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 minutes.
a) Application 20/01631/FULL - Erection of a dwelling and construction of new vehicular access at Land and Building at NGR 305693 110454, (East Of Butsons Farm), Stenhill.
The Planning Officer outlined the application and explained that the application site was in Stenhill which was not a defined settlement under Policy S13 of the Local Plan. The application site was, therefore, in the open countryside under Policy S14 where development was permitted subject to appropriate conditions. It was subject to the same restrictions defined under Policy DM6 such as affordable housing and local connections for residents.
The Officer outlined the application by way of a presentation which highlighted the block plan, floor plans, elevations, illustrations and photographs of the site.
In response to public questions he stated:
· The authority had recognised the green credentials of the scheme but the location had to be sustainable and not outweigh the emissions created by it. There were no public transport links close to the property
Consideration was given to:
· The siting of solar panels on the garage roof and electric car charging facilities to enable a more sustainable way of living had been incorporated in the design
· Officers views that the development location was not sustainable as it was not in a designated settlement and had no access to public transport or local infrastructure
· The views of the objector who stated it was a significant property in a rural area, there was no need for the dwelling when the applicants family already had a substantial building very close to the site
· The views of the supporter who stated that the applicant had met all the criteria of Policy DM6 apart from the location. The site was 1 mile from the settlement of Uffculme and other properties had been allowed on appeal. The development aligned with a top priority of the Council which was climate change
· The views of the Ward Members who stated the development was a design of exceptional build and quality, refusal was wrong as this was not just a house but a way of life and that the Council should be encouraging these sorts of self builds in rural locations
· The views of Members who felt that the location already had a number of large farmsteads around it and that now and again smaller properties were required in hamlets
· Members views were that any village property would need to rely on private transport due to the lack of public transport in rural areas
· Members views that if there was a barn on the site it would have been granted Class Q permission to turn it into a house anyway the only difference was this was a new build
It was therefore RESOLVED that: planning permission be granted subject to conditions delegated to the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.
(Proposed by Cllr B G J Warren and seconded by Cllr L J Cruwys)
Reason for the decision: The application for the erection of a dwelling was considered to be supportable in policy terms, applicants had a local connection, the dwelling was sustainable and within a reasonable distance of a settlement. On this basis it was considered that planning permission could be granted, subject to conditions, in accordance with the development plan.
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 the site was within his ward;
ii.) Lynn Baird spoke as the objector;
iii.) Stephen Gill spoke as a supporter;
iv.) Cllr B Evans spoke as Ward Member
v.) Cllr R J Chesterton provided a written statement which was read out by the Chairman
b) Application 21/00229/FULL - Erection of a dwelling and demolition of existing agricultural building at Rosemount, Kentisbeare, Cullompton.
The Area Team Leader outlined the application and explained that the existing agricultural building had previously been given Class Q approval to turn into a dwelling. The application today was to apply for new dwelling on site as a fall back proposal to the approved Class Q conversion approved, noting that if the dwelling was not approved a dwelling could still be created on the site using the fall back position of the original position for the conversion of the existing agricultural building.. He explained that two additional conditions had been included in the update sheet for a wild flower meadow to be secured and the removal of the existing building.
The Officer outlined the application by way of a presentation which highlighted block plans, the Class Q approval original design, an illustrative site layout, proposed roof and floor plans, proposed elevations and photographs of the site and existing barn.
In response to Member questions the Officer explained that a package treatment plant dealt with the foul drainage and was recommended by Public Health as an alternative to mains drainage or a septic tank.
Consideration was given to:
· The views of the objector who said the site was in a beautiful location and the application was a modern design which did not compliment the area, the site was on a dangerous road and there was no need for additional dwelling in the area. There were concerns with birds flying into glass and that the betterment was for the applicants only
· The views of the agent who confirmed that is permission was refused the applicant would use the fall back position as the Class Q had already been accepted and approved. The new design was a betterment and that the site was well screened
· The views of some Members who felt that the orientation was intrusive to other properties and that the site was on a busy road
· The views of Members who stated that the choice before them was to approve either a conversion of the original barn or allow the barn to be removed and replaced with a new build dwelling
· The views of Members that the current screening could become inadequate if trees had to be removed due to Ash Dieback which was prevalent in the area
It was therefore RESOLVED that: planning permission be granted and delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration to provide an additional condition with regard to:
· The replacement of trees which may need to be removed due to Ash Dieback to retain the screening from neighbouring properties.
