Agenda item

To consider the planning applications contained in the list.

 

The Committee considered the application in the *Plans List.

 

Note: *List previously circulated and attached to the minutes.

 

a)    23/00523/HOUSE - Erection of two storey extension at 10 Willow Walk, Crediton, Devon.

 

There being no discussion on this item it was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

 

(Moved by the Chairman)

 

 

b)    23/00636/FULL - Change of use of barn to wedding/events venue and retention of access track at Land and Buildings at NGR 307827 108901, Pirzwell Ponds, Kentisbeare.

 

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of a presentation and highlighted the following:-

 

·       The proposed development was for the change of use of agricultural barn to wedding/events venue and retention of an access track.

·       The site was in the open countryside approximately 300m outside of the Blackdown Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and 1km from the village of Kentisbeare.

·       The Application was called in by Cllr A Glover to assess the impacts on noise, traffic and visual impacts.

·       Car parking had been provided which met the requirements of Policy DM5 and the Highways Authority.  Planting was considered to screen the parking area however as there would only be 25 events per year the car park would rarely be used and it was felt that this would detract from the open nature of the landscape.

·       A revised Noise Management Plan had been received which Public Health were satisfied with. 

·       The number of events had been restricted to 25 per annum, prevented music after 11pm, prevented amplified music outside and it was stated that the barn must be vacated by midnight.

·       Fireworks or camping would not be permitted.

·       There were no physical changes proposed to the building and given the constraints of the Noise Management Plan, the character of the AONB was also considered as protected.

 

In response to the public questions the Principal Planning Officer answered as follows:-

 

There were numerous related questions which have been grouped together to give answers.

 

Question on DM9/DM22
There was a difference between positively contributing to the area’s character and not being harmful, it was considered that whilst the building was not necessarily positive, it was neutral and not harmful. There was some policy conflict with DM9 due to this but officers consider DM22 it more relevant and sets a higher bar for development by requiring a business plan for example. We therefore considered that the balance weighs in favour of granting permission.

 

Question about the vision of the Local Plan and whether the development maintains an attractive countryside and protects landscapes
As set out in the officer report, officers were satisfied that this was the case.

 

Similarly, questions on visual impact and design
The building was already in situ and there were no physical changes proposed, officers were satisfied that the proposal would not result in a significantly adverse visual impact.

 

Question on features of the area/AONB
The impact upon the AONB had been considered despite the site not actually being within the AONB area and this was addressed in detail in the officer report and in the AONB Officer comments.

The site was outside of the AONB but the features including the tranquillity of the area and dark skies had been considered hence the conditions relating to noise assessments and external lighting.

There was a question about what acoustic parameters define tranquillity, this was not objectively defined in the policy by decibel levels or similar.

 

Question on enforceability of conditions
Officers were satisfied that the conditions met the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). There was a question about who the onus was on to demonstrate compliance with the conditions and the wording of the conditions puts the onus on the applicants but the Local Planning Authority would have the ability to make checks.

 

Question about traffic and the highway network including impact on horse riding
The Highway Authority were satisfied that the development was acceptable in terms of impacts on the local highway network. The conditions had been used to secure visibility spays and the transport assessment.

 

Question on working with the Parish Council
The Parish Council and public were consulted on the application and the comments had been taken into account.

 

Question on ecology and lighting
There was a condition ensuring the development proceeds in accordance with the ecology survey which was undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist and as mentioned before there was a condition controlling any external lighting.

 

Why was Public Health’s comment of 13^th July not in the report?
This was a mistake on my part, it was missed because the comment did not pull through on our system but the comment is publically viewable on the portal. However, the most recent Public Health comments were in the report.

Specific question about the decibel levels within the noise report and the credulity of the noise report
From the Planning Officer perspective, we were guided by the relevant qualified professionals in these departments and note that Public Health had no objections.

 

The Public Health Officer also advised the following:-

 

·       A Noise Management Plan was submitted by the applicant which was scrutinised by Public Health.

