for vehicles when entering from Meadow Park. The Councillors would wish the Officer to be satisfied that this was not over development of the site.
Highway Authority: 10.12.19 - Standing advice applies please see Devon County Council document
Environmental Health: Householder development and alterations within Flood Zone 1 - No EA consultation required.
No other letters of representation have been received.
b) No 2 on the Plans List (19/01309/FULL Erection of a dwelling including demolition of a garage (Revised Scheme), Fair Havens, Mill Street, Crediton).
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting: the application site, the access off Mill Street, the Conservation Area boundary, plans of the previous dwelling on the site, the proposed landscaping and block plan of the current application along with the layout of the site, the parking areas, proposed elevations and floor plans for the proposal in question. She informed the meeting that the 2003 planning consent had related to a bungalow on the site and provided the approved plans, she also provided comparative drawings of the 2003 application and the current application and stated that approval had been granted for 3 dwellings on the site in 2014. Members also viewed photographs from various aspects of the site.
Consideration was given to:
· The visual impact of the dwelling
· The views of the objector with regard to the proposal and that she had obtained planning permission for a dwelling in Downshead Lane but had followed the correct procedures, this was not the case for the application in question. The large and ugly building that had been built, the fact that it did not conform with any planning permission in place on the site. The orange tiled roof was out of keeping within the Conservation Area and the visual impact of the development could be seen across Crediton
· The views of the agent with regard to the 2003 approval and that work had commenced on the site in 2004, although the works had not been completed it was felt that the permission was still live and had been highlighted within the presentation by the comparative drawings, this was not entirely a new development and that the application should be considered on its merits.
· The views of the representative from the Town Council with regard to the impact on the Conservation Area the contribution to the local character and the setting of the listed building. The dwelling did not integrate with other local buildings due to the size and colour of the roof and the location of the site made it difficult to screen the property
· The views of one of the Ward Member’s with regard the development at Wellparks and how that had been designed to fit in with the local area, the need for procedures to be followed and that the development did not include any modern features to mitigate climate change.
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that: the application be deferred to allow a site visit to take place by the Planning Working Group to consider relevant parts of Policy DM2 as follows:
Policy DM2 requires designs of new development to be of high quality based upon and demonstrating the following principles:
a) Clear understanding of the characteristics of the site, its wider context and the surrounding area
c) Positive contribution to local character including any heritage or biodiversity assets and the setting of heritage assets
e) Visually attractive places that are well integrated with surrounding buildings, streets and landscapes, and do not have an unacceptable adverse effect on the privacy and amenity of the proposed or neighbouring properties and uses, taking account of:
ii) Siting, layout, scale and massing
iv) Materials, landscaping and green infrastructure
(Proposed by Cllr F W Letch and seconded by Cllr B G J Warren)
Notes:
i) Cllr J M Downes declared a personal interest as he could see the site from his house;
ii) Cllr F W Letch made a declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as a Chairman of Crediton Town Council;
iii) Ms Partridge spoke in objection to the application;
iv) Mr Wright (agent) spoke;
v) Cllr Mrs Brookes Hocking spoke on behalf of Crediton Town Council;
vi) Cllr J M Downes spoke as Ward Member;
vii) The following late information was reported:
CREDITON TOWN COUNCIL- 9th January- It was resolved to strongly reaffirm the Council’s original objections made to the application and to also add that the development is over-scaled, the materials used are unsympathetic and the planting scheme is inadequate compared to what existed prior to development. The Council is also disappointed to note that the developer has proceeded with the development prior to obtaining the necessary planning consents.
· The overgrown grass on the bank adjacent to the driveway has a negative visual impact, proper landscaping should be carried out here.
· Concerns regarding the accuracy of the site location plan in terms of the extent of the applicant’s ownership (NB: please note update on this as below)
c) No 3 on the Plans List (19/01340/FULL Erection of a dwelling - land at NGR 266108 (Paddons Farm), Wembworthy)
The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report explaining that Wembworthy was a village without a settlement limit, therefore there was no planning policy to support an open market dwelling in the countryside. There had been an application for 2 dwellings on the site in 1991 which had lapsed and he explained that planning policy had moved on since then. He explained the self-build policy and the S106 agreement (the affordable or low cost housing to remain affordable for and available to local people in perpetuity, limited to no more than 80% of its market value upon resale).
The meeting was shown a presentation which outlined the proposals for a 4 bedroom dwelling, which included the elevations, a landscape plan and photographs from various aspects of the site.
Consideration was given to:
· The detail of the S106, the criteria for a self build and whether the property could be claimed to be affordable
· The views of the applicant with regard to the detail of the S106 which he felt was a restriction but that he fully intended to stay within the village;
· The views of the local County Councillor supporting the application.
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that: planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration and the signing of a S106 agreement to secure the affordable or low-cost housing to remain affordable for and available to local people in perpetuity, limited to no more than 80% of its market value upon resale.
(Proposed by Cllr B G J Warren and seconded by Cllr Mrs C A Collis)
Notes:
i) Mr Fowler (applicant) spoke;
ii) The Chairman read a statement on behalf of Cllr Mrs M E Squires (County Councillor);
iii) The following late information was reported
Revised comments received from Wembworthy Parish Council via agent for applicant. 13/1/2020 Comments from a councillor were a personal opinion and not written as a representation of the Parish Council. The Parish Council previously voted in favour of the development of the site and instructed the clerk to write to Mid Devon expressing this decision.
Further comments from Parish Clerk 14/1/2020 - The comments sent in originally were the only ones received from the PC during the original timescales and provided by a named councillor. Otherwise the council had no objections to the application. I have no knowledge of a letter dated 13 January 2020.
d) No 4 on the Plans List (19/01507/OUT Outline for the erection of a dwelling and formation of access – 48 Twitchen, Holcombe Rogus).
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the location of the application, the existing dwelling on site and the use of the existing access. The site was currently outside of the settlement limit, however the Local Plan Review would amend the settlement limit. He provided an indicative layout of the proposed dwelling and the location of the drainage gully and the open drain adjacent to the site. He explained that the drain collected water from the fields behind the site with the pipe depositing the water into the road, this was a highways issue and would not impact on the site itself. Members also viewed photographs from various aspects of the site which included the flooded road.
Consideration was given to:
· The views of the objector with regard to the build up of water in her garden and that the erection of a dwelling could cause damage to the culvert or if the drain was blocked this would cause her property to flood. The busy road to the village was narrow and prone to flooding and the closeness of the play area to the application site.
· The views of the applicant with regard to the results of the flood risk assessment which had stated that the proposal would not contribute to any more flood water. The proposed dwelling would sit 3 feet above the road level and was just an outline application.
· The views of the Chairman of the Parish Council with regard to the flooding in the area, surface water issues, how much hard surface would be incorporated into the site which could create drainage issues and the lack of facilities in the village with the closure of the village shop.
· The views of one of the Ward Member’s with regard to the views of the Parish Council and local flooding issues
· The results of the SUDS report which had indicated the capability of storing water on the site and allowing it to percolate slowly into the drain.
· Whether the additional dwelling would have any major impact on the flood issues already present.
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that: planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.
(Proposed by Cllr E J Berry and seconded by Cllr S J Clist)
Notes:
i) Cllr R F Radford declared a personal interest as he knew the applicant and chose to leave the meeting during the discussion thereon;
ii) Cllr D J Knowles declared a personal interest as the applicant was known to him;
iii) Mrs Barker (objector) spoke;
iv) Mr Archer (agent) spoke;
v) Cllr Butler spoke on behalf of Holcombe Rogus Parish Council;
vi) A proposal for a site visit was not supported.
vii) Cllr Mrs C A Collis requested that her vote against the decision be recorded.
e) No 5 on the Plans List (19/01900/FULL The erection of a dwelling and formation of access – Southertons Farmhouse, Westleigh).
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the proposal of a single storey dwelling which was a revised scheme to that approved in 2018, the site location plan, the location of the garden wall which would provide access, the proposed design and elevations and photographs from various aspects of the site. He also provided a comparison drawing of the previous approved permission and the current proposal.
Consideration was given to:
· The views of the objector and the impact that the proposal would have on her property, she felt that any excavations would undermine her property, the proposal would have an adverse impact on her property and therefore would be against policy DM2. She also felt that the proposal would impact on her visual amenity and that there would be a loss of light and that the proposal was too close to her dwelling. She also highlighted a covenant which referred to the height restriction of any dwelling in that area.
· The views of the agent, who referred to the revised scheme being a more appropriate dwelling at only 3 metres high. The neighbouring property had obscured glass on the ground floor overlooking the site, there would be no loss of light and only a small amount of soil would need to be removed.
· The views of a representative from the Parish Council with regard to the loss of light in the kitchen of the neighbouring property, the lack of consultation with the neighbours and concerns with regard to the wall.
· Whether the proposal would result in any material loss of daylight and sunlight to rooms in an adjoining property
· The revised scheme being better than the previous application which already had permission.
· The fact that the covenant was not a planning matter.
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that: planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.
(Proposed by Cllr F W Letch and seconded by Cllr E J Berry.)
Notes:
i) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe made a declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as she had received a letter from the objector;
ii) Mrs Wynne-Jones spoke in objection to the application
iii) Mr Archer spoke as agent;
iv) Cllr Worrow spoke on behalf of Burlescombe Parish Council;
v) Cllr Mrs C A Collis requested that her vote against the decision be recorded.
Supporting documents: