Agenda item

To consider the planning applications contained in the list.

 

The Committee considered the applications in the *Plans List.

 

1.   25/00346/PIP - Permission in Principle for a phased development of between 3 and 9 Custom and Self Build dwellings at Land at NGR 310051 113426, North of Uffculme Road, Culmstock.

 

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

 

·       The Application had been called in by Cllr N Bradshaw.

·       Permission in Principle was an alternative way of seeking planning permission which separated matters of principle from technical details.  The scope of the application was restricted to location, land use and amount of development.  If approved, any other matters would be assessed at the next stage as part of a Technical Details Consent Application.

·       Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) related to the presumption in favour of sustainable development and stated that where the Development Plan was out of date, Local Planning Authorities (LPA) should grant permission unless the adverse impacts of doing so outweighed the benefits when assessed against the NPPF as a whole.

·       The LPA could no longer demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and therefore Paragraph 11 was enacted. 

·       There was a significant shortfall in custom self-build housing in Mid Devon. Thirteen of the households on the Council’s self-build register had addresses in Culmstock specifically.

·       An amount between 3-9 self-build dwellings were proposed, however the applicant had provided a draft legal agreement which committed to 7 dwellings, 2 of which would be affordable homes.

·       Concerns had been raised in relation to highway safety, biodiversity, local services and flood risk. In terms of Highways, the Highway Authority had raised no in-principle objections although they would expect additional details to be submitted at the technical details stage. Officers had visited the site and vehicle speeds had appeared to be low. The number of units proposed would not have a significant impact on vehicle movements in the area and whilst footpaths were limited, this was consistent with that part of the village. 

 

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

 

Micheal Dearden

Question 1 - If this development is approved, how are the developer and Mid Devon County Council (MDCC) going to ensure that flooding does not happen as a result of it and, if it does, will they take responsibility for putting right the damage caused?

Answer 1 – It was understood that there may be some localised surface water issues in the area but the proposal would not increase the amount of water entering the site and the Council did not know yet where areas of hardstanding would be located. This would need to be addressed in any final designs at the technical details stage through a Drainage Strategy and appropriate design which may include drainage solutions such as attenuation basins. Given that this was feasibly achievable, the site was not considered to be unacceptable for development as a matter of principle. 

 

Richard Jarman 

Question 1 - Has the planning officer independently verified the applicant’s figures?

Answer 1 – The Council’s Principal Housing Enabling Officer was consulted on the application and stated that they concurred with the applicant’s Planning Statement and that there was a shortfall in granting sufficient permissions for custom self-build dwellings against the registered demand.

 

Cllr Charles Kay

Question 1 - When was MDDC’s self-build list updated and importantly for those wanting to build in Culmstock parish?

Answer 1 – The Register remained live on the Council’s website for people to add their name. 

Question 2 – When were those people on the self-build list contacted to see if they wanted to still be on it?

Answer 2 - There was an option for people to withdraw their name from the Register which the Council would do within 28 days.

 

Paul Moody

Question 1 - Why, even before the technical details stage, has there been no apparent regard (despite South West Water's comments) to the risk of flooding caused by "water" emanating in one form or another from the proposed development, specifically the flooding risk and water damage to many dwellings in Silver Street? 
Answer 1 – This was answered above.

 

Judith Fowler

Question 1 - Could the authorities please explain how they mean to regulate the design of each individual property in this development?

Answer 1 - In relation to self-build housing, the Council would usually approve a Design Code which set out acceptable heights, materials, massing and some more specific design features. This would be conditioned in the same way that the Council usually conditioned approved plans.

Question 2 - How do the developers intend to deal with waste from these properties?

Answer 2 - This would be a matter for South West Water, the drainage scheme would be designed and finalised at the technical details stage.

Question 3 - Has the Council plans to update and increase the capacity of the system?

Answer 3 – This would be a matter for South West Water.

 

Nikki Padget

Question 1 - How many Members of this Committee have visited the site?

Answer 1 – There had been no formal Committee site visit and I would advise against this as the plans and photographs shared today were sufficient for Members to make a decision, particularly bearing in mind what could be assessed as part of a Permission in Principle application.

John Sedgwick

Q1 - Given these are permanent constraints of the location, how can the site be considered suitable in principle for residential development — and have Devon County Highways actually visited the site?

A1 – Footpaths were limited, this was consistent with this part of the village.  My understanding was that the Highway Authority did visit the site in order to provide comments.

 

Susan Dearden

Q1 - I would like to ask the Committee how, given the number of valid objections, including that of the Parish Council (and none in support of the application) the planning officer has managed to push our objections aside?

A1 – Officers had fully considered public comments as reflected in the report.

Q2 - If there is pressure to build in Culmstock, despite several houses on the market as I write this, then why not on the Linhay site?

A2 – The Council could not control where applicants chose to make applications and could only assess the scheme and site before us.
    

Discussion took place regarding:-

 

·       Flooding and foul drainage concerns – it was explained that this would be addressed in the technical details stage and that South West Water would be responsible for sewage.

·       The location of the development in relation to the national landscape and the road network with the lack of footpaths being unsafe and dangerous.

·       Whether the self-build plots would be designed and built by the developer or by people that purchased the plots?  It was explained that people would design their own house according to their own requirements and needs within a design code that the Planning Authority would approve.  A builder could be commissioned to undertake the building work.

 

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused.

 

(Proposed by Cllr L J Kennedy and seconded by Cllr S Clist)

 

Reason for the Decision:-

 

A)    The proposed location and land use was considered unacceptable by reason of the narrow highway and lack of refuge for pedestrians due to the associated stone walls and hedge, resulting in unacceptable highway safety contrary to DM1 of the Mid Devon Local Plan (2013-2033) and Paragraphs 115, 116 and 117 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

B)    The raised topography and open and elevated nature of the site at the edge of the village in combination with the distant views of the site and its relationship with the Culmstock Conservation Area and Blackdown Hills National Landscape meant the site was clearly seen as a coherent part of the wider countryside setting and therefore made the location undesirable for residential development contrary to Policies S1, DM1, DM25 and DM27 of the Mid Devon Local Plan and Paragraphs 135, 189, 190 and 210 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes:-

(i)              Louise Jarman spoke as the objector.

(ii)             Charlie De Bono spoke as the applicant.

(iii)           Cllr L Jones, spoke as Chair of the Culmstock Parish Council.

(iv)           Cllr N Bradshaw and Cllr S Clist spoke as Ward Members.

(v)             Cllr F J Colthorpe voted against the decision to refuse the application.

(vi)           It was agreed that if the decision were to be appealed then Cllr G Cochran, Cllr L J Kennedy and Cllr S Clist would sit in on the appeal with Cllr G Westcott as a reserve.

(vii)          Cllr L J Kennedy and Cllr G Westcott left the meeting following the decision.

 

2.     25/00382/FULL - Change of use from highway to car park at Land at NGR 283208 100428, Car Park, Market Street, Crediton.

 

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

 

·       The site was located within the settlement limits of Crediton being within the town centre boundary and adjacent to the conservation area.

·       The Council had been operating a car park on the land for more than 20 years.

·       Having installed EV chargers it had been found that the land was highway maintainable at public expense and this had caused problems with the lease, wayleaves and cabling.

·       There was a need for the highway to be stopped up and this decision was for the Department of Transport.

·       The main issues raised were policy, procedure and principle of development.

 

Discussion took place regarding:-

 

·       Whether the car park would be for public use?  It was explained yes that would be the case.

 

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

 

(Proposed by Cllr F J Colthorpe and seconded by Cllr S Clist)

 

Note:-

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

 

3.     25/00366/MFUL - Demolition of existing dwellings to provide 14 affordable dwellings with associated parking, landscaping and associated works at 30-44 Beech Road, Tiverton, Devon.

 

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

 

·       There were currently 8 existing flats with the proposal to demolish those and replace with 14 new units contained within 2 blocks which would be used as social rented accommodation as part of the Council’s housing stock.

·       The main issues raised included: principle of development; design and impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; flooding and drainage; residential amenity; highways, parking and access; climate change; ecology and biodiversity net gain.

·       The zed pods would have a metal clad roof with solar panels.  Each property would have a balcony or terrace which overlooked the allotments to the rear.

·       There would be individual bin and recycle storage facilities with one car parking space per property.

·       The proposed landscape included new grasslands, hedge planting and tree planting that provided well in excess of the 10% biodiversity net gain required.

·       Condition 8 rewording which required details of the off-site works and improvements.

·       When reviewing the application there did not seem evidence of site notices being erected however this had now been rectified but the notices had not yet expired.  Members were asked to consider granting permission on the proviso that no additional comments were received before the expiry of the site notice.  If comments were to be received then the application may need to come before the Planning Committee again.

 

Discussion took place regarding:-

 

·       Whether Highways recommendations were included as part of the proposal.  It was explained that due to collision data for a slight recorded collision near to the site, concerns had been raised by the Highway Authority.  However having discussed the matter further it was felt that it would not be appropriate to recommend refusal.  Also due to tactile pavements on the corner that were not up to standards, a drop down kerb should be placed on the road.  The applicant was happy to do that.

·       Whether the bin and recycle storage facilities were large enough.  It was explained that they were of an adequate size.

 

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

:-

(i)              That no further comments being received before the expiry of the site notice on 2^nd July 2025.

(ii)             Condition 8 revised wording to state:-

“Prior to the development hereby approved first being occupied, off-site highway works comprising vehicle crossings for the parking spaces, and improvements to the existing tactile arrangement on the adjoining footway, shall be fully provided in accordance with details (including drawings of said off-site highway works), which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority”.

 

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

 

Notes:-

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

 

4.     25/00386/FULL - Installation of external heat pump systems and enclosures at Culm Valley Sports Centre, Meadow Lane, Cullompton.

 

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

 

·       The pumps would be screened by fencing and would provide some acoustic screening.

·       There would be no adverse visual or neighbourhood amenity impacts and no impacts on biodiversity or agricultural land.

 

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

 

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

 

Note:-

(i)              Cllr S Robinson spoke as the Ward Member.

 

*List and report previously circulated.