·       The Environment Health Team would be the first port of call should there be any complaints.

 

The County Highways Officer advised the following:-

 

·       There was little difference between a Transport Assessment and a Transport Statement but an Assessment was generally more detailed and used for major schemes.

 

          Consideration was given to:

 

·       The number of car parking spaces that would be required.

·       Noise management and possible insulation of the barn or screening to reduce the noise.

·       The traffic impact due to the increased vehicles attending each event.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

 

(Proposed by Cllr F J Colthorpe and seconded by Cllr G Cochran)

 

          Reason for the Decision – as set out in the report.

 

          Notes:-

 

(i)              Katie Parsons spoke as the Objector.

(ii)             Mr Webber and James Webber spoke as the Applicant.

(iii)           Cllr Edd Southerden spoke on behalf of Kentisbeare Parish Council.

(iv)           Cllrs J Poynton, A Glover and C Connor spoke as Ward Members.

(v)             Cllr B Holdman declared he had received correspondence.

 

(c)      23/01141/FULL - Variation of condition 13 of planning permission 22/00868/MFUL (Removal of condition 13 of planning permission 17/01142/FULL - further noise assessments) relating to the submission of a noise assessment at Land at NGR 299621 112764 (Red Linhay), Crown Hill, Halberton

 

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of a presentation and highlighted the following:-

 

·       The proposed development was for the variation of condition 13 which required a noise assessment to be submitted.

·       Initially the applicant sought to remove Condition 13 entirely but through negotiations with the applicant it had been agreed that the condition wording be varied.

·       The LPA and applicant did not agree to the exact wording of the condition but it was down to the LPA to impose conditions where necessary.

·       There was some disagreement about the exact wording of the condition.

·       The conditions gave the applicant one month to submit a Noise Assessment.

 

Cllr G Duchesne read out questions from a member of the public which the Case Officer answered by explaining:-

 

·       Officers were satisfied that the suggested conditions met the six tests of planning conditions as set out in the NPPF.

 

·       If a complaint was submitted then the Enforcement Team would investigate if the time limits had not been adhered with and action could be taken.

 

·       In this particular case the Case Officer would check if the noise assessment had been submitted.

 

·       If details were to be submitted to discharge the conditions, they would be publically viewable on the portal under that application.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

 

(Proposed by Cllr F Letch and seconded by Cllr G Duchesne)

 

Reason for the Decision – as set out in the report.

 

Notes:-

 

(i)              Cllr G Duchesne spoke as the Ward Member.

(ii)             Cllr M Jenkins arrived at 16:35.

         

 

(d)      02374/MFUL - Construction and operation of a solar photovoltaic (PV) farm together with associated works, equipment and infrastructure at Land at NGR 301974 110937, Dean Hill Road, Willand.

 

The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of a presentation and highlighted the following:-

 

·       The site measured 60.37ha and comprises agricultural land near Dean Hill Road, Willand with the village of Halberton located approximately 1.3km to the west of the site.

·       A site visit was undertaken on 14 November 2023.

·       Queries and issues had been raised through the application process all of which had been addressed.

 

Susan Grant a member of the public asked if a site visit had been arranged for Members.

 

The Area Planning Officer confirmed that a site visit had recently taken place by all Members of the Planning Committee.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

 

(Proposed by Cllr R Gilmore and seconded by F Letch)

 

Reason for the Decision – as set out in the report.

 

Notes:-

 

(i)                   Nicola Whittingham spoke as the Objector.

(iii)                Max Lomax, Low Carbon spoke as the Applicant.

(iv)                Cllr A Glover spoke as the Ward Member.

(v)                  Cllr B Holdman declared he had received correspondence.

(vi)                Cllr F Letch declared he was a member of the Devon Wildlife Trust.

(vii)               Cllr G Duchesne declared she was a member Halberton Parish Council.

(viii)             Cllr F J Colthorpe declared she had received various emails.

(ix)                Cllr G Duchesne abstained from voting.