(Proposed by Cllr P Heal and seconded by Cllr Mrs C P Daw)
Reason for the decision: As set out in the report
Notes:
i.) Cllrs B G J Warren and S J Clist made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had been contacted by objectors;
ii.) Cllrs S J Clist, B Holdman and B G J Warren requested that their vote against the decision be recorded;
iii.) Rosanna Stancampiano spoke as the objector;
iv.) Glenn Crocker spoke as the agent;
v.) Cllr S J Clist spoke as the Ward Member
vi.) The following late information was received:
21/00229/FULL - Erection of a dwelling and demolition of existing agricultural building – Rosemount, Kentisbeare, Cullompton.
9th July 21
Please see below for two additional conditions recommended to be imposed in order to secure biodiversity gains on site and to prevent an additional dwelling being achieved.
Condition
Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the Wildflower Meadow as shown on drawing no. A0B REV E and identified as forming part of the ecological mitigation for the development shall be implemented with planting/sowing undertaken with the Wildflower Meadow retained in perpetuity thereafter.
Reason:
To ensure that the development makes a positive contribution to the character and amenity of the area and provides biodiversity gain in accordance with policy DM1 of the Mid Devon Local Plan 2013-2033.
Condition:
The existing building on site shall be demolished and all material not being recycled on site shall be removed within 3 months of the first occupation of the new property or its substantial completion, whichever is sooner.
Reason:
The site is in the open countryside where the provision of an additional dwelling is not supported by policy S14 of the Mid Devon Local Plan (2013-2033)
c) Application 21/00443/FULL - Change of use of land for the siting of 2 glamping tents and associated facilities at Land at NGR 303735 119592, The Deer Barn, Hockworthy.
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application and explained that there was scope within the Local Plan Policies to consider rural tourism in the open countryside but it must demonstrate that the benefit would outweigh any harm. He explained that the site had been running the two glamping tents with a 28 day permitted use exception which had been extended by the Government to 56 days permitted use during the pandemic.
The Officer outlined the application by way of a presentation which highlighted site location plan, illustrative block plan, tent plans, toilet and W.C. block and photographs of the site.
In response to public questions he responded:
· Enforcement teams would pursue any areas of concern;
· Ecological surveys were carried out by qualified surveyors;
· The Highways Authority had no issues with the site entrance which was shared with Deer Barn, fields and a Class Q;
· Additional buildings did not form part of this application but could be subject to enforcement action if non compliant to Policy
· Noise generators were subject to environmental health conditions
· Enforcement teams would investigate any breach of conditions
Consideration was given to:
· The officers confirmation that with regards to the business case, neighbouring businesses had been investigated but there was not similar offering nearby;
· The Officers confirmation that there was no particular issue with noise on Glamping sites and this business promoted quiet times and star gazing;
· There was no ability for the tents to be changed to other structures without further planning permission;
· The views of the objectors who though was pleased with the changes to the application did not think it was a financially viable proposition. If Members were minded to approved requested conditions were put in place before the site was opened and that a condition be imposed that only solar power be used on site and not generators. A fire management plan should be requested due to the fire pit on site and there was no grey or foul water management plan;
· The views of the agent who stated that applicant was requesting permission to allow part of the site the change use beyond the temporary time limits already permitted under Class A. The land is in agricultural use over the autumn and winter months and this was low impact and sustainable holiday accommodation. A robust business plan had been submitted which justified the countryside location;
· The views of the Ward Members who had concerns about the rural aspect of the site, highways concerns and local residents concerns about the costs involved in setting up the business. Members should give attention to the views of both objectors and supporters;
· Views of Members who felt there was no reason for the tents not to be there and that people were looking for just this type of holiday accommodation in these sorts of areas;
· Confirmation that there was already a management plan in place which covered excessive noise.
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 B G J Warren)
Reason for the decision: As set out in the report
Notes:
i.) Cllrs F J Colthorpe, E J Berry, S J Clist, L J Cruwys, Mrs C P Daw, C J Eginton, P J Heal , B Holdman, F W Letch and B G J Warren made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had been contacted by objectors;
ii.) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe declared a personal interest as she had a friend with holiday lets in the area;
iii.) Cllr S J Clist requested that his abstention from voting be recorded;
iv.) Richard Hughes spoke as the objector;
v.) Naomi Jackson, the agent, provided a written statement which was read out by the Chairman;
vi.) Cllrs J Norton and Mrs C Collis, Ward Members, provided written statements which were read out by the Chairman
d) Application 21/00471/FULL - Erection of new reinstated stone wall and entrance gates and retention of part of rebuilt stone wall at The Deer Barn, Hockworthy, Devon.
The Principal Planning Officer explained that the wall to the north was in the garden of the Deer Barn and permitted development would have allowed it without permission up to a height of 1m. As the wall, as built, was 1.45m permission was required.
The Officer outlined the application by way of a presentation which highlighted site plan, elevations, and photographs of the site as it was now and before the wall was built.
In response to public questions the Officer provided the following:
· The Council had no authority over the removal of banks in private gardens;
· Creation of gateways was dependant on use and what the proposal was for;
· It is for the Authority to determine if the proposal is acceptable;
· Retrospective applications were allowed to rectify any issues and enforcement was always a last resort.
Consideration was given to:
· The views of the objector who stated that his concern was the north end of the wall and the removal of the hedge in a conservation area;
· The views of the agent that permission was being sought to retain a wall that had been built to rectify a stone boundary wall collapse as a result of ash trees having to be removed and that the new wall was on the same footprint using the same local stone. There had been no harm created upon heritage assets and the Conservation Officer had found the proposal acceptable;
· The views of the Ward Members who had concerns that residents believed the removal of the hedge had an impact on biodiversity. Members should give attention to the views of both objectors and supporters;
· The views of Members who felt that the wall was in keeping with the local landscape, local stone had been used and the wall itself would create a biodiverse impact.
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 Mrs C P Daw)
Reason for the decision: As set out in the report
Notes:
i.) Cllrs F J Colthorpe, E J Berry, S J Clist, L J Cruwys, Mrs C P Daw, C J Eginton, P J Heal , B Holdman, F W Letch and B G J Warren made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had been contacted by objectors;
ii.) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe declared a personal interest as she had a friend with holiday lets in the area;
iii.) Richard Hughes spoke as the objector;
iv.) Naomi Jackson, the agent, provided a written statement which was read out by the Chairman;
v.) Cllrs J Norton and Mrs C Collis, Ward Members, provided written statements which were read out by the Chairman
e) Application 21/00461/FULL - Erection of extensions to existing agricultural storage building 660sqm at Land at NGR 288288 107120, Redyeates Cross, Cheriton Fitzpaine.
The Area Team Leader informed Members that a further letter had been received from the CPRE which had been circulated to Members and was before them as part of the update sheet.
The Officer outlined the application by way of a presentation which highlighted site location and block plans, position of recently approved agricultural workers dwelling and photographs of the existing barn.
Consideration was given to;
· The views of the objector who stated that there would be up to 250 animals on site and he had concerns with the number of animals and the available land open to the applicant and concerns about animal density, pollution and waste;
· The views of the agent who stated that the application was supported by Natural England who had provided funding towards the development;
· The views of Members that comments from the Parish Council had not been provided;
· The views of Members that although the late letter from the CPRE had been summarised in the update sheet a full copy had not been provided to Members;
· The views of Members that a full final statement from Public Health had not been made available to them;
· The views of Members that they were unable to make a decision without all the information in front of them;
The Interim Development Management Manager explained to Members that late information was quite common with planning applications and that the Officer had provided them with a verbal update summary where written statements and representations had been received after the agenda had been published. He felt that Members had before them enough information to be able to make a decision.
It was therefore RESOLVED that: A decision on the application was deferred to enable the late information received to be included within a revised officer report so that Members could make an informed decision. The additional information requested were:
· The Parish Council response
· The latest Public Health update
· The full contents of the late letter received from CPRE
(Proposed by Cllr C Eginton and seconded by Cllr F W Letch)
Reason for the decision: Members felt that they did not have the full information to make an informed decision.
Notes:
i.) Cllrs F J Colthorpe, E J Berry, S J Clist, L J Cruwys, Mrs C P Daw, C J Eginton, P J Heal , B Holdman, F W Letch and B G J Warren made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had been contacted by objectors;
ii.) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe declared a personal interest as she had been involved in the case at a Parish level and chose to leave the meeting and did not take part in the debate or the vote;
iii.) Brian Thompson spoke as the objector;
iv.) Simon Archer spoke as the agent;
v.) The following late information was provided;
13.07.2021
1. One additional letter of objection received from Devon CPRE who raise concerns to the justification for the proposed building in terms of need and scale in the open countryside location, noting that the proposal is not supported by an independent agricultural appraisal nor a landscape impact assessment, to robustly support what would be an incongruous development in the rural landscape.
f) Application 21/00709/FULL - Change of use from public house (sui generis) to offices and canteen facility (sui generis) at Buccaneers Bar, 3 Cinema Buildings, East Street.
The Planning Officer outlined the application by way of a presentation which highlighted the site location plan, aerial photographs, block plan and parking layout, google street view and photographs of the interior.
The Officer advised Members that an Asset of Community Value had been listed with the authority but it had yet to be validated and would take up to 8 weeks to be confirmed. It had no material impact on the application before Members.
In response to public questions the Officer confirmed that consideration had been given to the viability of the existing business.
Consideration was given to:
· The views of the objector who stated that the bar was unique and was a purpose built entertainment centre. It held up to 170 people standing and offered good disabled access. That the Dairy did not need a canteen and they had groups who were keen to use the venue on the future;
· The views of Crediton Dairy who stated that their business processed 1% of the UK’s milk supply and they put £40m into the local economy. They were a one site business and most of the staff lived locally. They needed a modern canteen to cater their highly skilled staff and had not been able to secure an alternative site in the proximity of the Dairy;
· The views of the Town Council who supported the Asset of Community Value. It was a great auditorium and a great location which would give opportunities to youth musicians. The local Arts groups had agreed it was an asset and the Dairy would expand anyway;
· The views of Members familiar with the venue who stated that the business had not been viable for many years;
· The views of Members that the Dairy should be supported to expand and invest in Crediton.
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 P J Heal and seconded by Cllr L J Cruwys)
Reason for the decision: As set out in the report
Notes:
i.) Cllrs F J Colthorpe, E J Berry, S J Clist, L J Cruwys, Mrs C P Daw, C J Eginton, P J Heal , B Holdman, F W Letch and B G J Warren made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had been contacted by objectors;
ii.) Cllr S J Clist requested his vote against the decision be recorded;
iii.) Helen Tuffin spoke as the objector;
iv.) Phil Cork, Crediton Dairy, spoke in support;
v.) Cllr Brookes-Hocking spoke on behalf of the Town Council;
vi.) The following late information was provided:
9th July 21
1. Condition 3 is amended to reflect the updated drawing received and should now read as below. The parking plan has been amended to accommodate a total of 48 spaces including two disabled spaces. This is an increase of 18 from the existing provision, compared to 15 as previously proposed and set out within the officer report.
3. Within 3 months of the first use of the office and canteen hereby approved, the existing office and canteen building shall be demolished and replaced with additional parking
spaces in accordance with the details as shown on drawing number PIN 1032-50.
13.07.21
1. Condition 3 is amended to reflect the updated drawing received and should now read as below. The parking plan has been amended to accommodate a total of 48 spaces including two disabled spaces. This is an increase of 18 from the existing provision, compared to 15 as previously proposed and set out within the officer report.
(condition 3 has been further amended since the update last week )
3. Within 3 months of the first use of the office and canteen hereby approved, the existing office and canteen building shall be demolished and replaced with additional parking spaces in accordance with the details as shown on drawing number PIN 1032-50. Once provided, the additional parking spaces shall be made available for use at all times by occupiers of the proposed office/canteen use of the site and retained as such thereafter.
2. Committee are advised that an application has been submitted to the Council to seek to list the site as an asset of community value (ACV). As of 13/07/2021 discussions with the Economic Development Team have confirmed that the application is not yet valid. Once validated, it would be subject to a consultation period before a determination is made as to whether it should be listed as an ACV. Guidance on the ACV process states that it is open to the Local Planning Authority to decide whether listing as an asset of community value is a material consideration, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The provisions do not place a restriction on what an owner can do with their property, once listed, so long as it remains in their ownership. On this basis, and as the site is not currently listed as an ACV, it is your officer’s view that the intention to seek to list the site as an ACV would not have a material impact to the assessment set out within the officer report at this stage and it is recommended that planning permission should be granted. Notwithstanding the committee decision as to whether planning permission should be granted, the ACV process may at a later date have implications if the owner seeks to dispose of the site.
Supporting documents: