To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
a) No 1 on the Plans List (19/01862/FULL Change of use of farm buildings to mixed B1/B8 use and retention of external works – land and buildings at NGR 299326 114323, Bradford Farm, Uplowman).
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the different aspects of the application, the site location plan the existing and proposed elevations which outlined the additional rooflights, windows and doors, the apiary unit plans and photographs from various aspects of the site, including views from the neighbouring property. He informed the meeting that the scheme made use of existing buildings and that additional discussions had taken place with the Environmental Protection Officer and the Highways Officer with regard to the access and the parking areas and no objections had been received from those parties.
Consideration was given to:
· The details of the unauthorised works, the detail of B1 use and how the usage could be monitored
· The height of the wall at the entrance and the visibility splay
· The surface of the driveway into the parking area and whether any additional drainage would be required
· Whether any of the new windows would be overlooking the neighbouring property
· The positioning of the portakabin/container
· Whether the application covered all the outstanding issues on the site
· The views of the objector with regard to whether the proposals were in line with Policy DM20 and whether the proposals were appropriate for a countryside location, the site was too large and would impact on the neighbouring property, the previous application that the previous administration had been minded to refuse (before it was withdrawn) was smaller, there were outstanding enforcement issues on the site and the use of the portakabin/container for a bee-keeping group which would require visits at the weekend
· The views of the applicant’s agent who provided clarification with regard to the windows and informed the meeting that the application sought a sustainable use for the buildings on the site. Policy DM11 guided such a proposal (conversion of rural buildings) and not Policy DM20 which was for new build in rural locations. He felt that there would be a limited impact on the neighbouring property and that the application was appropriate. He welcomed the proposed amendment to Condition 11 which would allow its use for agricultural purposes in addition to the uses ancillary to bee-keeping activities taking place on site.
· The views of the local Ward Members with regard to the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring property and whether there was a ned for business use accommodation on the scale proposed in the rural location and that there was appropriate space on sites in Tiverton; the impact of the additional traffic movements in the area, issues with the access and the impact of this on the neighbouring property and whether parking could take place in the courtyard. Theneed for all noise issues to be addressed should the application be approved with the use of an acoustic fence and the replacement of the existing gravel track with a properly consolidated surface.
· Whether a site visit should take place for the new committee to consider all the issues raised.
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that: the application be deferred for a site visit to take place by the Planning Working Group to consider:
· The location, condition and proposal in relation to the portakabin/container
· The entrance and visibility from the public highway
· The surface of the entrance and the car park
· The relationship between the car park and the effect on the adjoining property in relation to noise and visual impact
(Proposed by Cllr D J Knowles and seconded by Cllr B G J Warren)
i) Cllrs E J Berry, Mrs F J Colthorpe, Mrs C P Daw, Mrs C A Collis, L J Cruwys, S J Clist, F W Letch, E G Luxton, D J Knowles and B G J Warren all made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had received correspondence with regard to the application;
ii) Cllrs E J Berry and D J Knowles declared personal interests as the objector was known to them
iii) Mr Blackmore spoke as the objector;
iv) Mr Firth (agent) spoke;
v) The Chairman read a statement from Cllr N V Davey (Ward Member)
vi) Cllr C R Slade and D J Knowles spoke as Ward Members;
vii) The following late information was reported:
Could Members please note that there is a typo on page 34/35 of the officer’s report. Instead of reading “due to the close proximity of the two sites, and the presence of similar gravel drive and parking areas present at this adjoining property, it is not considered that the car park works adequately respect the character of the surrounding area, without harming the rural context”, the ‘not’ should be omitted so the line reads as “due to the close proximity of the two sites, and the presence of similar gravel drive and parking areas present at this adjoining property, it is considered that the car park works adequately respect the character of the surrounding area, without harming the rural context.”
The applicant has requested an amendment to the wording of conditions 7 and 11 should planning permission be granted. It is requested that condition 7 allow a period of 5 months rather than 3 months to carry out the required works to the bee keeping storage building, to allow the works to take place in summer. The proposed amendment to condition 11 would allow its use for agricultural purposes in addition to the uses ancillary to bee-keeping activities taking place on site. It is proposed to change the wording as follows: The bee keeping storage building hereby approved shall at all times be used for purposes ancillary to the bee keeping or agricultural activities taking place on site and shall not be used for any non-agricultural activity.
b) No 2 on the Plans List (19/01840/FULL Erection of 3 dwellings and part demolition of garage to 1 Gaters Gardens to provide access – land at Gaters Orchard and 1 Gaters Gardens, Sandford).
The Area Team Leader reported a recent objection that had been received which was similar to objections highlighted within the report. He then outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location plan, the proposed block plan for the 3 dwellings (some of which were outside the settlement limit), he emphasised the contours on the map which showed how the dwellings would be built on a slope. The plan also considered the nearby listed properties and the conservation area. The parking spaces were identified, some of which were below the standards outlined in policy DM8 and he explained the Highways Authority’s concern with regard to the proposed access. Existing and proposed site sections were provided together with proposed elevations and floor plans for each dwelling and site sections which highlighted the road through to the houses and the position of the listed cottages along with photographs from various aspects of the site.
Consideration was given to:
· The size of access width and the number of parking spaces
· The finished materials for the dwellings
· The views of the applicant’s agent with regard to the application being based on individual needs as it was about height, size and positive and negative space, there was a need to look at the landscape geomorphic and the need to design buildings for today. He outlined the finished materials for the building
· The Chairman read a statement from one of the Ward Members with regard to the process and discussions with officers leading up to the presentation of the application, that a possible site visit take place for members to consider local concerns including access, parking and surface water issues
· The views of the Ward Member present with regard to the history of development in Sandford, the need for a site visit so that members could consider the layout of the land. There was a need for the village to grow and the application would not impact on the listed buildings
· The impact of the proposals on the listed buildings and conservation area
· Possible overdevelopment of the site
· Parking issues and that the proposal did not comply with Policy DM8
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that: planning permission be refused as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.
(Proposed by Cllr F W Letch and seconded by Cllr Mrs C A Collis)
i) Cllr Mrs M E Squires made a declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as she had spoken with the applicant as Ward Member;
ii) Mr Hargreaves (agent) spoke;
iii) The Chairman read a statement on behalf of Cllr Miss E Wainwright (Ward Member);
iv) Cllr Mrs M E Squires spoke as Ward Member.