Skip to main content

Agenda item

THE PLANS LIST (00.30.34)

To consider the planning applications contained in the list.

 

Minutes:

The Committee considered the applications in the *Plans List.

 

Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to the signed Minutes.

 

a)    20/00189/FULL – (Conversion of agricultural building to dwelling, retention of office building with temporary use as living accommodation while barn conversion takes place, erection of garage/carport and summerhouse at Land and Buildings at NGR 279660 98291, Brookdale, Neopardy).

 

The Area Team Leader had informed the Committee that a completed Unilateral Undertaking had been received from the applicant providing a financial contribution towards Air Quality Management in Crediton.

 

He outlined the contents of the report by way of a presentation highlighting the location, the block plan including the proposed landscaping and the existing and proposed plans.

 

He explained that the application was seeking approval to convert an agricultural building into one dwelling. The log cabin on site was the same dimensions as a caravan and would be converted to an office building once the main house was completed.

 

He provided the Committee with a background to the previous Class Q approval for the site which approved the change of use of the agricultural building to 2 x 4 bedroomed dwellings. The prior approval allowed the applicant to live in a temporary building on site under permitted rights.

 

He explained the appeal decision of Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (2017) and deemed that an original decision of the Class Q application (2 x 4 bedroomed dwellings) would be a fall back position if the current application was refused and went to appeal.

 

The Area Team Leader stated that the revised application of one dwelling would reduce the amount of traffic and that the building would be completely off grid with extensive tree planting. He stated that the one neighbouring property would not be overlooked and the log cabin would be repurposed into an office building once the conversion was complete.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The fall back position if the application was refused and went to appeal

·         The log cabin would be converted to offices once the conversion was complete and could not be used as self contained residential accommodation

·         The footprint of the proposed building was the same as the original

·         Legislation which determined when Class Q could be applied for  and possible restrictions through condition

·         The views of the applicant who stated that the log cabin would be used as offices for his business once the conversion was completed and that he intended for this to be his forever home built to the highest quality

·         The views of the Parish Council who were against the application and felt that the original application would have improved the area but the proposed dwelling was too large for 2 people and questioned the need for offices on site

·         The views of the Ward Members with regard to the large mobile home on site that was built without requiring separate planning permission, that the proposal was not betterment when 2 buildings were reduced down to one, that it exceeded the original application, the design of the building and that the curtilage had been considerably increased by this new proposal

·         The size of the log cabin

·         Whether the application was sympathetic to agricultural heritage

·         The ability of the Authority to impose conditions on the revised application with regard to materials and curtilage which could not be imposed with the current Class Q approved scheme

 

It was therefore:

 

RESOLVED that: Planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration

 

(Proposed by the Chairman)

 

Note:

 

    i.)        Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe, Cllr D R Coren and Cllr S J Penny made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had received contact from the applicant.

   ii.)        Mark Broster  (applicant) spoke;

 iii.)        Cllr Mortimer spoke on behalf of Crediton Hamlets Parish Council

 iv.)        Cllrs D R Coren and S J Penny  spoke as Ward Members;

   v.)        Cllr B G J Warren requested that his vote against the decision be recorded

 

 

b)   19/01309/FULL - Erection of a dwelling including demolition of a garage at Fair Havens, Mill Street, Crediton.

 

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report that had been produced to address Member concerns with:

 

·         The requirement of an enhanced landscaping scheme to include semi-mature tree planting to site boundaries

·         The colour of the cladding

·         The weathering of the roof tiles to tone down the colour

·         The need for the amount of roof lights installed and the glare from those that had already been installed

 

She highlighted by way of a presentation the elevations of the original agreed building to the one that had been built out, photographs of the site from various aspects, the revised landscaping scheme, the extra heavy standards trees and photographs of the previous bungalow showing the roof tiles in a less weathered state.

 

She informed members that the applicant had suggested two options to address the colour of the cladding, either replacement with hanging tiles or lead cladding but she informed members that officers were unconvinced that lead would be an appropriate solution.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The property was a 3 storey dwelling with rooms in the attic space

·         The shared driveway and that the applicants garage would be removed

·         The views of the objector who had concerns about the proposed tree planting in particular the Holm Oaks which she felt would be over whelming. Windows that were not included within the original application and the addition of a section of the building which was not permitted development and should be removed

·         The views of the Agent who stated that the new landscaping proposals introduced larger trees and was based on Member discussions at the last meeting. The siting of the Holm Oaks and the proposal the replace the cladding on the bay window with leads which had been rejected by officers

·         The views of the Ward Member who stated that the building had been built on an extant loophole and that the amenity could be improved if the extension was not approved but permission had been granted and  the authority would need to ensure that any works carried out were in accordance with the plan.

 

 

It was therefore:

 

RESOLVED that: Planning permission be granted subject to conditions and including the additional conditions set out in the addendum report, as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration

 

(Proposed by the Chairman)

 

 

(Vote 5 for: 5 against – Chairman’s casting vote)

 

Notes:

 

             i.)        Cllr F W Letch declared a personal interest as he knew the occupants

           ii.)        Cllr J Downes declared a personal interest as his property overlooked the application site

          iii.)        Cllr Mrs C P Daw, Cllr S J Clist and Cllr B G J Warren  made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had received contact from the agent and objectors

          iv.)        Sinead Partridge (objector) spoke

           v.)        Joseph Marchant (Agent) spoke

          vi.)        Cllr J Downes spoke as Ward Member

         vii.)        The following late information was provided via the update sheet:

 

Since the officer report was completed a revised landscaping plan has been provided, drawing reference JW719/07/d, this supersedes drawing number JW719/07/c. The updated plan demonstrates the location of the dwarf brick wall which has recently been constructed on site to support the access path to the front of the property from the parking area. The applicant has confirmed that the maximum height of this wall is 900mm. The revision does not propose any amendments to the scope of landscaping as set out on the previous revision and discussed within the officer report.

 

 

c)    19/02013/FULL - Erection of dwelling and demolition of agricultural building at Land at NGR 306728 119836 (Wardmoor), Holcombe Rogus, Devon.

 

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of a presentation highlighting the location, site plan, proposed elevations, floor plans and photographs of the site.

 

He explained that Class Q had been granted in 2018 and that this original application would be the fallback position if the application was refused and went to appeal.

 

He explained that the ridge height of the new proposal was significantly higher than the original plans but there was no evidence that the new development would cause more significant harm than the original position.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The footprint of the proposed building compared to the original permission

·         The views of the objector who stated COR18 required that development in the countryside should be strictly controlled and that this application should be no greater in scale than the original, be agricultural in style and be a betterment of the original granted permission.

·         The views of the agent which confirmed that because there was existing permission on the site that a residential building of some form would be built out and referred Members to the fall back position. That solar panels would be installed and that no neighbouring properties would be affected

·         The views of the Parish Council regarding the character of the proposed building bore no resemblance to the existing building and it was not betterment in the countryside.

·         The views of the Ward Member who had visited the site and had concerns with the size and scale of the building and the relocation away from the hedge. That the new building style would be in keeping with the local area and that local objections were due to the site being outside the settlement of Holcombe Rogus

·         Members views on the visual impact of the new building

·         A consistent approach to Class Q redevelopment proposals

 

It was therefore:

 

RESOLVED that: Planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration

 

(Proposed by the Chairman)

 

(Vote 5 for: 5 against – Chairman’s casting vote)

 

Note:

 

                    i.)        Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe, Cllr E J Berry, Cllr S J Clist, Cllr L J Cruwys, Cllr Mrs C P Daw. Cllr D J Knowles, Cllr F W Letch, Cllr R F Radford, Cllr S J Penny and Cllr B G J Warren made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had received contact from the applicant.

                   ii.)        Mr Grubb (Objector) spoke

                  iii.)        Hannah Cameron (Agent) spoke

                  iv.)        Cllr Pilgrim spoke on behalf of  Holcome Rogus Parish Council

                   v.)        The Chairman read a statement on behalf of Cllr Mrs J Norton (Ward Member)

                  vi.)        The following late information was provided:

 

Letter of objection received:

 

Dear Councillor Colthorpe

 

I am writing to you personally as a neighbour of the application adjacent to Wardmoor to remove an agricultural barn and replace it with a modern house of very mediocre design.  This is not a case of NIMBYism but a serious objection to development of the open countryside. 

 

The application site is 1 mile from Holcombe Rogus and the Planning Officer in his report acknowledges that a new dwelling in this location would not be policy compliant because it is development of the open countryside.  In particular Policy COR18 and Para 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework seek to prevent the provision of isolated new homes in the open countryside.  The Planning Officer’s reason for approval is that the design and layout represents betterment over the Class Q proposal.  I very strongly disagree with that point as the new agricultural barn, built in 2009/10, is in good condition and can be easily converted to a dwelling without extremely affecting the external appearance in the countryside.  Plans for the Class Q conversion can be seen.  Whereas the proposed building is a standard, modern building, more fit for an estate than its proposed location.  There is no mention of sustainability or consideration for the environment other than the basic minimum with regard to building a low bank and hedge to surround the garden.  The agricultural barn conversion (permitted by Class Q) would be far less intrusive and is therefore a much better solution than the application.

 

If the application is approved, this will lead others in the district, to argue that a new build should be permitted to replace any barn.  The intention of Class Q is not to allow new build, but to convert existing barns into dwellings with minimal impact on the environment and local amenity. 

 

I know that it may not be considered now, but when the application was first granted for an agricultural barn, the planning officer at the time included a condition to remove the barn when it was no longer required.  A Planning Inspector deemed that condition unnecessary but it shows that in 2009 the planning officer wanted to avoid further development of the site.

 

There is absolutely no reason to permit this application, as there is no betterment in the application, so I would appreciate it, if you could follow your council’s policies and refuse the application.

Supporting documents: