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:
Mrs Rice referring to Item 3 on the Plans List (Coach Road, Silverton) stated that when the original consent was given for the doctors surgery the following condition was applied limiting the use of the site as a doctors surgery, I assume this condition still applies?
The site drawings do not show the extension is this an oversight?
Regarding parking, there will be a reduction in parking, this will mean more cars in Coach Road where there are already parking issues.
Mr Holmes referring to item 2 on the Plans List (Willand Service Station)
In their reply of 28 July 2015, the Highway Authority requested that the site should demonstrate the swept path of an articulated vehicle on entry and exit from both directions.
It has not been demonstrated that the swept path analysis of an articulated vehicle leaving the site to travel towards Cullompton would achieve this manoeuvre without mounting the grass verge opposite or blocking the carriageway.
What proposals are there if this manoeuvre does not prove possible as it would seem a fundamental question that has not been addressed in the Road Safety Audit, revised plans or officers report?
Mr Grantham referring to item 1 on the plans list (Portway Gardens) asked if the committee members knew exactly what they are being asked to approve?
This is asked as the officers report does not include any drawing numbers which will appear as part of the decision notice.
It is considered extremely relevant when in particular one is referring to the current hardstanding parking area at the front of the property. Hardstanding along the front of the house was included in the last committee approval but all of the current hardstanding in front of the proposed extension has been laid in contravention of the approval as has part of the protective rail fence. In spite of representation from the Parish Council this unapproved area has not been noticeably addressed by planning officers.
The officer in his report to Committee states on the bottom of page 13 and I quote "although there are a couple of outstanding issues on the wider site being currently investigated by your Enforcement Officers these issues do not have any impact on the proposed scheme presented to you for consideration although it is noted that one of the outstanding issues relates to an additional area of vehicle hardstanding within the curtilage of 4 Portway Gardens. This hardstanding is not shown on the submitted drawings and its retention is not sought through this application". Is this not a contradiction of fact and may we show that the last statement is incorrect?
On Page 15 of the report the officer states "The majority of issues raised by Willand Parish Council relate to the siting, building and inclusion of additional hardstanding. This had been removed from the application and is not to be considered as part of this application". This is not correct as reading of the Parish Council submission will show a number of other areas of concern.
The following plans have been submitted and are part of your consideration:
Plan PA101 REV A - the site location and block plan. Notes on the plan say that "detached garage and additional driveway removed"" The additional unapproved hardstanding is shown as part of the plan to be approved.
Plan PA102 REV A - site plan as proposed. Notes on the plan say "detached garage and additional driveway removed:" There are two lines which appear to show the current and wider hardstanding areas and it is not clear.
Plan PA202 REV A - Floor plans as proposed. Notes on the plan say that "detached garage removed from title block" in front of the extension on the ground floor plan is the word courtyard which is where the current unapproved hardstanding/parking area is laid.
If one looks at the design and access statement (3.3) the agent refers to this area being suitable for barbecues etcand so appears of the view that this is or will be approved and is part of the application.
Will Members be clear on these points please before making a decision.
Mr Mander referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Portway Gardens) stated that the Ward Councillors, the Parish Council and residents are concerned that this extension will further compromise the street scene on this development by creating further hard building line. The width of the property is to be increased by 50% which will in effect make a solid building across the whole plot.
This question is asked because the planning officer states that the Parish Council has commented that the extension will disrupt the view of the protected walnut tree within the rear garden of the applicant's property. This is not correct and the Parish Council’s position is set out in paragraph 4.2 of their letter of 15 September where they refer to the loss of view of trees in the plural - there are three trees which will be hidden or partly hidden.
It should be noted that in the planning history you are advised of the current appeal which is taking place whereby at the rear of most of these trees a cypress tree was recently refused removal. The reasons for refusal are given as "the tree is serving to soften a new development and is an important feature of the street scene. It has good landscape value. The loss of the tree is considered to harm the visual amenity of the area to an unacceptable degree". The building of the extension will close off the majority of the view of the depth of the street scene of which the three trees to the rear are part.
Is it not inconsistent to at one point to argue for the retention of a tree as to its amenityvalue to the street scene and then negate that by increasing the width of a house to the front of it by 50% and thereby hide the potential of this and other trees to break up the hardness of the existing permitted properties.
Mr Gallagher referring to Item 11 on the agenda (Wiseburrow Farm) referred to the previous application refused on the grounds of screening and the lack of screening. The current application does not appear to show any significant difference to the previous one as the proposed screening will have no effect. From where you stand you have got a site line only 5 metres high, whereas they will need to be 25 metres to cover the same screening, if you are mindful to approve, the planting scheme should be in place before you start. Holcombe Court will also have a problem with screening, this is all to do with the line of sight, we will need proper screening for this project please.
The Chairman indicated that answers to the questions would be provided when the items were discussed.