Skip to main content

Agenda item

THE PLANS LIST (0.36.27)

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)       Applications dealt with without debate.

 

In accordance with its agreed procedure the Committee identified those applications contained in the Plans List which could be dealt with without debate.

 

RESOLVED that the following application be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the various recommendations contained in the list namely:

 

a)   No 3 on the Plans List application 21/01086/HOUSE - Erection of side porch at Bluebell House, 18 Court Barton Close, Thorverton be approved subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.

 

(Proposed by the Chairman)

 

Reason for decision – as outlined in the report

 

Note:

 

    i.)        Cllrs G Barnell, S J Clist, L J Cruwys, Mrs C P Daw, R J Dolley, C J Eginton, P J Heal, 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 the applicant was known to them

 

b)   Application 21/00461/FULL – Erection of extensions to existing agricultural storage building 600sqm at land at NGR 288288 107120, Redyeates Cross, Cheriton Fitzpaine

 

The Area Team Leader explained that at the Planning Committee on 14th July Members had deferred a decision on the application until additional information had been provided and that the information requested by Members was included within his report.

 

He then reminded Members of the application by way of a presentation which highlighted the site location plan, proposed plans, the position of the approved agricultural workers dwelling and photographs of the site.

 

The Officer explained that the proposed extension would house livestock and that Public Health had no objections to the scheme. A waste management plan had been received and approved by Public Health.

 

The Area Team Leader confirmed that although there was no requirement for the applicant to provide an agricultural appraisal one had been submitted as part of the application for the approved agricultural workers dwelling.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The views of the Public Health Officer who had no objection to the application

·         The views of the objector who stated that there was no business case or management plan provided and evidence was lacking for the need for the scheme

·         The views of the applicant who reminded Members that they had granted permission for an agricultural workers cottage on the site specifically to expand his stock and that the scheme was supported and partly funded by Natural England

·         The views of Members that the Parish Council had not made strong views known either way

·         Members concerns with the size of the building in the open countryside

·         Members views that agricultural buildings had to be put in the countryside and that the application was contemporary for agricultural use

 

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)

 

Reason for decision – as outlined in the report

 

Notes:

 

    i.)        Cllrs G Barnell, S J Clist, L J Cruwys, Mrs C P Daw, R J Dolley, C J Eginton, P J Heal, 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 received correspondence from objectors

   ii.)        Brian Thompson spoke as the objector

 iii.)        Mr Thorne spoke as the applicant

 

 

c)   Application 21/00580/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 Area Team Leader provided Members with a background of the application and explained that the proposal in front of them today was nearly identical to one brought before them in August 2020 which had been refused. The applicant did appeal the previous decision but the submission was not made in time and therefore had not been determined by the Inspectorate. For this reason the Planning Authority had a duty to determine the latest proposal.

 

The Officer reminded Members of the previous reason for refusal and confirmed that the revised application included a personal condition regarding who could reside at the site. He explained that a personal condition was not common but could be justified in exceptional circumstances.

 

He then reminded Members of the application by way of a presentation which highlighted the site layout, site elevations, proposed shed, visibility splays and photographs of the site.

 

In response to public questions he responded that South West Water had commented that should the development encroach on the 3 metre easement, the water main would need to be diverted at the expense of the applicant.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The Public Health Officer’s views that percolation tests were not critical to determine the application and would be used to determine what soakaways would be required

·         Issues regarding foul water drainage had been dealt with via condition 7

·         The solar panels were portable and therefore did not need planning permission

·         The neighbouring property being 200 metres away

·         The development did not require any removal of existing hedge bank

·         The views of the objector that the applicant and other users would be in mortal danger and that there was a risk of raw sewage from the site running down the hill causing flooding and contamination

·         The views of the agent who stated that every traveller site had opposition and the only reason the appeal was not lodged in time was due to a witness catching covid. That drainage would be via a soakaway and that personal conditions were common on traveller sites

·         The views of the Ward Member who stated that the application was identical to the previous proposal and that if approved it could increase the population in the hamlet by 20 people. That the gypsy accommodation was destructive to the environment and that there was no need for gypsy sites in this area. There were no local facilities and the proposal had an adverse visual impact and was contrary to Policy DM1

·         The advice of the Legal Advisor who confirmed that the fact that the planning application was retrospective had no bearing on the determination of the proposal

·         Members views that nothing they had heard minded them to refuse the application and that it complied with current planning policies

 

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 G Barnell and seconded by Cllr Mrs C P Daw)

 

(Vote 4 for – 4 against (Chairman’s casting vote)

 

Reason for the decision: as set out in the report

 

Notes:

 

i.)            Cllrs G Barnell, S J Clist, L J Cruwys, Mrs C P Daw, R J Dolley, C J Eginton, P J Heal, 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 received correspondence from objectors

ii.)           Cllr F W Letch made declared a personal interest as the applicant was known to him

iii.)         Cllrs P J Heal and C J Eginton declared a personal interest as they knew a neighbour of the site

iv.)         Cllrs C J Eginton, S J Clist and B G J Warren requested that their vote against the decision be recorded

v.)           Cllr F W Letch requested that his abstention from voting be recorded

vi.)         Roderick Crawford spoke as the objector

vii.)        Simon Rushton spoke as the agent

viii.)       Cllr S Penny spoke as Ward Member

ix.)         The following late information was provided:

 

26th July 21

Response from Public Health Officer – 19/07/21

 

I think that in view of the new proposed system and the confirmation by the landowner that the land for the drainage field is in his ownership and has shown no signs of being waterlogged it would be fine to accept the system as described.  So now the condition should read:

 

The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the surface water drainage arrangements, including the package treatment plant shown on the approved plans, have been installed and implemented. The approved measures shall thereafter be retained for the life of the development.

 

Therefore condition 7 would be as follows:

 

7. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the surface water drainage arrangements, including the package treatment plant shown on the approved plans, have been installed and implemented. The approved measures shall thereafter be retained for the life of the development.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: