To receive any questions relating to items on the agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.
Note: A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.
Minutes:
Members of the public attended the meeting and asked the following questions:-
Peter Drew in respect of Application No. 22/01209/FULL
The Officer's report discusses whether there is a 'planning betterment', but it fails to provide a balanced argument and does not address a point raised during consultation. That is why this question needs to be addressed now.
Members will note the planning history set out in the report. The livestock building has been erected and there is no dispute that it required planning permission because it is within the specified distance of my dwelling. However the storage building, which is the subject of a current application, is in my view permitted development. Officers have failed to respond to an outstanding complaint on this point prior to reporting the matter to this Committee as I had requested. If the Officers had properly assessed that issue in a timely manner then they should have found criterion (g), set out in the report, is not met such that the principle of a dwelling outside the settlement boundary is contrary to the local plan policy correctly cited by the Canal Joint Advisory Committee, who have not withdrawn their objection. The Officer's claim that the applicant can chose whether to apply under the prior notification process undermines the purpose of the legislation and is not supported by any case law.
Without prejudice to that view, when Class Q is invoked a range of restrictions are brought into play. Foremost amongst these is a preclusion on the erection of agricultural buildings on the farm unit for a period of 10 years. Moreover if the conversion of the barn took place under Class Q that would mean that other barns on the holding, such as the prominent barn on the highest land at Higher Town, could not be converted because the cumulative floorspace would exceed the threshold in the statutory instrument.
Whilst condition 7, as proposed in the Committee Report, reflects another restriction in the statutory instrument the Officers are being inconsistent in not imposing similar conditions to remove permitted development rights across the farm unit. In these circumstances, if betterment is genuinely to be shown, will Officers agree to the 2 additional conditions that I have suggested to them? If not, will they please explain their inconsistent approach, particularly in the light of the fact that there was never a legitimate agricultural need for 2 livestock buildings at the site?
Giles Fawssett in respect of Application No. 22/00067/MFUL
The last time I was asking a question here, about the Creedy Bridge development on the north side of Crediton, it was before the local elections. So what a dramatic change. Back then, it felt like no one was able to stop what our local plan calls “car-dependent estates where residents have little need or opportunity to relate to other parts of the town or to each other”.
So looking at Wellparks, as I do when I cycle back from Exeter, what is the issue. Wellparks farm is at the eastern end of Crediton and of all the approaches to Crediton, Wellparks is the most visible site. The idea of building two commercial units in front of a historically important site is madness.
This key gateway view would be damaged. As our local plans puts it; “The prospect of dense and badly designed buildings on green field sites, compromising the town’s landscape and setting, and generating traffic around the town raises concerns”.
So while I support the housing, the commercial buildings would visibly be in the wrong place.
The Chairman noted that this was not a question.
Nick Hasted in respect of Application No. 22/00067/MFUL
Bearing in mind we now have a different group of politicians in control of Mid Devon: I would like to know what environmental demands are being asked of the developer in this proposal with respect to energy.
Will the houses have solar panels?
Will central heating be based on heat pumps instead of gas?
If the answer is no, then is Mid Devon Council planning to set higher energy source standards so that in future developments the homes built will be for the 21st century?
Gerald Dinnage in respect of Application No. 22/01209/FULL
I have concerns about harmful impact on two conservation areas. I will explain the context and then ask my question.
The Highway Authority and officers have accepted a drawing from the applicant that claims that there is 45 metres of visibility from the site access. If you ask officers to show the applicant’s access drawing, you will see that, after just 13m, the visibility line to the north-east clearly passes through the wall of a building on the bend. (Drawing - 2927-DR-A-050-0117 Rev -).
For visibility splays as short as that, Manual for Streets, Table 7.1, says additional features are needed. None have been proposed. As objectors have pointed out, introducing traffic calming features here, where the canal conservation area overlaps with the village conservation area, could adversely affect both. The Committee Report says nothing on this.
Two different conservation officers have considered this development, reaching different conclusions. The Committee Report implies that just one conservation officer has changed his or her view but that is not the case. Only the first conservation officer based his report on Local Plan Policy DM25.
He found, with direct reference to DM25, that the application could not be described as ‘betterment’ as it would ‘erode the experience and setting of the canal.’
He based this judgement not only on the ‘form’ of the dwelling (which has been amended) but also on its ‘position’ as it ‘introduces a clearly visible dwelling’ in a location that is ‘isolated’ from the settlement. The isolated position remains, no matter what the design may be. The Grand Western Canal Joint Committee objects for the same reason.
I have objected thateven the revised form of the redesigned dwelling still harms the setting of the canal conservation area. In particular, its new roof line does not offer ‘betterment’ to the public enjoying the canal’s open views at that point. This is shown by cross-sections on the most recent Site Plan. (Drawing - 2927-DR-A-050-011 Rev -G)
So my question is -
With direct reference to the visibility drawing, to the first conservation officer report and to cross-sections shown on the applicant’s site plan, will officers please confirm that Manual for Streets says that ‘additional features will be needed’ to limit speeds at the access within two conservation areas and that the southern end of the roofline of the dwelling will be 2.5m (or about 70%) higher than the existing lean-to section of the barn that it replaces?
Jamie Byrom in respect of Application No. 22/01209/FULL
This concerns Application 22/01209, at Sampford Peverell. On 15 May, I sent an objection that the Committee Report fails to mention.
In that objection, I pointed out that the applicant has stated belatedly that he intends this proposed new dwelling to be a farmhouse. As a result, officers (including Public Health) have now accepted that the dwelling is to be a farmhouse. That is important. It led officers to recommend an agricultural occupancy condition, restricting occupancy to those engaged in agriculture.
Strangely, the Committee Report tells us that officers dropped that recommendation on the grounds that [quote] ‘... it is the applicant’s intention that his daughter eventually moves into the property who may not always work in agriculture full-time’. Members may wish to ask officers how this informal statement from an applicant about ‘eventual’ occupancy and possible later use of a development is a material planning consideration when it does not appear in the applicant’s supporting evidence and clearly cannot be enforced.
Leaving aside speculation about eventual use, officers have accepted that this is an application to build a new farmhouse, as a Class Q fallback scheme. In my objection in May, I reminded officers that the Council has published its own local requirement for agricultural developments. When this application was validated in July 2022, this local requirement applied to all planning applications for [quote] ‘... a new agricultural dwelling or other building in countryside for farming or other purposes’.
It says that these applications must be accompanied by a written justification that must be sent to an independent agricultural consultant who will assess the application for viability and need. The website says nothing about any exceptions to this rule.
But no such assessment of this application has taken place.
I wanted to be sure that avoiding the requirement is lawful and I have been helped by my Ward Councillor, Gill Westcott, to whom I express my thanks. Officers have told her that, where an application such as this is based on permitted development rights, the principle of development has been established and therefore the local requirement does not apply. I could not find this qualification to the local requirement anywhere on the Council’s website.
So, in the interests of transparent, lawful, decision-making, my question is:
• Is it the case that, unless the principle of development by permitted development rights has been accepted, all applications for developments that are described in that local requirement would have to comply with its terms? If there are other ways of avoiding its terms, please set these out to the Committee.
A related supplementary question is:
• Will officers confirm that the proposed non-fragmentation agreement will still allow letting of the new dwelling to non-agricultural workers or visitors?
The Chairman informed those present that the questions would be answered when the application was discussed.