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) 22/02301/FULL - Retention and regularisation of changes made to an agricultural storage building to mixed use of agricultural storage and livestock at Staple Cross Farm, Hockworthy, Devon.
In response to the public questions asked the Area Team Leader stated that:
· No formal site visit had been carried out. The Case Officer had visited the site twice before and photos taken which formed part of the presentation.
The Area Team Leader outlined the application by way of a presentation which highlighted:-
· The site was approximately 250m NW on the edge of Staple Cross.
· It related to an agricultural building that had been on site for a while and was unauthorised in its current state. The application was to regularise the building and allow it to be used for occupation of livestock as well as storage for agricultural machinery and hay etc.
· It was previously permitted under prior notification but built slightly differently as it was now 1.5m taller than permitted.
· As part of the original prior notification it wasn’t permitted for use by livestock due to it being within 400m of the nearest protected building.
· Several objections had been received relating to issues such as impact on heritage matters, general impact on the countryside and neighbouring amenity. Issues had been raised with Environmental Health in relation to the temporary housing of geese following the need to house them during aviation flu and the impact of flood risk, parking and ecology matters.
· There was already a building permitted in the location of the same footprint and size.
· It differed only in that it was 1.5m higher and that it was proposed to house livestock.
· The Conservation Officer had raised no issues regarding general visual impact affecting heritage and flood risk.
· Environmental Health Officers didn’t believe the level of agricultural use of livestock would raise significant issues.
· To the south there were 2 large buildings parallel to the road which were former poultry buildings which had been granted permission for demolition and rebuild for 3 residential units. They were approximately 150m south of the building.
· The nearest residential dwellings were approximately 100m from the site. The Environmental Health Officer had raised no objections.
· The nearest heritage assets were to the east of the property with a number of listed buildings to the north of the property. The application didn’t represent any additional harm or impact to the listed buildings.
· Taking into account existing building it was not considered to be a problem in terms of livestock. If there were any particular issues with noise/smells there was scope for Environmental Health to investigate, however they didn’t have any concerns regarding impact on nearby residents.
Consideration was given to:-
· Whether the Local Planning Authority was adhering to its own policies.
· The height of the proposed building and whether it was policy compliant.
· The existing building and it being used to house geese during the Avian Flu epidemic.
· That farmers should be allowed to farm their land as the countryside isn’t just for tourism.
· Landscaping and additional screening to construct a hedgerow to plant native species trees.
It was therefore RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions contained within the report with delegated authority given to the Director of Place to add a further condition with regard to the agreement of a scheme of landscaping, details of which should be provided within three months of the decision date and thereafter implemented in the next available planting season.
(Proposed by Cllr Mrs P Colthorpe and seconded by Cllr Mrs M Collis)
Reason for the decision: As set out in the report.
Notes:-
· Cllr P J Heal, Cllr L Cruwys, Cllr M Collis, Cllr S Clist, Cllr P Colthorpe, Cllr Ben Holdman, Cllr D Knowles, Cllr F Letch, Cllr C Daw all made declarations in accordance with the protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had received correspondence.
· Amanda Burden spoke as Agent for the Applicant.
· Peter Stratton spoke as the Objector.
· Councillor Collis spoke as the Ward Member.
b) 22/02127/FULL - Retention of a temporary agricultural workers dwelling at Staple Cross Farm, Hockworthy, Devon.
The Area Team Leader outlined the application by way of a presentation which highlighted the following:-
· This was the same site which was an application for a temporary dwelling which would be tied to this site for 3 years in order for the applicant to fully establish their business with the keeping of the geese for Christmas market and a number of cows for sale.
For also primarily meeting the essential needs for bucket rear calves – the owners currently have 41 with a projection at the end of 3 years for 130 forming the herd.
· The applicant had to support their proposals with an independent appraisal of their business to demonstrate the need for one or more worker to be present on the site.
· There had to be a firm intention of developing the enterprise.
· Reading Agricultural Consultants (RAC) are an established agricultural consultancy and they had been instructed by the Council to appraise the information submitted.
· This was the second appraisal carried out at the applicant’s expense.
· The intention was for the applicant to develop the business to enable them to meet the needs of the policy within a 3 year period. They had 3 years to build the business. A permanent dwelling wouldn’t normally be granted if business didn’t develop within that time frame. This would have to be considered at the time if that were to happen.
· RAC had confirmed there was sufficient justification as there was a firm intention to develop the enterprise and sound financial planning.
· It had been seen by an Agricultural consultant and it shows a profitable business within 3 years.
· There was relevant case for approving the application.
In response to the public questions asked the Area Team Leader stated that:
· In terms of whether the Committee were aware of the 3 dwellings – yes the Committee were aware and the Environmental Protection Team had considered the application regarding geese noise and the visual impact on the open countryside and confirm there should not be any impact on the neighbouring dwellings and businesses.
· The temporary mobile home was not considered to have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties.
· If this were granted they would have the 3 years to establish this – the officer’s recommendation and the independent appraiser was that there was sufficient information to recommend approval.
Consideration was given to:
· Whether the temporary mobile home fitted in with design quality and the visual impact it has.
· The external finish of the mobile home ie timber cladding or repainting the outside.
It was therefore RESOLVED that approval be given for the retention of a temporary agricultural workers dwelling subject to conditions in the report with delegated authority given to the Director of Place to add a further two conditions with regard to the final material finish of the retained temporary dwelling and agreement of a scheme of landscaping, details of which should be provided within three months of the decision date and thereafter implemented in the next available planting season.
(Proposed by Cllr P Colthorpe and seconded by Cllr B Holdman)
Reason for the decision: As set out in the report.
Notes:
· Cllr P J Heal, Cllr L Cruwys, Cllr M Collis, Cllr S Clist, Cllr P Colthorpe, Cllr Ben Holdman, Cllr D Knowles, Cllr F Letch, Cllr C Daw all made declarations in accordance with the protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had received correspondence.
· Amanda Burden spoke as Agent for the Applicant.
· Peter Stratton spoke as the Objector.
· Councillor Collis spoke as the Ward Member.
c) 23/00119/FULL - Erection of 5 affordable dwellings following demolition of existing garages with associated parking, landscaping and works at Land and Garages at NGR 282671 102585, Crofts Estate, Sandford.
The Area Team Leader informed the Committee of 2 updates:-
· The Lead Local Floor Authority had determined the application as a “minor” planning application and confirmed that they would not be providing a consultation response so no formal objection was raised on the drainage matter.
· An objection letter had been received from a local resident.
The Area Team Leader outlined the application by way of a presentation which highlighted:-
· The application was for the erection of 5 affordable dwellings made up of 4 x 1 bed room units. 2 at ground floor level and 2 at first floor level
· 1 x 2 story 1 bed unit
· All housed within a single 2 story block on site.
· All intended for social rent as part of the Housing Revenue Account portfolio.
· The application site Croft Estate in Sandford - located to the north west of Sandford within a settlement limit of Crofts Esate and outside of the conservation area.
· The site was bounded to the south by the access road for 6 dwellings located in Church Parks to the west.
· Private sewerage treatment plant was to the west.
· In the north and west lies 2 storey residential properties in the Croft Estate with those to the north standing at an elevated level.
· There were 11 garages and space to park 4 vehicles
· Currently 5 void garages were on the site. The Housing Team commented that only 1 garage was being used to park a vehicle.
· Any garage tenant would be offerered a different garage if theirs were to be demolished.
· The garages were not just for residents of Sandford – they were available for anyone to rent regardless of where they live.
· Only 4 were rented out to Sandford residents.
· 10 parking spaces were proposed, 5 spaces will have direct access from Church Parks and the other 5 spaces would have direct access from Croft’s Estate.
· Additonal landscaping had been proposed in the south east corner of the site.
· Proposed Ground Floor Plan – the ground floor units would be accessed to the south of the site. With bin stores to the front of the properties.
· The right hand side unit would be accessed from the north with a bin store area.
· An access enclosed staircase on the north side elevation would provide access to the 2 first floor apartments.
· All units were 1 bed.
· The 2 first floor apartments would be served by first floor balconies, which would provide a minimum of 5m2 of private outdoor amenity.
· The ground floor units had a similar area underneath the staircase.
· The apartment blocks would be set 18.1m south and at a lower level in relation to 1-4 Crofts Estate. The block would follow the same dual pitch roof orientation of the existing houses.
· There was at least a 15.6m side elevation to the corner of the block with the nearest Bungalow in St Swithins Gardens.
· 16.1m corner of the new block to the façade distance to the nearby neighbours to the south.
· Distance of the block would be 15.1m from the Conservation Area Boundary
· Solar panels could be seen on the roof. These would be installed to the south facing roof slope.
· Negative carbon emissions were possible across the site which would therefore be supported by Policy DM2 of the Local Planning Renewable and Low Carbon Energy
· Regarding the sustaninability credentials of the zed pods – the modules would be super insulated, airtight and triple glassed windows and doors and mechanically ventilated to further reduce enegy losses combined with on-site renewable generation of hot water.
· The materials used would be a cream render which will pick up the render properties within the Croft Estate
· The ridge of the zed pod development would be 3.9m lower than the ridge point of 1-4 Crofts Esate.
· The ridge development will be 2.7m higher than the bunglow.
· The Flood Risk Assessment confirmed that flow control would be used and attenuation provided on site to accommodate storm events up to and including the 1 in 100 year plus 45% climate change event.
· To minimise flood risk, finished floor levels were proposed to be set 300m above surrounding existing ground levels.
· Mature trees would form a boundary for the Conservation area.
The Area Team Leader also addressed the questions raised during Public Question Time:
The application was indeed seeking to provide much needed affordable housing. The level of provision (5 units) was designed to meet specific local needs at an appropriate sustainable, central location within the village to a high standard. The application was being made on behalf of MDDC on land within its control and the proposed housing will be vested long-term on our Council housing stock. The Council had no access to/control over the Libbets Grange development however we would expect the private developer(s) of that site to meet policy requirements in terms of market affordable housing provision separately to this Zed Pods development.
Tenders were not a planning matter. The Housing Team had commented that they were not sure what was meant by a competitive provider? The chosen contractor to take forward the development (should Planning Permission be granted) would be subject to a separate procurement decision by the Council which was unrelated to the planning decision. As Council housing for long-term secure social rent tenure then shared ownership was not relevant. Nonetheless, beyond formalising use of the proposed dwellings as affordable housing (in this case the most, at the most affordable social rent level), then the exact nature of the tenure was not a material consideration for the planning committee.
Regarding revenue this was not a planning consideration. However the Housing Team note that housing would create additional revenue into the Council housing account, however this was essential to meet the development cost (including associated long-term borrowing) as well as the ongoing maintenance of the properties. Without this rent the application would not be viable and no affordable housing would be completed.
In terms of Ecology, the applicant was aware of the need to comply with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1991, and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. As noted a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Preliminary Roost Assessment was submitted with this application noting that there was an external inspection of the garage buildings with the conclusions of the ecologist being that bats were very unlikely to be roosting within these buildings due to a lack of access and the identification of inaccessible roost value habitat, However a precautionary working method during and post-development had been set out and mitigation and biodiversity enhancements were proposed.
Para. 5.8 of the report sets out the findings of an ecological survey, in particular “…No further survey effort was required to evaluate the site if the recommendations and enhancements outlined were provided. Biodiversity enhancements for bat roosting and bird nesting were outlined to result in biodiversity gains. A condition was, therefore, recommended requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the recommendations within the ecological appraisal and for confirmation of the biodiversity enhancement measures installed throughout the development to be provided prior to occupation of the dwellings.”
As a Council, we had consulted directly with residents, ward members and as with any application we had also fully complied fully with the public notice and consultation requirements. This window before the planning committee decision and at the committee itself was of course part of that consultation period. Its effectiveness was demonstrated in these questions being raised.
The proposal in front of Members was that outlined within the report for the provision of five affordable units with associated parking and landscaping and it was considered that this would be an appropriate use for the site.
The plans submitted show one CCTV camera located adjacent the security gate at the north east corner of the site, shown on plans as rear staircase. There is no wider CCTV system planned for this development.
This development had been assessed against its planning merits taking into consideration policies to the Mid Devon Local Plan and material planning considerations. It was also within the necessary timeframe.
In terms of asbestos management, the requirement for demolition was that it should be carried out in such a manner as to minimise the potential for airborne nuisance, additional land contamination and/or the creation of additional contamination pathways either on the site or at adjacent properties/other sensitive receptors. It will need to be done in line with Health and Safety Executive requirements, whereby all potentially hazardous materials should be assessed, a works plan and risk assessment. This was separate from planning.
The relocation of the garages was not a planning matter but as noted previously, the Housing Team advised that current garage tenants would be offered an alternative garage in the surrounding area as per their tenancy agreement. Though this was a matter of personal choice for current garage tenants and as you know the existing garages were either fully utilised or particularly used for parking.
Neighbour notification letters were sent out to adjoining properties, a site notice posted and a press advert placed were 27 representatives who have been informed of this application.
The comments were from those who have made representations have been noted in the report and have had the opportunity to address this Planning Committee through public questions and on the item itself.
Fundamentally, it should be noted that the proposal provides parking at a level slightly exceeding policy requirements under DM5 and that the new parking spaces around the development will not be allocated to any resident or be marked as such. An assessment of the existing properties’ parking allocation was a planning requirement and the Housing team note that one hasn’t been conducted on any of our estates within the district.
However in summary:
· A lot of the garages were empty
· Poor suitability of existing garages for modern vehicles
· Predominance of use for storage not parking
· Opportunity to regenerate poor asset/remove asbestos for wider housing and planning gain
· Availability of other MDDC garages locally or more widely for existing garage tenants with choice
· Policy exceedance on new parking provision – available to residents and visitors with no allocation, permit or restriction
· Although not directly relevant; the Housing Team were reviewing resident only restrictions at the adjacent, under-utilised St Swithan’s parking
Consideration was given to:-
· The angle of the solar panels.
· DM3 and DM5 and whether this was cast iron.
· Concerns regarding meeting parking requirements and garages.
· The delivery of the Zed Pods.
· Flooding issues.
It was therefore RESOLVED that Planning permission be granted subject to the conditions.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Reason for the decision: As set out in the report.
Notes:-
· Cllr P J Heal, Cllr L Cruwys, Cllr M Collis, Cllr S Clist, Cllr P Colthorpe, Cllr Ben Holdman, Cllr D Knowles, Cllr F Letch, Cllr C Daw all made declarations in accordance with the protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had received correspondence.
· Councillor Letch declared that he knew some of the protesters.
· Laura Eimermann spoke as Agent for the Applicant.
· Chris Hetherington spoke at the Objector.
· Cllr E Lloyd (comments read out by the Chair) and Councillor M Squires spoke as Ward Members.
Supporting documents: