To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
Minutes:
The Committee considered the applications in the *Plans list.
Note: *List previously circulated and attached to the signed minutes.
a) 19/01188/FULL - Change of use of agricultural land to allow 1 pitch for the siting of 1 static caravan, 2 touring caravans and associated works for the use of gypsy and traveller family at Land at NGR 276600 96594 (North of Shortacombe Farm), Shortacombe Lane, Yeoford
The Planning Team Leader addressed questions asked at public question time:
· The Environment Agency and the Public Health team were consulted in regard to drainage. The site was not within a functional flood plain or within flood zones 2 and 3 and our records show it is not within a surface water area where flooding of 1 in a 1000 years is expected and so it was decided to use the Environment Agency standing advice in regard to the type of drainage required. The proposals started out as a reed bed system which was then altered to a packaged treatment plant preferred by the Public Health team.
· In regard to the location it was not a site that the applicant had been told that they needed to go to, it was an application that they had submitted and that this is where they wanted to be.
· Location and impact to services would be covered in his presentation.
· With regard to the power to the drainage system it must be noted that this was not for 18 people it was for a mother and son, one family pitch. They have outlined a portable solar panel for electricity and they may require additional battery back up power.
· With regard to delivery of the caravan on site, the caravan needed to be legally transported along the highway but that didn’t prevent it from being delivered in 2 parts.
· The Highways Authority did not raise the number of vehicle movements for one family as an issue and noted the slight increase from the comparable agricultural use of the site.
He then outlined the contents of the report by way of a presentation highlighting the location, site layout, elevations, proposed shed, visibility splays and photographs of the site.
He explained that SP14 allowed for gypsy and traveller accommodation within the countryside subject to meeting other criteria such as presevering and where possible enhancing the character, appearance and biodiversity of the site. He stated that the applicant met the criteria of gypsy and show travellers.
He reminded members of Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 that local authorities had to have regard to discrimination and their public sector equality duty.
He explained that the application was to approve a site for a mother and son gypsy and traveller family and that policy DM7 of the Local Plan Review indicated that planning permission would allow for new sites within the countryside. He explained that there were currently no gypsy or traveller sites available to the family in tjis part of Mid Devon and no alternative location had been identified by the applicant. He further explained that the family had been known to the Gypsy Traveller Service of Devon County Council for 11 years.
Policy DM7 stated the need for 35 pitches to be available for gypsy and traveller families within the district between 2014-2034 but these would be provided by large developments in Tiverton, Crediton and Cullompton which were some time away from completion. An appeal decision issued in November last year allowed traveller accommodation in a countryside location where the Planning Inspector commented that the most significant factor in favour of the appellant’s case was down to the degree of doubt over the delivery of sites put forward for the windfall allowance and within the urban extensions. Whilst the Local Planning Authority would now state that a five year allocation for pitches has been identified, there is still the issue of delivery and that of previous under delivery.
Consideration was given to:
· Number of vehicle movements stated by the Highways Authority
· No objections had been received from any of the consultation agencies
· The right of the applicant to cut back or remove the hedge to allow access to the site
· Actual number of people who would live on the site and if this could be controlled
· Definition of a gypsy and traveller pitch
· Existing hard standing on the site
· Advice given during the pre application process
· Landscaping and fencing proposals
· Waste and recycling arrangements for the site
· The applicants desire to live on the site had not been imposed by the Local Authority
· If there was adequate drainage on the site
· The views of the objector who stated that the site was not safe and due to high winds would be a risk to life if the caravans were not tethered and the risk of unaccompanied children being swept away during flooding instances. That she felt it was unfair that the family were being dumped on the site by the Local Planning Authority which was not adequate for disabled people
· The views of the applicant who stated she had searched for 10 years for a suitable site for her and her son. That she had listened to the Parish Council and the Case Officer and had made amendments to the application. That the site had good access to schools, dentists and health facilities for her and her son. That the site design would compliment the local area
· The views of the Ward Member who felt that the site could accommodate up to 20 people. That there were flood issues with the site, children could not play on the site in the winter and it was an unacceptable landscape. There were bats and ancient woodland in the area and there was no ditch system on site.
· Concerns that the applicant would allow more people to move onto the site and it would not just be for her and her son
· Caravans being squashed by trees during high winds
· Accessibility of the site during snowy conditions
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that:
Members were minded to refuse the application and therefore wished to defer the application for an implications report to consider the proposed reasons for refusal that of:
· Policy Planning for Traveller Sites - Section 14. When assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi-rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community.
· Policy DM7 A, Space for children’s Play
· Policy DM7 -C, unacceptable landscape or ecological impact
· Policy DM7 -E, safe and convenient access to local facilities.
· Policy DM2 -High quality design
· Policy DM2 – Positive contribution to local character including any heritage or biodiversity assets and the setting of heritage assets
· Policy DM2 - Visually attractive places that are well integrated with surrounding buildings, streets and landscapes
· Policy DM2 - Appropriate drainage including sustainable drainage systems
(Proposed by Cllr S J Penny and seconded by Cllr S J Clist)
Notes:
i) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe, , Cllr J Cairney, Cllr Mrs C P Daw, Cllr E J Berry, Cllr S J Clist, Cllr D J Knowles, Cllr F W Letch, Cllr S J Penny, Cllr R F Radford, Cllr B G J Warren declared an interest in accordance with Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had had communication from the objector
ii) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe, Cllr J Cairney, Cllr Mrs C P Daw, Cllr E J Berry, Cllr S J Clist, Cllr D J Knowles, Cllr F W Letch, Cllr S J Penny, Cllr R F Radford, Cllr B G J Warren declared a personal interest as the knew the Ward Member
iii) Cllr R F Radford did not participate in the vote in line with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing in planning matters, due to a loss of internet connection part way through the debate of the application
iv) Stephanie Crawford (objector) spoke
v) Ms Tyrer (applicant) spoke
vi) The following late information was provided via the update sheet:
This committee report was written prior to the adoption of the Mid Devon Local Plan Review which was adopted at an extraordinary meeting of the Full Council held on 29th July. As a result the Mid Devon Local Plan Review 2013-2033 replaces the Core Strategy, AIDPD and Development Management policies that make up the previous Local Plan and are no longer in force.
Therefore the relevant policies and material considerations for this proposal are as follows:
Mid Devon Local Plan Review 2013-2033
S3 - Meeting housing needs
S8 - Infrastructure
S9 - Environment
S14 - Countryside
DM1 - High quality design
DM4 - Pollution
DM5 - Parking
DM7 – Traveller sites
DM28 - Other protected sites
‘Planning policy for traveller sites’ produced August 2015 by the Department for Communities and Local Government
The National Planning Policy Framework (“the NPPF”)
One additional representation received objecting as follows:
We understand that this application has already received numerous objections for a wide variety of reasons, most importantly being that it does not comply with the criteria for Gypsy sites, i.e public transport and local amenities. In addition to this the vehicular access and nature of the plot would appear to be unsuitable for permanent residence.
As newcomers to this area we wanted to assist the Binneford community with objecting to this application but understand that no public meeting will be allowed. We are unsure if we will be able to join the Zoom meeting on the 12th August due to very poor internet speed. Please ensure that in our absence our objection to this application is noted for the records.
b) 17/01904/MFUL - Change of use and refurbishment of house to hotel and spa with 24 letting rooms, Piazza garden, 36 letting rooms in Pavilion (60 letting rooms in total) with Botanical Gardens, restoration of walled garden with new orchard and amphitheatre, erection of 7 detached dwellings, all associated car parking and erection of bat house at Blackborough House, Blackborough, Cullompton.
The Conservation Officer outlined the content of the report by way of a presentation highlighting the location, site location plans, external and internal photographs, roof plans, and floor plans and a 3D model of the proposed development.
The Principal Planning Officer then outlined by way of a presentation the proposed passing bays and the advice received from Historic England.
He then addressed the questions asked at public question time:
· Application had been with the authority for 2.5 years and in that time it was likely that some further decay had occurred to the building. Officers felt that there were considerable deficiencies in the environmental study and the request for additional information would elongate the process even further. Officers felt that they had sufficient information to come to a determination on the application. Members should be advised that the applicant has a duty of care towards the building and the officer would seek to work with the applicant to complete remedial works to prevent further decline
· Should members be minded to approve the application officers would need to provide members with a further report in due course for planning committee to consider. Once the deficiencies in the environmental statement and other outstanding issues had been resolved it could go forwards
· The response of the Highway Authority
· The weight that had been applied to economic benefits and the local economy in the Mid Devon area as set out in the report. Officers had concluded that the economic benefits did not outweigh the identified harm
The Principal Planning Officer explained that the proposal was contrary to Local Plan policies and that the enabling development of 7 houses in open countryside did not outweigh the benefits of the proposed development.
He stated that the house was in a poor condition and that there was a substantial shortfall in funding for the development of it. He informed members that Historic England had serious concerns with the proposed scheme.
Consideration was given to:
· Alternative roads leading to and from the property
· The possible outcome for the building if the application was refused
· The advice received from Public Health concerning contaminated land
· The views of the objector who stated that BACO had formed in response to the application but had never been against development. The developer had never engaged with the local community and highlighted the objections from Historic England. That she felt the scheme was not financially viable and would have a negative impact on the local community and traffic movements.
· The views of the agent who had not worked on any project with this amount of significant opposition. Officers had supported the application and the applicant had continued to make improvements. The scheme would provide employment and a leisure business for the local area. The applicant should be regarded as a white knight for the community and this was the last chance to save the building
· The views of the Parish Council who were concerned about the current contamination of the site. its future viability and the ability of the applicant to sell off parts of the site
· The views of the ward member who questioned the suitability of the road network as main access to the site would be through the village. Concerns about horse riders and children who had to use the roads which had no pavements and the effect of 1000’s of houses due to be built in the adjoining valley
· The application would provide the ANOB an opportunity to promote the area
· The need to preserve the building for economic reasons
· The houses were not in keeping with the area
· A site visit was requested by Members but this was not possible due to current Government restrictions
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that: Planning Permission be refused as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration
(Proposed by Cllr F Letch and seconded by Cllr S J Clist)
Notes:
i) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe, , Cllr J Cairney, Cllr Mrs C P Daw, Cllr E J Berry, Cllr S J Clist, Cllr D J Knowles, Cllr F W Letch, Cllr S J Penny, Cllr R F Radford, Cllr B G J Warren declared an interest in accordance with Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had had communication from the objectors and applicant
ii) Cllr R F Radford did not participate in the vote in line with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing in planning matters, due to a loss of internet connection part way through the debate of the application
iii) Joanne Talling (Objector) spoke
iv) Nigel Bird (Agent) spoke
v) Nicholas Allen spoke on behalf of the Parish Council
vi) Cllr David Pugsley spoke as ward member
c) 17/01905/LBC - Listed Building Consent for the change of use and refurbishment of house to hotel and spa with 24 letting rooms, Piazza garden, 36 letting rooms in Pavilion (60 letting rooms in total) with Botanical Gardens, restoration of walled garden with new orchard and amphitheatre, erection of 7 detached dwellings, all associated car parking and erection of bat house at Blackborough House, Blackborough, Cullompton
The Conservation Officer outlined the content of the report by way of a presentation highlighting the location, site location plans, external and internal photographs, roof plans, and floor plans and a 3D model of the proposed development.
The Principal Planning Officer then outlined by way of a presentation the proposed passing bays and the advice received from Historic England.
He then addressed the questions asked at public question time:
The Principal Planning Officer explained that the proposal was contrary to Local Plan policies and that the enabling development of 7 houses in open countryside did not outweigh the benefits of the proposed development.
He stated that the house was in a poor condition and that there was a substantial shortfall in funding for the development of it. He informed members that Historic England had serious concerns with the proposed scheme.
Consideration was given to:
· A site visit was requested by Members but this was not possible due to current Government restrictions
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that: Listed Building Consent be refused as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration
(Proposed by Cllr F Letch and seconded by Cllr S J Clist)
Notes:
i) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe, , Cllr J Cairney, Cllr Mrs C P Daw, Cllr E J Berry, Cllr S J Clist, Cllr D J Knowles, Cllr F W Letch, Cllr S J Penny, Cllr R F Radford, Cllr B G J Warren declared an interest in accordance with Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had had communication from the objectors and applicant
ii) Cllr R F Radford did not participate in the vote in line with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing in planning matters, due to a loss of internet connection part way through the debate of the application
iii) Joanne Talling (Objector) spoke
iv) Nigel Bird (Agent) spoke
v) Nicholas Allen spoke on behalf of the Parish Council
vi) Cllr David Pugsley spoke as ward member
Supporting documents: