Skip to main content

Agenda item

THE PLANS LIST (00-47-15)

To consider the planning applications contained in the list.

 

Minutes:

The Committee considered the applications on the *Plans List

 

Note: *List previously circulated and attached to the minutes

 

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)    Application 20/01764/TPO –application to reduce height and canopy spread on north side by 2m of 1 beech tree (T1) and fell 2 ash trees (T2 and T3) protected by Tree Preservation Order 80/00001/TPO – land at NGR 294817 112951 (South of 45 Derick Road) Patches Road, Tiverton be approved subject to the conditions as set out in the report

 

(Proposed by the Chairman)

 

Reason for the decision: As set out in the report

 

Notes:

 

b)   Application 21/00454/MARM – Reserved Matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for 164 dwellings with the provision of public open space, vehicular and pedestrian access, landscaping, drainage and related infrastructure and engineering works following outline approval 14/00881/MOUT – land east of Tiverton, South of A361 and both north and south of Blundells Road, Uplowman Road, Tiverton)

 

The Area Planning Officer provided responses to questions raised in public question time, covering the general issues as follows:

 

·         With regard to non-compliance with the application process and more specifically why the Design Review Panel had not been involved at an earlier stage, the officers were unaware of any non-compliance to the statutory application process, the report of 28 July 2021 provided a reference to the NPPF that encouraged the Design Review Panel (DRP) process and the applicant was informed, she acknowledged that there was a delay in the DRP being involved but that the application had been considered by the DRP.

·         With regard to the ‘Centre to Edge’ concept established in the Tiverton EUE Design Guide which made reference to a row of houses adjacent to the green boulevard – this were possibly those mentioned in figure 3.39 of the design guide that focused on the residential core or those highlighted within the illustrative masterplan submitted at outline stage.  The adopted masterplan set out a strategic vision for the EUE and was intended to be flexible.  The masterplan submitted with the 2014 outline application was an illustrative framework plan setting out how the development might be achieved.

·         With regard to the inclusion of green policies – this was referred to in the update sheet

·         With regard to cycle paths, again she referred to the update sheet and confirmed that cycle paths were provided and had not been removed.

·         With regard to the access via the farm gate entrance on the north side of Blundells Road, she would need to clarify this with the questioner as the access would currently be off the A361 junction for construction works.

·         With regard to the self build dwellings being serviced from the north, the officer’s report stated that the proposed scheme would not preclude this.

·         With regard to electrical infrastructure and future legislation driven by climate change, the planning consent would be based on the current legislative framework.  The provision of EV charging provisions was outlined in the report.

·         With regard to the applicant dealing sensitively with residents – the meeting was advised that due consideration had been given to all the residents and that changes had been made to the proposals some of which had been highlighted by residents.

·         With regard to the 10 existing properties north of Blundells Road and them not being afforded the same consideration as other residents in town, she was unaware of the specific application that was being highlighted.

·         With regard to construction hours, this was highlighted within the update sheet.

·         With regard to the consultation process and workshop – reference was made to this in the adopted masterplan

·         With regard to the Design Review Panel  - this had been answered previously

·         With regard to the 6 character areas – this was referred to in the update sheet

·         With regard to officers encouraging the Design Review panel process – this had been responded to previously

·         With regard to why the officers had never flagged up to committee members how critical the Design Review Panel were of being introduced late into the process – officers had never hidden this fact.

·         With regard to why Redrow were allowed to fail to comply with their own policies – the applicant would need to answer this.

 

The officer then outlined the reasons why the application had been deferred previously, she informed those present that a stakeholder meeting had taken place on 6 September and following this, revised drawings had been received, she also stated that a number of other drawings had been received and were available on the planning portal. 

 

The officer then outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the history of the site, the reduction in the number of dwellings from 166 to 164, the layout of the spine road, the site location plan, the illustrative framework plan from the masterplan, an aerial view of the site, the planning layout, the proposed changes to the layout of the dwellings behind the properties to the north of Blundells Road.  She explained the location of the affordable dwellings, the provision made for play space, the increase in the number of electric charging points on the site, the crossing points that had been put in place, the reduction in height of the apartment block, the introduction of 2 bungalows, the changes to the depth of the buffer and explained the density of the dwellings in that area.  She also provided photographs from various aspects of the site.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The views of the objector highlighting his and others disappointment in the proposals for development on this site; the fact that the determination of the current application would leave a legacy for the rest of the site; the poor development design and density to the north of Blundells Road; his views on non-compliance with regard to the planning process and planning design, the lack of engagement with the general public and the expectations of the masterplan.

·         The views of the applicant with regard to the stakeholder meeting that had taken place and the changes to the scheme that had been made following this meeting the fact that all the local residents had been written to and consulted and that the views received had been interpreted within the plans.

·         The views of the Ward member in attendance who stated that the applicant had been listening and that the points that he had raised at the stakeholder meeting had been considered.  He was unsure whether there were enough electric car charging points and would have liked to see the installation of heat pumps.

 

Discussion then took place regarding:

 

·         Recent Government guidance with regard to climate change issues and whether additional conditions could be added to address this

·         The viability of the scheme and the need to comply with the current framework and that the applicant had over-provided against policy requirements

·         Concern with regard to the design, location and number of affordable dwellings and the mix of affordable dwellings

·         Disabled access to the apartments

·         The location of the new play space and the safety of users

·         Pollution issues within the new play space

·         Whether the road crossings would be in place prior to occupation of the dwellings

·         Whether the affordable dwellings resembled the market housing

·         Traffic calming measures put in place and highway advice

·         The information within the update sheet

·         Whether 2 bungalows were enough in this location

·         Vernacular materials and whether this was compliant with the urban design

·         The tandem parking proposed

·         Whether the amendments proposed were enough to allow for the approval of the application and whether further negotiation should take place to consider the committee’s ongoing concerns.

 

It was therefore:

 

RESOLVED that the decision on the application be deferred and that delegated authority be given to the Development Management Manager, in conjunction with Members of the Planning Committee to renegotiate with the developer with regard to the appearance, scale, characteristics, design and density of the scheme and that a meeting take place with the committee, the Planning Officer and the developer to determine the key issues.

 

Reason – the issues raised previously had not been resolved or addressed.

 

(Proposed by Cllr G Barnell and seconded by Cllr L J Cruwys)

 

Notes:

 

i)             Cllrs G Barnell, E J Berry, 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 Councillor dealing with planning matters as they had received correspondence from the objectors to the application;

ii)            Cllr B G J Warren made further declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillor dealing with planning matters as he had received additional letters as Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee;

iii)           Cllr C J Eginton made further declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillor dealing with planning matters as he had received additional letters as Chairman of the Standards Committee;

iv)           Mr Elstone spoke in objection to the application;

v)            Mr Cattermole spoke as the applicant;

vi)           Cllr D J Knowles spoke as one of the Ward Members;

vii)          The following late information was provided:

 

Revised Drawing:

 

EV Charging Layout.

Dwg No: POST-21-04-10 Rev G

Response: Revised drawing submitted to reflect a more even distribution across the development. 48 charging points identified: Fourteen (x14) north of Blundell’s Road and thirty four (x34) south of Blundell’s Road. Please refer to detailed response in Officer report (Para 9.1).

 

Consultee Comments:

Historic Environment team – 19 October 2021

Neither an objection nor support for Planning Application 21/00454/MARM:

A programme of archaeological work is currently on going within the area subject to this reserved matters application in accordance with an agreed written scheme of investigation and, as such, the Historic Environment Team has no comments to make on this current planning application.

Response: consultee comments noted. No further action required.

Historic Environment team – 21 October 2021

Neither an objection nor support for Planning Application 21/00454/MARM:

While the Historic Environment Team has informally approved the written scheme of investigation prepared by Cotswold Archaeology, and that archaeological works are underway on site, I am unaware that this document has been formally submitted to the Planning Authority to comply with

Condition 15 on the consent granted for the outline application 14/00881/MOUT.

I would be grateful if you could make the applicant aware of the outstanding requirement for the formal submission and approval of the agreed written scheme of investigation to comply with the above mentioned condition.

Response: The concerns raised are included as an Informative in the Officer Report. No further action required.

Tiverton Town Council – 19 October 2021

The earlier comments previously made by the council remain. Whilst it is appreciated that the developer has made some changes following our recommendations they are fairly minor and many issues have not been addressed. The report submitted by the Tiverton Civic Society which contained many valued points seems to have been mainly ignored. We therefore feel that the developer should revisit the comments and come up with a better amended plan taking those points in to consideration. There would seem to be little if no provision for electric charging points in the large affordable housing block. Can the developer explain the reason for this when we are being pushed towards electric vehicles?

Response: revised drawings including (but not restricted to) a revised playing layout, wider distribution of house types, introduction of new house types, enhanced consideration of the Blundell’s Conservation Area, introduction of children’s play space, change in height, scale and massing of apartment block 2, amended landscape and boundary enclosures, increased depth of landscape buffer south of Blundell’s Road, enhanced EV charging provision and changes in the density and distribution of development are a number of changes introduced into the scheme following additional Member and stakeholder consultation. Officers advise that a comprehensive consideration of the overall design, scale and layout has been given.

As regards to EV charging provision the proposed scheme is providing a significant over provision, 32 in excess of policy requirements. Policy DM5 requires infrastructure for electric vehicles to be built into development without specifying its allocation to unit types.

Tiverton Civic Society – 21 October 2021

Most of our original objections remain, as well as our statement and question on Affordable housing submitted at the MDDC Planning Committee on July 28th. In particular, we emphasise the following points:

·            The application remains non - compliant with the NPPF, para 132 relating to early discussion with the local community.

 

Response: Please refer to detailed response in the Officer report to Planning Committee 28th July 2021, section titled Proposed Development, para 9.1.

 

·            The overall distribution of Affordable Housing remains highly unsatisfactory needing to be integrated with the provision of private housing to promote the creation of mixed and balanced communities. Affordable housing should be indistinguishable from market housing in terms of its visual appearance and its location within the development site and should contribute positively to the high-quality urban design of the scheme

 

Response: Please refer to detailed response in the Officer report 3rd Nov, para’s 5.1 – 5.2.

 

·            Whilst the applicants are correct in stating that the Mid Devon Local Plan Policy DM5 calculates that they are required to provide 16 or 17 electric charging points, and it is gratifying that they are providing 48, surely it would be more sensible with the surge in demand for electric cars and plug-in hybrids, and future developments in the Eastern Urban Extension all being required to provide EV charging points that it is not provided now.

 

Response: the application represents an over provision in policy terms. Please also refer to detailed response in the Officer report 3rd Nov, para 9.1. 

 

·            The proposed development is a standard design replicated in many parts of the country. The development of ‘character areas’ and ‘heritage ranges’ is no substitute for local distinctiveness. The development shows minimal appreciation of the local context.

 

Response: Please refer to detailed response in the Officer report to Planning Committee 28th July 2021, para 3.11.

 

Consultee Comments:

The objection letters submitted are available and can be read in full from the Mid Devon District Council Planning portal. 

6 x letters of objection. The main points including:

 

·            The linking road (north of Blundell’s Road) towers over the garden fence to our property in Pool Anthony Drive. This is a violation of privacy with vehicles looking directly into our property. Without an appropriate barrier the increase in noise will be significant.

Response: an acoustic barrier has been constructed in accordance with Application No. 16/01759/FULL. The proposed apartment block (Units 148-156) will act as a visual and noise barrier between vehicles using the linking road and existing properties on Pool Anthony Drive. Officers can advise that vehicles using the linking road, will not be able to achieve direct views into properties on Pool Anthony Drive. The spur to the Left-in-left-out junction will serve vehicles travelling in a west bound direction; no direct views or head lights will be directed towards existing properties on to Pool Anthony Drive. The detailed landscape Plan (Dwg No. edp6162_d018g, Sheet 2 of 8) identifies a new hedge between apartment block 148-156 and the existing mature boundary on the northern edge of the application site, with 6 hedge species proposed. This will provide additional remediation.

·            The car park (associated with Unit No.s 148-156) to the rear of properties in Pool Anthony Drive will, I imagine, also be built up, meaning people can look straight over our garden boundary into our property.

Response: Dwg No. Engineering Strategy 15255-hyd-xx-xx-dr-c-3501 Rev PO1 provides details of ground levels. The point of entry into the apartment car park will have limited impact on the privacy of existing properties where the hedgeline between the existing properties and the development site is at its weakest for providing a visual barrier.  

·            The application does not comply with the policy expectations relating to visitor parking provision. Visitor parking being poorly located.

 Response: Parking provision complies with policy expectations (Dwg No. POST-21-04-10 G). Please refer to detailed response in the Officer report to Planning Committee 28th July 2021, Para 3.12.

·            Tandem Parking spaces does not encourage householders to park on their driveways instead resulting in a higher insistence of on-street parking. Visitor spaces will be taken up by those not parking on their drive.

Response: Please refer to detailed response in the Officer report to Planning Committee 28th July 2021, Para 3.12.

·            The application does not comply with the Tiverton EUE key design principle relating to the ‘centre to edge’ and ‘garden village’ principle.

Response: Please refer to detailed response in the Officer report to Planning Committee 28th July 2021, Para’s 3.10, 3.18 and 3.19.

·            The application does not comply with the Tiverton EUE key design principle relating to character areas; the application artificially creating 5 new character areas.

Response: Please refer to detailed response in the Officer report to Planning Committee 28th July 2021, Para’s 3.10 and 3.21. Also the Officers report 3rd November paras 4.1 – 4.2.

·            The application has created high density housing areas in locations that defeat the Tiverton EUE Design Guide expectations.

Response: Please refer to detailed response in the Officer report to Planning Committee 28th July 2021, Para’s 3.9 and 3.10. Also the Officers report 3rd November paras 1.1 – 1.2.

·            The applicant has totally removed all cycle lanes.

Response: Please refer to detailed response in the Officer report to Planning Committee 28th July 2021, Para’s 2.7, 2.8 and 3.7.

·            The applicant has created high density housing areas in locations that defeat the Tiverton EUE Design Guide expectations of sympathetic design to existing properties.

Response: Please refer to detailed response in the Officer report to Planning Committee 28th July 2021, Para’s 3.9, 3.10, 3.16 and 3.17. Also the Officers report 3rd November para’s 1.1 – 1.2, 2.1 – 2.5, 4.1 – 4.2 and 7.1.

·            The applicant has not conformed to the Tiverton EUE Masterplan SPD or Design Guide Key Principles by not following the prescribed process (relating more specifically to the Urban Design and Architectural Principles document and Design Review Panel process); to the detriment in particular to existing residents.

Response: Please refer to detailed response in the Officer report to Planning Committee 28th July 2021, section titled Proposed Development, para 1.9, 1.10, 3.2, 3.3, 10.2, 10.3 and section titled Reasons for Approval of permission. 

·            The applicant has totally removed all provision of on-road parking as detailed in the Tiverton EUE Masterplan SPD and Design Guide failing to encourage walking, cycling and public transport ahead of car use.

Response: Parking provision complies with policy expectations providing a majority of on-plot parking (Dwg No. POST-21-04-10 G).  Please refer to detailed response in the Officer report to Planning Committee 28th July 2021, para 2.3, 2.7, 3.1, 3.8, 3.12 with regard to the achievement of sustainable development and better places in which to live and work.

·            The approach to Blundell’s Road from the A361 should be fronted by 2 storey buildings with references in local stone, a wide boulevard with cycle lanes. Taller buildings should be nearer the centre.

Response: Hybrid application (14/00881/MOUT) established the width and detail of the A361 and Blundell’s Road linking road. This application seeks to establish the form of development either side of the linking road. Please refer to detailed response in the Officer report to Planning Committee 28th July 2021, Para 2.7 that sets out the principles of development, para 3.8 establishing a hierarchy of streets and para 3.21 for negotiated amendments to this part of the development. 

·            The EUE Design Guide references the creation of green boulevards, street trees and on secondary streets on-street parking.

Response: Applications 14/00881/MOUT and 21/00374/MARM relate to the development of the green boulevards. Please refer to detailed response in the Officer report to Planning Committee 28th July 2021, para 2.7 that sets out the principles of development, 3.22 for street trees and para 3.12 for parking provision and policy compliance.

·            Page 53 of the EUE Design Guide describes the approach to the intersection between Blundell's road and the new boulevards as 'a distinctive and high quality urban plaza’ with central open space. The proposal materially compromises what was originally intended.

Response: Page 53 of the EUE Design Guide is referring to the neighbourhood centre; a part of the EUE that does not form part of this application area and will be addressed through a future application. 

·            A children's playground has been sited bang next to a noisy, busy and possibly treacherous main road, the volume of which will only increase dramatically with the arrival of further housing in subsequent years. Play zones should be friendly, safe, accessible and integral to the livelihoods of young children.

Response: Please refer to detailed response in the Officer report to Planning Committee 3rd Nov para 6.1. Also the Officer report to Planning Committee 28th July 2021, para 3.7 and the Tiverton EUE Masterplan SPD that identifies as part of the phased development of the EUE, multi-functional community hubs.

·            It is disappointing beyond belief that cycle lanes are not included in the main boulevard. Cycle lanes should connect all areas and reach the employment centre. Tiverton has some areas of cycle lanes but there needs to be a more consistent strategy.

Response: Applications 14/00881/MOUT and 21/00374/MARM relate to the development of the green boulevards. Please refer to detailed response in the Officer report to Planning Committee 28th July 2021, para’s 2.7 - 2.9 and 3.7.

·            Why are solar panels and heat pumps not being installed as part of the development? Why is this development using gas overall for its energy? 

Response: Please refer to detailed response in the Officer report to Planning Committee 28th July, para 3.27 referring to the fabric first approach. Also the Officer report for 3rd Nov, para 9.1.

·            We need to create environments for the future which foster mental health, protect biodiversity, maximise sustainability, promote heritage value and consequently encourage strong communities that put welfare and community at the forefront.

Response: Please refer to the Officer report to Planning Committee 28th July that seeks to confirm the comprehensive approach to development, including recognition of future phases of development that will deliver community facilities in the form of a community centre and country park. 

·            The self-build homes (outside the application area, north of Blundell’s Road) should have a service road from the rear.

Response: Please refer to the Officer report to Planning Committee 3rd Nov para 10.1

·            There is a lack of provision for children to cross the main roads to the primary school.

Response: Devon County Council in approving the technical drawings for the linking road (north of Blundell’s Road), the planning application for the primary school, the spine road (south of Blundell’s Road) and Phase 2 traffic calming measures (Blundell’s Road / Post Hill) will all address this issue.

·            Two bungalows to the rear of existing properties south of Blundell’s Road is not enough.

Response: Please refer to the Officer report to Planning Committee 3rd Nov para 7.1.

·            The existing properties, south of Blundell’s Road will lose their southern vistas. This is inequitable.

Response: the application site is an allocated site with outline planning consent. Please refer to the Officer report to Planning Committee 28th July, Para 3.16. Also the Officer report to Planning Committee 3rd Nov para’s 2.1 – 2.5.

·            Why have normal working hours been agreed with a 7.30 start; earlier than other sites?

Response: Condition 14 of application 14/00881/MOUT has not been discharged confirming hours of work. 

 

Updated Reports

Two updated reports have been received – amended to reflect the updated Detailed Landscape Design referenced in the Officer’s report at ‘Applicant’s Supporting Information’. The updated reports include the:

 

Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Plan

(211029_P1046_Habitat_Assessment_and_Mitigation_Plan – Finalv2 Dated November 2021); and

 

Landscape and Management Plan (edp6162_r005e, Dated November 2021)

 

Response: The updated Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Plan and Landscape and Management Plan do not have a material effect upon the measures and recommendations of the documents; simply for consistency that they reflect the latest landscape details. 

 

Updated Reports

Two updated reports have been received – amended to reflect the updated Detailed Landscape Design referenced in the Officer’s report at ‘Applicant’s Supporting Information’. The updated reports include the:

 

Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Plan

(211029_P1046_Habitat_Assessment_and_Mitigation_Plan – Finalv2 Dated November 2021); and

 

Landscape and Management Plan (edp6162_r005e, Dated November 2021)

 

Response: To reflect the updated reports the reference numbers within Condition 11 also require updating. The revised wording for Condition 11 is proposed as follows:

 

No development shall take place on the site except in accordance with the details set out within the submitted Landscape Management Plan (November 2021; edp6162_r005e) and Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Plan (November 2021; 211029_P1046_Habitat_Assessment_and_Mitigation_Plan - Finalv2).  The recommendations in the Landscape Management Plan (June 2021) and Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Plan (March 2021) shall be adhered to throughout the construction period and the development shall be operated thereafter only in accordance with the management provisions set out within them.

 

 

c)    Application 21/01458/FULL – Erection of single storey extension to care home – Ashdowne Care centre, Ashdowne House, Orkney Mews, Tiverton)

 

The Interim Area Team Leader outlined the application by way of a presentation highlighting the proposal along with a site location plan, block plan, an aerial image, existing and proposed elevations and floor plans, the proposed extension to the floorplan and roof plan and photographs from various aspects of the site.

 

He explained that there was historic concern with regard to parking in the area, however the proposal had not sought additional bed space and therefore did not require additional parking.

 

Addressing the questions raised during public question time, he provided the following responses:

 

·         Concern with regard to compliance with Policy DM5, the response of the Highway Authority had been that as there were no additional beds proposed then there was no need for additional parking

·         Concerns that the existing rooms could be converted into bed space – that was beyond the control of the LPA

·         The  location  of the portacabin and that it’s siting could no longer be enforced against

·         The meaning of conditions; he explained what conditions could cover

·         The Tree Officer had considered the quality of the hedgerow and that tree protections plans would be put in place

·         The impact of the proposal, now that this was a single storey application, there would be little impact on local residents

·         Access and safety and further parking concerns, the proposal would not increase the traffic in the area

·         With regard to access for construction – this had previously been via Shakespeare Close and would be detailed in a Construction Management Plan, required by condition

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The views of the objector with regard to the serious traffic situation during the previous extension, the size of the development and emergency vehicle access, parking provision for staff, the issues with the turning bay and that residents had tried to protect their properties; how the site had been developed over the last 20 years and that the site was becoming overdeveloped.

·         The views of the agent with regard to the lack of concern by the Highway Authority, his client had considered the comments of concern, there would be no additional bed space and no extra parking spaces required.

·         The views of the representative from Tiverton Town Council with regard to her knowledge of working in the care industry, the collective concerns of residents, overdevelopment of the site; concerns with regard to access and turning, the proposal would take away some of the existing parking on the site and the lack of rear access to the site

·         The views of the Ward Members with regard to the impact of the proposal on neighbouring residents, whether the proposal conflicted with planning policies; parking issues in the area, whether the site had been overdeveloped andthe need for an appropriate Construction/Environmental Management Plan; insufficient parking and the need to stop developing the site further.

 

Discussion took place regarding:

 

·         Concerns with regard to parking provision

·         The siting of the portacabin and if planning permission was granted whether the applicant would remove it?

·         The extension details and whether existing rooms would be used for bed space

·         Items (g) and (j) within Condition 3

·         How the extension would be constructed with no access to the rear of the site

·         The number of extensions

·         Whether Policy DM5 did apply to the proposal

·         Overdevelopment of the site

·         The lack of control with regard to the number of beds

 

RESOLVED that Members were minded to refuse the application and therefore the decision be deferred for the receipt of an implications report to consider reasons for refusal with regard to over development of the site and that the application did not comply with Policy DM5

 

(Proposed by Cllr G Barnell and seconded by Cllr L J Cruwys)

 

Notes:

 

(i)            Cllrs G Barnell, E J Berry, 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 Councillor dealing with planning matters as they had received correspondence from the objectors to the application;

(ii)          Cllr Mrs C P Daw declared a personal interest as she had provided training to the care home in the past;

(iii)         Cllrs B G J Warren and R J Dolley made  further declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillor dealing with planning matters as some of the objectors were known to them;

(iv)         Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe made a further declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillor dealing with planning matters as the site was within her previous county division;

(v)          Cllr L J Cruwys declared a personal interest as  the objectors were known to him, his mother had been a patient and he used to be an ambulance driver;

(vi)         Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe requested that her vote against the decision be recorded;

(vii)        Mrs Jenner spoke as the objector

(viii)       Mr Archer spoke as agent

(ix)         Cllr Mrs Harrower spoke on behalf of Tiverton Town Council;

(x)          Cllrs B Holdman and Mrs E Slade spoke as Ward Members.

 

 

d)   Application 21/00152/FULL  Change of use from place of worship to residential dwelling together with external alterations– Gospel Hall, Peter Street, Bradninch)

 

The Interim Area Team Leader outlined the application by way of a presentation highlighting the site location, an aerial view of the site, existing and proposed front and rear elevations, the upper roof space and how it would be utilised, the views of the Conservation Officer who had no objection but had raised the issue of the paraphernalia on the roof and how that could be managed by condition, the proposed ground and top floor plans and photographs from various aspects in the area including the street scene.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The views of the objector with regard to inappropriate development in a conservation area, the current street scene of small cottages and terraces; the impact of the glass box on the roof and how visual that would be; strong objections from neighbouring properties with regard to the misuse of the roof, overdevelopment of the site and concern with regard to further development in the conservations area; parking in the area and that the property was unsuitable for a residential dwelling

·         The views of the applicant who had previously converted a chapel,  the fact that they had worked closely with the Conservation Officer on the project, the need to preserve some of the original features of the building, the roof would be a private amenity space and not a party area

·         The views of the Ward Member with regard to supporting the views of the objectors; the fact that the roof terrace was not appropriate and out of place, that the design was not in keeping with the built environment and there were parking issues in the area

 

Discussion took place regarding:

 

·         If the building were to be demolished would the site become infill and then another dwelling be applied for

·         The building would go into disrepair if not used

·         Whether the building was out of place within the current street scene in its current form

·         The garden roof could be a great innovation

·         What other use would be suitable here and not require parking

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Interim Development Management Manager.

 

(Proposed by Cllr E J Berry and seconded by Cllr R J Dolley)

 

Reason for the decision: As set out in the report.

 

Notes:

 

(i)            Cllrs G Barnell, E J Berry, 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 Councillor dealing with planning matters as they had received correspondence with regard to the application;

 

(ii)          Mr Andrews spoke in objection to the application;

 

(iii)         Mrs Schamroth spoke as applicant;

 

(iv)         Cllr L D Taylor spoke as Ward Member.

 

e)    Application 21/01079/FULL  Change of use of land for the siting of a temporary worker’s dwelling –(log cabin) for 3 years – land at NGR 316266 116080 (Poachers Rest – Clayhidon)

 

The Consultant Development Management Officer outlined the application by way of a presentation highlighting the reason for the call in, the number of consultees, the concerns of development within the AONB, the views of the Economic Development Officer, the objections and support for the application, the previous scheme which had been refused, the detail of Policy DM8, whether there was an essential and functional need.  He also highlighted recent appeal decisions which were relevant to the application and the criteria to be considered for a mobile unit, also the business plan for the proposal.  He reported that he had considered the impact of the development on the AONB and considered drainage and highway/access issues.

 

Providing responses to questions posed in public question time:

·         He informed the meeting that the Economic Development Officer had not stated that he was doubtful,

·         Occupation of the site would assist business use

·         He had not checked the 4G but had considered the availability of rented property in the locality and that all relevant information presented has been considered. 

·         With regard to the views of the AONB and Economic Development Officer, he had not discounted this information but had reached a different conclusion.

·         The ratio of income generation was approximately 30:70 agriculture to equine

·         Enforcement investigation on the site was live and that if the application was approved it would regularise the situation

 

He also referred to an amendment to Condition 4 with regard to the occupation of the dwelling.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The views of the Objector with regard to the harm that the development would have on the landscape, the economic development did not out way the harm, the views of the Economic Development Officer was not clear, the small number of livestock on the property, that there was no evidence of rehabilitation of horses and that the development would set a precedent on the AONB

·         The views of the Parish Council with regard to the essential need for a full time worker to live on the site, the views of the Economic Development Officer was not clear, there were 16 properties available within 5 miles of the site and whether any of the evidence had been verified by an agricultural expert

·         The views of the Ward Member with regard to the difference between a log cabin and a mobile home, the live enforcement cases, the different regulations in place for the AONB and whether the application was contrary to Policy DM8

 

Discussion took place regarding:

 

·         What would happen after 3 years and how much weight should be given to the letters of support

·         The log cabin was a serious investment for a temporary dwelling

·         If horses were present then 24 hour care was needed

·         The response of the Economic Development Officer and the representative of the AONB

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Interim Development Management Manager with an amendment to Condition 4 to state that:The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed in connection with the operation of the agricultural or equestrian business at Poacher’s Rest, or a widow or widower or surviving civil partner of such a person, and to any resident dependants.

 

Reason (same): In the interests of residential amenity, in accordance with policy DM1 of the Mid Devon Local Plan 2013 and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

(Proposed by Cllr R J Dolley and seconded by Cllr E J Berry)

 

(Vote 5 for; 4 against)

 

Reason for the decision: As set out in the report.

 

Notes:

 

(i)            Cllrs G Barnell, E J Berry, 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 Councillor dealing with planning matters as they had received correspondence with regard to the application;

(ii)          Cllr S J Clist made a further declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillor dealing with planning matters as the Parish Councillors and objectors were known to him;

(iii)         Mr Carter spoke in objection to the application;

(iv)         Mrs Evans spoke on behalf of the Parish Council;

(v)          Cllr S J Clist spoke as Ward Member;

(vi)         The following late information was reported: Public Health withdraw their holding objection with regard to drainage now a package treatment plant is proposed.

 

 

f)     Application 21/00887/FULL -   Erection of 5 dwellings with associated works following demolition of existing agricultural building – land at NGR 278841 104538 (Linscombe Farm), New Buildings, Sandford)

 

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application by way of a presentation highlighting the site location plan, the history of the site with regard to the Class Q application for conversion that had been granted, the 3 dwellings approved as a fall back in 2019 and the current application.  He identified the square meterage of floor space for each application and the case law deemed to be useful guidance.  He felt that the proposed development was not considered to be appropriate or acceptable and that it was not betterment to the original scheme that had been granted permission.

 

The meeting viewed the aerial view of the application site, the block plan, proposed elevations, ground floor plans, an illustrative perspective of the site and photographs from various aspects of the site.  The officer also explained that Class Q did have limits and that the proposal was over the Class Q limit.

 

Providing a response to a question posed in public question time with regard to policy, he stated that there was no specific policy but that there was a need to consider betterment.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The views of the applicant with regard to the need to address the climate emergency, the biodiversity gains of the scheme, the decrease in energy proposed, there would be more habitat for wildlife, that the proposal was betterment and that the development was sustainable.

·         The views of the Ward Members with regard to the need to encourage development such as this, the biodiversity net gain which would be established, the need to encourage small scale development and the lack of current policy for being carbon neutral. The history of the site, the lack of objection from the Parish Council, what would happen to the site if it was not developed and the need to consider the sustainable development proposed.

 

Discussion took place regarding:

 

·         The absence of a S106 agreement – which would be considered if the application was approved

·         Whether the application was stretching the Class Q status

·         Anyone could progress the tree planting

·         Whether the proposal was an example for the future.

 

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted and that delegated authority be given to the Interim Development Management Manager to progress a set of conditions to include a S106 agreement.

 

Reason for approval - that this was suitable use of the land, it was an imaginative and eco-friendly development which should be encouraged.

 

(Proposed by Cllr L J Cruwys and seconded by Cllr F W Letch)

 

Notes:

 

(i)            Cllrs E J Berry, S J Clist, L J Cruwys, Mrs C P Daw, P J Heal, F W Letch and B G J Warren made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillor dealing with planning matters as they had received correspondence with regard to the application;

(ii)          Ian Russell spoke as the applicant;

(iii)         Cllrs Mrs E Lloyd and Mrs M E Squires spoke as Ward Members;

(iv)         Cllr B G J Warren requested that his vote against the decision be recorded;

(v)          Cllr Mrs C P Daw requested that her abstention from voting be recorded.

 

 

Supporting documents: