Agenda item

To consider the planning applications contained in the list.

 

The Committee considered the applications in the *Plans List.

 

1.     24/00840/FULL - Erection of a building for machinery and equipment storage at Hooper Services (South West) Ltd, Crediton, Devon. (00:24:30)

 

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

 

·       The application had been called in by the Ward Councillor due to: overdevelopment of the site; possible illegal use of the site; development in a floodplain; and environmental impact.

·       The building required additional storage for equipment and machinery to be kept dry and safe from theft with the benefit of also helping to tidy the area.

·       The application was submitted in June 2024 and during consideration of the application Planning Officers had worked with the Applicant and the Agent to proactively negotiate amendments and agreements.

·       The key considerations raised by objectors and Crediton Town Council were issues relating to flood risk. The Environment Agency initially objected on the grounds of insufficient risk assessments.

·       Following a revised Flood Risk Assessment the Environment Agency confirmed they had no objections provided it was built in accordance with the updated Flood Risk Assessment and associated planning drawings.  They were satisfied that there would be no risk to third parties and that the area could be considered as Flood Zone 3a for this development.

·       The flood risk assessment confirmed that precautions of flood resilient measures should be taken as recommended by the Environment Agency, which included that all ground floor construction should be a flood resistant material and all electricity power supply cables should be downwards fed.

·       In order to address concerns raised by the community a condition had been recommended by the Public Health Officer that no machinery should be operated except during the hours of 7.30am-7pm Monday-Fridays or 8.00am-1pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or bank holidays all of which had been agreed with the Applicant.

·       There were a number of conditions recommended to secure tree protection measures and additional planting should be undertaken.

·       Concerns had been raised regarding the impact on the highways network. The County Highways Authority visited the site and raised no objections, they also confirmed that a figure had been taken from TRICS (Trip Rate Information Computer System) database and this showed there would not be a severe impact on the highways network.

 

Discussion took place regarding:-

 

·       The type of tree used when planting for screening as the Committee felt that Leylandii would grow very tall and quickly outgrow the screen effect and were concerned about the future management and maintenance of the trees.

·       The preferred use of a more sensitive species to be planted.

·       The use of water butts and whether they would overflow – it was explained that they would be fitted with an overflow that would discharge onto the grass bank.

·       Concerns regarding flood risk to the wider area.

·       The colour of the material being used – it was explained that by using green cladding it would blend into the countryside better than the existing grey buildings on site.

·       Lighting on the site and whether a motion sensor could be used.

·       Additional conditions regarding the change of opening hours the use of the mezzanine and lighting.  It was explained that planning justification must be considered when applying additional conditions.

 

Cllr J Downes requested a site visit and in turn for this item to be deferred, which was seconded by Cllr S Robinson.  Upon a vote being taken the request for a site visit was declared to have FAILED.

 

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions including:-

 

·       An amendment to Condition 7 to include a request for an additional scheme relating to all of the boundaries prior to commencement of works in terms of planting and having an informative in using a more suitable long term species to include height management. 

·       Along with a condition, should any lighting be required, that a proposed scheme of external lighting for the building be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to its first use.

·       Delegation was given to the Development Management Manager to finalise the wording in line with the above.

 

(Proposed by Cllr S Clist and seconded by Cllr C Harrower)

 

Reason for the Decision – In the interests of nature conservation, neighbouring amenity and to prevent unacceptable levels of light pollution, in accordance with Policies DM1 and DM4 of the Mid Devon Local Plan 2013 – 2033.

 

Notes:-

.

(i)              Cllr L G J Kennedy declared that he was a director of Devon Association of Local Councils (DALC) and that Cllr Liz Brookes-Hocking was the Chair of DALC.

(ii)             Rose Tripp, Russets spoke on behalf of the Agent.

(iii)           Cllr L Brookes-Hocking, spoke on behalf of Crediton Town Council.

(iv)           Cllr J Downes spoke as the Ward Member

(v)             Cllr J Downes and Cllr S Robinson voted against the application.

(vi)           Cllr M Jenkins arrived at 1.50pm and abstained from voting as he was not in attendance for the duration of this item.

 

 

2.     24/01618/FULL - Variation of Condition 3 of Planning Permission 22/00432/FULL - Erection of 5 dwellings - for revised plans in relation to drainage at Land at NGR 306758 113093, Clay Lane, Uffculme. (01:43:04)

 

The 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 3 of Planning Permission which aimed to amend a previously approved drainage scheme.

·       The application was called in by Cllr A Glover to assess the impact on neighbourhood amenities local services, drainage, flood risk and the environment.

·       It fell within Flood Zone 1 which represented the lowest probability of sea or river flooding.

·       The proposed site benefitted from planning permission for 5 dwellings and the site immediately to the east also benefitted from permission for 5 dwellings.  The applicants had worked together on the drainage schemes.

·       Infiltration and testing on the site found it was not possible to carry out infiltration due to the clay like surface conditions.  The next solution would be connection to a surface water body.

·       The nearest body of water was the River Culm which was 300 metres from the site and would need to pass through the main village and this was not considered to be a practical option.

·       The next option was a connection to a surface water sewer which was located 50 metres from the site and was therefore considered a more realistic option.

·       South West Water (SWW) confirmed they were satisfied that the revised drainage scheme met with the destination hierarchy and there were no objections from any other professional consultees.

·       This would require works on third party land which had formed much of the public objections to the application.

·       The surface water would eventually move to an attenuation basin which would store water in order to prevent too much discharge into the network based on capacity calculations.  This would then be pumped into the sewage network.

·       Mid Devon District Council would have enforcement powers to ensure the attenuation basin was maintained.

·       The revised drainage scheme was not expected to impact or harm the character of the Conservation Area.

·       Whilst officers did have sympathy with neighbours who would be impacted by the work to their property, South West Water had requisition powers to carry out those works.

 

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

 

Some of the questions were directed to Members and others have mostly been answered within the officer report and throughout this presentation.

 

Q1 -  Chris Howard: Sustainable Drainage System – Guidance for Devon (2023)’ states that a discharge of a condition should only be approved for a development if there is a clear maintenance schedule for the attenuation tank. I have not seen this schedule on the mid Devon portal.

A1:  I would clarify that this was guidance as opposed to policy and the Devon County Council Lead Local Flood Authority did not comment on the application due to it not being a major and not being in an area of high flood risk or in a critical drainage area.

Q3 – Chris Howard: The developers had not consulted with the neighbours.

A3: This was outside of the Local Planning Authority’s control and the planning application itself was correctly advertised by a site notice, an advert in the press and writing to adjoining neighbours. 

Q4 – Stephanie Howard: Are Members aware that only one trial pit appears to have been dug on site for this development of five houses?

A4: One trial pit was dug on the site specific to this application with others being dug on the adjacent site which had very similar ground conditions.

Q6 – Stephanie Howard: When making such a controversial decision that will have such a significant effect on local residents, do the Committee feel that the Planning Officer and Committee Members should undertake a site visit to look at the residents’ homes that will suffer this destruction?

A6: I had visited the application site, it was for Members to decide if they would like to defer for a site visit although I am not sure what the purpose would be.

Q2 – Michael Cuthbertson: Are the Committee aware that there is an approximate 3m drop in elevation from the hydro brake chamber at the edge of the application boundary to the surface water sewer in The Spinney?

A2: This referred to land outside of the red line but it was common for drainage schemes to utilise the existing topography of sites.

Q5 – Michael Cuthbertson: Are the Committee aware that the proposed foul water drainage scheme will connect a further 10 dwellings to an existing foul sewer serving 3-5 dwellings? Sewer construction guidance states that foul sewer pipes serving 10 houses or less should be 100mm in diameter, with more than 10 houses requiring 150mm diameter pipes.

A5: This would need to be a suitable size to join the network and be agreed by SWW. 

Discussion took place regarding:-

 

·       Whether conditions could be placed on South West Water (SWW) to reinstate neighbours land and to correct any potential damage to their property/land?  It was explained that this was not possible as it would be an agreement between residents and SWW as they were the Statutory Body.

·       Who would be responsible for the maintenance of the attenuation tank and the sewers? It was believed that SWW would be responsible.

·       The capacity of the attenuation tank and the risk of flooding.

·       The lack of consultation with residents and engagement with third parties.

·       The removal of hedgerow, the protection of tree roots and the impact on wildlife

·       The fact that only one trench had been dug for this development.

 

 

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused.

 

(Proposed by Cllr S Clist and seconded by Cllr B Holdman)

 

Reason for the Decision – Insufficient information had been submitted to justify why the foul drainage water scheme could not join the sewer at Clay Lane.  Similarly, insufficient infiltration testing had been carried out to justify why infiltration was not a realistic surface water drainage solution.  In the absence of sufficient evidence it was considered that this solution would result in unjustified impacts upon the amenity of neighbours and did not represent a clear understanding of the site contrary to policies S1 and DM1 of the Mid Devon Local Plan (2013-2033).

 

Notes:-

(i)              Chris Howard spoke as the objector.

(ii)             Simon Lane spoke on behalf of Uffculme Parish Council.

(iii)           Cllr J Poynton and Cllr A Glover spoke as Ward Members.

          (iv)     Cllr G Cochran, Cllr F J Colthorpe, Cllr L Cruwys and Cllr M Jenkins voted against the application.

(v)      It was agreed that if the decision were to be appealed then Cllr S Clist, Cllr L G J Kennedy and Cllr S Robinson would sit in on the appeal.

          (vi)     Cllr J Downes left the meeting at 3.13pm and Cllr L G J Kennedy left the meeting at 4.00pm once this item had been voted upon.

 

3.     25/00205/NMA - Non-Material Amendment for 23/00129/MFUL to allow alterations to the site plan, including cycle storage arrangements, landscaping and addition of footpath; amendments of internal layouts, including relocation of external doors and windows  at Dwelling Block 2 - 8 Holly Road and, Garage Blocks Sycamore Road, Tiverton. (02:45:51)

 

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

 

·       This application was for a non-material amendment to allow alterations to the site plan which included cycle storage arrangements, landscaping, the addition of a footpath and amendments to the internal layouts including relocation of external doors and windows.

·       As Mid Devon District Council were the applicant and landowner there was a requirement for the application to be determined by the Planning Committee.

·       The amendments to the scheme were very small and insignificant in the sense that they did not require further consultation and were considered to be a non-material amendment.

·       If the Committee deemed the amendment to be of a greater scale then a more formal revised application would be required.

·       The changes proposed were to change the layout of the approved dwellings to ensure the properties were more accessible to future occupiers.

·       There would be a rearrangement of windows and doors.

·       The floor plans showed very minor changes inside the property and all rooms complied with National Space Standards.

·       The bin and cycle storage areas had been reduced and parking arrangements had been previously approved.

 

Discussion took place regarding:-

 

·       Reduction in waste and recycling storage.  It was explained that there was storage provision and that the space met the Waste Standards for Devon County Council in terms of collection and storage of waste.

 

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted for the Non Material Amendment.

 

(Proposed by Cllr S Robinson and seconded by Cllr C Harrower)

 

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

 

Note:-

(i)              Cllr G Czapiewski spoke as Ward Member.

 

4.     25/00076/TPO - Application to crown reduce 1 Oak tree by 2m on one side, protected by Tree Preservation Order 06/00006/TPO at 38 Redvers Way, Tiverton, Devon.

(03:02:31)

 

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

 

·       The application was brought to the Planning Committee as the Applicant was an employee of Mid Devon District Council.

·       The tree was in a residential area that bordered seven properties.

·       Since the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was in made in 2006 applications had been received every four to five years to prune the tree due to the close proximity to the surrounding dwellings.

·       Previous pruning had been undertaken to reduce the crown spread in order to maintain a more harmonious relationship between neighbours.

·       The rationale provided in the application was due to the neighbours complaining that the oak tree branches were too close to the property and squirrels were entering the roof space of the adjacent property by jumping from the branches.  However no evidence had been provided to support this.

·       The application was not specific as to which side of the crown that required pruning.  However from a site visit the south west aspect of the crown was noted to be within 0.5m of the adjacent property.

·       It was anticipated that within one or two growth seasons the crown spread of the tree would directly conflict with the adjacent dwelling and any damaged caused would be classed as a nuisance.

·       Tiverton Town Council had been consulted on the application and had commented that the planned work might unbalance the tree and were unable to support the application.

·       A sensible crown clearance could be achieved by target pruning and would not significantly alter the appearance of the tree.

·       To achieve a clearance of between 2m-2.5m from the adjacent dwelling the maximum pruning wounds would not exceed 50mm in diameter and would remain appropriate to the condition of the tree.

·       In the interest of visual amenity the works carried out would be in accordance with best arboricultural practice.

 

Discussion took place regarding:-

 

·       The justification to prune the tree and the impact of growth increase if it were not to be pruned.

 

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

 

(Proposed by Cllr S Clist and seconded by Cllr S Robinson)

 

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

 

 

 

 

*List and report previously circulated.