Agenda item

To consider the planning applications contained in the list.

 

The Committee considered the applications on the *Plans List 

 

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

 

a)    23/01870/MOUT - Hybrid application for a change of use of land to allow the siting of 10 safari tents; conversion of existing barns to provide space for administration, grounds keeping, housekeeping facilities and visitors reception; extension to existing marquee; creation of vehicular access ways; the construction of 24 car parking spaces and natural swimming pool and associated landscaping; and Outline application (All Matters Reserved) for a change of use of land to allow the siting of up to 15 safari tents and cabins; demolition of existing barn and construction of wellness centre; improvements to existing vehicular access and the provision of car parking; the creation of track ways and associated access and landscaping works at Loyton LLP, Loyton Lodge, Morebath.

 

The Area Planning Officer advised the Committee of the following update:-

 

a)    One of the wood burning stoves had been removed.

b)    The spring bat survey had been completed and was available to view on the planning portal.  The spring survey had placed detectors in the area most likely to be impacted.   The number of flight passes were slightly less due to other suitable habitat close by.   Devon County Council ecologists submitted their final comments confirming it was acceptable subject to the inclusion of conditions.

c)    A letter of concern had been received from Mr Bateman and was available on the planning portal.

d)    An error had been noted in the report under Condition 5 – the barn conversion should sit under the “full planning” list of conditions and not under the “outline planning” list of conditions.  The condition numbers would need amending accordingly.

 

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

 

·         This application had been called in to Planning Committee for reasons of impact on highways, public disturbance by way of noise, design and appearance, impact on protected species, loss of high grade farmland and flood issues.

·         The application was presented in hybrid form – part outline, part full seeking the construction of up to 25 safari tents and cabins for year round accommodation.

·         The main issues raised were traffic impact, pollution, water, visual impact, scale of development, viability, ecological impact and planning balance.

·         The County Highways Authority had been out to visit the site and had no objections to the application.

·         There was a sewerage treatment plan for each accommodation.

·         The proposed development was within flood zone 1 and deemed appropriate for development.

·         Members were made aware of the following Committee Updates:-

i)             DCC Ecology comments – which were available to view on the planning file.

ii)            The submission of a detailed business case which was confidential.

iii)           The submission of a revised drawing for Tent Type which included the removal of one of the wood burning stoves within each tent.

iv)           The submission of the Spring Bat Survey which was available on the planning file.

v)            The submission of a letter of concern which was available on the planning file.

·         Members attended a site visit on 5^th April where Members viewed the site noting existing buildings.

 

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

 

Mr Mark Stewart had asked how the proposed development cannot be in conflict with policies DM18 (Rural Development) and DM22 (Tourism and Leisure Development) and the findings of the Mid Devon Tourism Study?

With respect to Policy DM18, the officer’s report provided some detail at paragraph 3.0 on traffic generation and trip rate forecasts and para 4.0 on landscape and visual impact. The suitability of the site was addressed more critically within the planning balance (paragraph 11.0) where officers had set out the compelling evidence (at para 11.2) and the content of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in respect of suitable sites in rural locations not well served by public transport at paragraph 11.3.

 

The officer’s report provided some detail at paragraph 1.0 in respect of DM22 confirming the proposal represented a diversification of an existing business and that it would represent a new kind of offer within Mid Devon. Paragraph 2.0 made reference to the business plan and paragraph 6.0 to the design and layout minimising environmental impacts in a countryside location. This again was picked up in the planning balance.

 

The Mid Devon Tourism Strategy identified a need to develop the accommodation offer for short stays including a high quality residential experience for people looking to get close to nature (slow tourism), encouraging countryside pursuits / quality locally sourced produce and goods and all year round events and accommodation – each of which this application sought to offer. Paragraph 2.5 of the officer report provided some detail in respect of the Tourism Strategy.

 

Officers advised that the proposed development was not in conflict with policies DM18, DM22 or the findings of the Mid Devon Tourism Study.

 

Matt Brammer

Paragraphs 4.1 – 4.11 of the officer’s report made reference to the National Planning Policy Framework and Mid Devon planning policy with specific reference to Policy S1, the special character of Exmoor National Park, Mid Devon’s Landscape Character Assessment, the submitted LViA and Arboricultural Impact Assessment as a means to address the impact of this application on the landscape.

 

The impact of the proposal on biodiversity and geodiversity was more specifically addressed at paragraph 5.1 – 5.10 of the officer’s report with light pollution referenced more specifically at paragraphs 5.9 and paragraph 8.6.

           

Mark Stewart

The tents had fabric rooves and provided no solid attachments for gutters and down pipes. Surrounding the tents was permeable ground, with the Flood Risk assessment confirming an ‘infiltration’ form of water disposal linking into a system of swales and ditches. Paragraph 7.3 of the officer’s report provided more specific reference.

 

Sherrie Tuhy

The Transport Statement and Plan provided a detailed assessment of traffic generation and trip rates which were set out in paragraph 3.3 of the officer’s report. Professional consultants had been engaged to undertake the Transport Statement drawing on a range of data sources. It had been independently reviewed by Devon County Council Highway Authority who had not raised an objection to the application. An additional independent assessment for a development of this scale would be unusual.

 

Lars Hasselgren

Paragraphs 6.1 – 6.21 provided some detail on the design and layout of the proposed scheme with para 4.1 – 4.11 on their visual impact within the landscape. How they accorded with Policy forms part of your considerations within the planning balance.

 

S14 was specifically referenced at paragraph 1.6 of the officer’s report; concluding in-principle support on a policy basis at para 1.14.

With regard to how this application would justify its countryside location on the basis of Policy DM22 - again this had been addressed above.

 

Julie Meeson

Whilst Condition 7 restricts amplified music, any other increase in noise associated with the scale of development and its impact, would form part of your considerations within the decision making.  

 

It was not your officer’s intention to approve the lighting strategy forming part of the application pack. Condition 8 required a strategy so that further assessment including with DCC Ecology could be undertaken to ensure the very best lighting solution was achieved in this rural location.

 

            In planning terms, officers advised that this was a sui generis (unique) holiday accommodation use and not commercial development.

 

            With regard to the inclusion of a condition to ban dogs on the site. This was not a planning issue and could not be added.

 

Victoria Killearn

Whilst the officer’s report sets out at Paragraphs 6.1 – 6.21 detail on the design and layout, at paragraphs 4.1 – 4.11 the visual impact, it was again a consideration that forms part of your planning balance.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         Cooking facilities – it was explained that cooking facilities were not available but that strong links were being established with local businesses for food provision.

·         Air quality with the use of fire pits/wood burners – it was explained that this was not something the Council could condition as households were not controlled in that way. Public Health had raised no concerns.

·         The use of the land and whether it would still be used for grazing – it was confirmed that the land would continue to be farmed and people would be given free space to roam across the estate.

·         Whether any Tree Preservation Order’s (TPOs) had been placed – it was explained that the Tree Officer had not attended or viewed the site but that a TPO could be issued at any point.  There was also significant tree planting as part of the application.

·         The Committee were concerned with regard to noise levels.  It was AGREED that delegated authority be given to the Development Management Manager to amend the noise condition to include more robust wording.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that the application 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)             Cllr L Cruwys, Cllr G Duchesne and Cllr M Jenkins voted against the application.

ii)            Cllr S Clist abstained from voting.

iii)           Kevin Bateman spoke as the objector.

iv)           Lestyn John, Bell Cornwall spoke on behalf of the applicant.

v)            Cllr C Adcock and Cllr R Gilmour spoke as Ward Members.

 

 

b)   23/00511/FULL - Erection of 5 affordable dwellings following demolition of existing garages with associated parking, landscaping and works at Land and Garages at NGR 313963 113447, Eastlands, Hemyock.

 

The Planning Officer advised the Committee of the following update:-

 

·         Condition 4 - Prior to the construction of the residential development hereby approved, the proposed car parking spaces located adjacent to the development (9) and those spaces immediately to the east of the development (7) as shown on approved plan Z34-ZP-A1-XX-DR-A-010-S1-P05 – Proposed Site Plan shall be substantially completed and made ready for use. Such spaces shall be maintained for the lifetime of the development. The car parking spaces to the north shall be available for the residents of ‘Eastlands’ estate, with the car parking provided immediately to the east of the development made available at all times for the residents of the new residential units hereby approved.

 

Reason: To ensure that there were sufficient parking spaces available to the existing residents of Eastlands following the re-development of the formal parking area, as well as the new residents associated with the development hereby approved.

 

The Planning Officer outlined the application by way of a presentation and highlighted the following:-

 

·         The site lay within the development boundary of Hemyock within the Blackdown Hills National Landscape.

·         The site was split into 2 areas separated by the existing highway.

·         The site to the north of the pubic highway was currently a grassed area with a low metal barrier around its boundary.

·         There was an existing cycle path route from the south west of the site to the main road and in turn to the recreation ground.

·         The main issues raised were the principle of development, design and amenity, impact on protected species and habitats/biodiversity, highways and parking, Blackdown Hills National Landscape, flood risk and drainage and climate change.

·         The proposed application sought the provision of 9 car parking spaces on land to the north of the proposed dwellings.  There would be an overall loss of up to 6 parking spaces.

·         The County Highways Authority had no objections to the application.

·         South West Water had no objections regarding sewerage or water.

·         The proposed materials for the new dwellings would match those of the surrounding properties through the use of painted render on the elevations.

·         There were solar panels proposed on each dwelling.

·         Each dwelling would have a small garden to the rear and would form part of the Council’s housing stock.

 

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

 

Parking and Highway Safety

There were 8 existing formalised parking spaces on site and 5 informal parking areas. There were 16 proposed spaces. 9 were required for the new dwellings, leaving 7 to replace the existing provision leading to a deficit of 1 space (or 6 including the informal parking areas), however, the proposed dwellings were sited in a sustainable location with access to public transport options and within walking distance of a range of facilities, amenities and services. The reduction of 1 parking space in this location was not considered to be reasonable ground for refusal. The Highways Authority had no objections to the proposed development. On that basis it was considered that the proposed development satisfactorily accords with policies DM3 and DM5 of the Local Plan.

 

The elderly or those with limited mobility would be able to use the replacement spaces in the same manner as they currently did.

 

School Capacity

Devon County Council had commented on the application in relation to education and have sought contributions in relation to secondary school education and school transport.

 

Drainage and Surface Water

South West Water (SWW) had requested further information in relation to surface water disposal and that it should be demonstrated that this would discharge as high up the run off destination hierarchy as possible.

 

A condition had been included requiring a final detailed design for surface water drainage to be approved prior to the first occupation of the dwellings.

 

The photographs provided showed a drain that lied outside of the red line boundary area. Additionally, it was the responsibility of the Highways Authority to clear the drains.  The condition of the road lay outside the scope of material planning considerations.

 

Sewage, Water and Electric

SWW had commented on the application and did not raise any objection in relation to sewage or water.

 

Future Occupiers of the dwellings

A condition had been included requiring the dwellings to be used as affordable dwellings only and that prior to occupation a scheme for the provision of affordable housing was submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These dwellings would be available to Council tenants district wide.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         Whether the garages to be demolished contained asbestos.  It was confirmed that they did and the Council would be required to pay for the removal of this.

·         Car parking issues for elderly residents.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that the application be granted subject to conditions.

 

(Proposed by Cllr F Letch and seconded by Cllr S Robinson)

 

Reason for the decision - as set out in the report.

 

Notes:-

 

i)             Elizabeth Lawrence spoke as the applicant.

 

 

c)    23/00126/FULL - Erection of 8 affordable dwellings following demolition of 4 existing dwellings with associated vehicular and pedestrian access, parking, landscaping and associated works at 2 - 8 Beech Road, Tiverton, Devon.

 

 

The Area Team Leader advised the Committee of the following update:-

 

·         Condition: The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the access and parking areas have been provided in accordance with the proposed site plan, drawing number Z28-ZP-A1-XX-DR-A-010-S01-PROPOSED SITE PLAN. Following their provision these    facilities shall be maintained for the lifetime of the development.

 

Reason:  In the interest of highway safety, and to ensure that adequate on-site facilities are available for traffic attracted to the site in accordance with Policy DM5 of the Mid Devon Local Plan 2013-2033.

 

The Area Team Leader outlined the application by way of a presentation and highlighted the following:-

 

·         The application was for the erection of 8 affordable dwellings following demolition of 4 existing dwellings with associated vehicular and pedestrian access.

·         The facilities would be retained for the lifetime of the development.

·         Moorhayes bungalows to the northwest of the site comprised of a row of terraced and semi-detached, single storey brick and tile roofed dwellings set back from the road with enclosed front gardens.

·         The site lies within the settlement boundary for Tiverton.

·         The main issues raised were principle of development/planning policy, highways and highway safety, design of development and impact on landscape, living conditions, green infrastructure and public open space, drainage and flood risk, climate change, ecology and biodiversity net gain.

 

In response to the public questions the Area Team Leader answered as follows:-

 

Paul Elstone

Question 1:

It had been commented that statements in the officer report were substantially incorrect whereby the modular building would be over 50% wider and that the modular home would extend forward by about 3 meters in respect of the existing building line. As could be seen in the comparison of the existing block plan and that of the proposed plan this would not be the case. The dimensions of the existing building to be removed had been measured as approx. 21m by 7.45m whereas the new building would be 28m by 10.85m. When taking the footprint of the existing outbuildings to either side of the main building which would also be removed, the length of building coverage was 27.4m which is comparable to that of the new building footprint, albeit the new building would be moved further away from the neighbouring property from a distance of 4.02m to 5.28m. With respect to being forward of a building line by 3m, the new building would be 1.08m further forward than the neighbouring property of 10 and 12 Beech Road whereas it would still be 0.54m behind the front facing walls of 14 and 16 Beech Road. Therefore still following the general pattern of development.

 

Question 2:

The second question related to National Floor Space Standards and that the questioner having examined the plans for the 2 bedroom 4 person properties had calculated that the internal floor space area of only 66.9 m2 which was below the 70sqm required.

 

It appeared that this calculation by the questioner had been achieved by adding up the figures provided for each room. However, this was not how internal floor area was calculated as set out in the Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard. This outlined that The Gross Internal Area of a dwelling was defined as the total floor space measured between the internal faces of perimeter walls that enclose the dwelling (The internal face of a perimeter wall was the finished surface of the wall. For terrace and semi-detached houses or apartments they were the external walls and party walls). This included partitions, structural elements, cupboards, ducts, flights of stairs and voids above stairs. RICS Code of measuring practice also outlined that for calculating Gross Internal Area (GIA), this would include areas occupied by internal walls and partitions, columns, piers, chimney breasts etc. Taking an area measurement from the inside of the perimeter walls, I calculated that the floor area would be 70.05sqm.

 

The applicant was also questioned on the matter of floor area and they have confirmed that the units in question do adhere to the 70 sqm NDSS GIA as they contain a total of c.3sqm of internal partition.

 

Question 3:

The third question related to the design of the 1^st floor one-bedroom properties where the bedroom windows have direct access from a communal landing. Therefore concern was raised that this resulted in both substantial privacy (visual and noise) and security issues for the residents so should be redesigned. 

                                                                                                                                     

I would note that this arrangement was not dissimilar to the 8 dwellings at Shapland Place, Tiverton (21/01957/FULL) which Planning Committee approved in 2022. The design approach as set out in para.4.3 of the officer report is that ‘Habitable room spaces have all been designed with primary windows and balconies facing towards the front of the property onto public road with amenity grassland and defensive planting acting as a buffer’. As can be seen from the first floor plan, 4 first floor properties would be accessed via the first floor landing whereby the staircase is located centrally so only the occupiers of one other property would pass by the bedroom window. The width of the landing is also not conducive for sitting out and as such congregating was unlikely to occur.

 

Question 4:

This matter was addressed in detail within Section 2 (Highways and highway safety) of the officer report where it was noted that 9 spaces would be provided which equated to 1 space per unit with 1 visitors space. It was noted that four of the units were 1 bed and the site was in a sustainable location within walking distance of a number of services/facilities and public transport. In addition, the proposals at Beech Road formed part of the Council’s Housing Services wider regeneration of the local area and there was a scheme also under consideration located at Sycamore Road within 100m of the site which was to provide 13 Homes and 28 spaces which was an over provision of parking by 6 spaces. Therefore it was considered that a case could be made to the level of parking provided which would not set a precedent elsewhere and the Local Highway Authority raised no objection to the development.

 

Question 5:

On the matter of fire safety, in accordance with validation requirements, the Applicant had provided a Fire Strategy which is contained within the Design and Access Statement. The non-combustible materials specified as part of the fire strategy demonstrate part of how the proposal would comply with Part B2 and B3 of the building regulations.

 

Zedpods had also outlined the additional strategies that were deployed as standard by their construction system to comply with regulatory requirements whereby:

 

• All units were provided with both a primary means of escape via the front entrance door and stairway or secondary by the including of openable windows on the first floor ensuring a fire in any unit would not impede residents’ ability to egress the unit safely as required by Part B1 -Means of Warning and Escape
• All units would be installed with an LD-2, Grade D1 detection and alert system using industry leading AICO components with remote monitoring and call outs in the case of an activation, as required by BS 5839 and Part B1 - Means of Warning and Escape
• Compartmentation to stop the surface spread of flame was achieved by use of both horizontal and vertical fire stopping between units. This prevented a cladding fire from spreading between units for an hour as required by Part B4: External Fire Spread.

 

In summary, fire safety measures were integrated into the construction build to ensure full compliance with fire regulations.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         Car parking and public transport.

·         The positioning of bird boxes.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that the application be granted subject to conditions

 

(Proposed by Cllr M Jenkins and seconded by Cllr G Duchesne).

 

Reason for the decision - as set out in the report.

 

Notes:-

 

i)             Laura Eimermann spoke on behalf of the applicant.

 

 

d)   23/01351/MFUL - Construction, operation and maintenance of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facility with associated infrastructure and works including highway access, landscaping and biodiversity enhancements at Land at NGR 304444 114510, North of A361, Junction 27, Westleigh.

 

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

 

·         The land for this application was close to Junction 27 of the M5.

·         The batteries were designed to import energy from the grid and release at periods of high demand.

·         The main issues raised were construction traffic, landscape and visual impacts, loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, impact on Grand Western Canal, Impacts on neighbouring residents, fire safety, flood risk and drainage.

·         Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service had no objections subject to conditions.

 

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

 

Mr Peter Drew

 

The drawing illustrating the substation was indicative and not for approval. The actual details of the substation would be required to be submitted and approved to discharge condition 6 as recommended in the officer’s report.  The applicant had confirmed that the substation would be a maximum of 13 metres high.  The applicant had also confirmed that the photomontages did show the substation but the substation was hidden behind existing trees in the views shown on the photomontages.

 

The officer’s report referenced the appeal decision mentioned and stateed that the impacts of the appeal development would have had a moderate to high impact.  The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment submitted to the appeal and supplied by Mr Drew assessed the impact on landscape character as moderate adverse, with no significant effects on visual amenity. 

 

At the time of the appeal, Devon County Council’s Landscape Officer stated that the visual effects had been underestimated in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and disagreed with the findings.  Devon County’s report stated that whilst it was acknowledged that landscaping proposals would help to integrate the development into its setting and mitigate adverse visual impacts in some views in the medium to long term, it was considered that many adverse visual impacts could not be mitigated and residual adverse effects would be more sensitive than was concluded in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.

 

During the appeal, the Inspector stated that the stockpiles of materials would be large and unsightly, with a maximum height of 5m. They would also be highly visible from the adjacent road and visible from the main transport routes into Devon. The appeal proposal would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

 

By way of verbal update, the Area Planning Officer stated that taking this into account, Members should note that the statement in the officer’s report relating to the appeal development should be amended from it having a ‘moderate to high’ impact, to a ‘moderate adverse’ impact.  This did not change the officer’s conclusion in the report that the battery energy storage proposal, which could be largely screened, would have less of an impact on the character and appearance of the area.

 

With regard to how the site was identified, the applicant has secured a grid connection in this location and was not required to identify alternative locations.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         Landscaping a 2.5 metre high bund and a new hedge bank along the northern boundary to reduce background noise and to help with screening.

·         Visual impacts including from the Grand Western Canal.

·         Flood risk as the land adjacent to Flood Zone 2 and 3 and how this would be addressed. It was explained that the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority had considered the proposal and surface water drainage arrangements to ensure its suitability and the battery packs would be placed on concrete plinths.

·         Safety of the Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) and fire risk which had been considered by the Devon & Somerset Fire and Rescue Service and Public Health Officers.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that the application be granted subject to conditions

 

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

 

Reason for the decision - as set out in the report.

 

Notes:-

 

i)             Rachel Ness, Clearstone Energy spoke on behalf of the Applicant.

ii)            Cllr S Taylor spoke on behalf of Sampford Peverell Parish Council.

iii)           Cllr G Westcott spoke as the Ward Member.

iv)           Cllr N Letch abstained from voting.