To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
Minutes:
The Committee considered the applications in the plans list *.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to the signed Minutes.
(a) No 1 on the Plans List ((15/01327/FULL, Change of use of part of ground floor from existing pub Use Class A4 to create 2 dwellings Use Class C3 – the Ayshford Arms, Burlescombe).
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the existing and proposed ground floor plans and elevations and the reconfiguration of some of the windows. She stated that 230sqm of the floor space would remain as the public house with partial demolition of the skittle alley to make room for gardens for the new dwellings and emphasised that the village would not be losing the public house it would just be reduced in size.
Consideration was given to:
· Access to the public house
· The proposed ownership of the new dwellings
· The viability of the business
· Community involvement
· Possible loss of a community asset
· The internal layout of the public house
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the provision of a Section 106 agreement to secure financial contributions towards public open space of £2416.00 and conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr F W Letch)
(Vote 7 for: 6 against – Chairman’s casting vote)
Notes:
(i) Cllr R J Dolley declared a personal interest as the applicant was known to him;
(ii) Cllr R F Radford made a declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as he had had discussions with the objectors to the application;
(iii) Mr Phillips (Applicant) spoke;
(iv) Mrs Hill spoke in objection to the application;
(v) Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge spoke as Ward Member;
(vi) The following late information was reported: 14th December 2015
Total objections: 6
Total representations: 1
Additions to the objections summary contained in report:
· The applicants has not been operating hours that would enable/encourage trade in an acknowledged tourism area, the demise in trade, or difficulty in providing a financially stable business are a result of the applicants actions.
· Low key marketing and an unrealistically high asking price
· Concern over noise of development, increased traffic as a result and the access safety for Ayshford Close
Confirmation of opening times prior to the pub closing:
7:00pm until 11:00pm seven days a week and from midday until 3:00pm on Saturdays and from midday until 6:00pm on Sunday.Closed all weekday lunchtimes.
Confirmation of permitted hours:
11:00am until midnight Sunday to Thursday and 11:00am until 2:00am on Friday and Saturday.
(b) No 2 on the Plans List (15/01422/FULL, Erection of 4 dwellings with garages and alterations to access (Revised Scheme) – land at NGR 302666 114116 (West of Paullet) Turnpike, Sampford Peverell).
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location, access, the proposed section plan, the extent of the conservation area, elevations and floor plans of each dwelling. Members were able to view photographs from various aspects of the site and the boundary treatments were considered. The officer informed the committee that the Highway Authority were happy with the proposal.
Consideration was given to:
· The settlement limit
· The width of the access
· The original outline application
· Boundary treatments
· The affordable home proposed on the site
· The collection of waste and recycling
· Justification for building in the conservation area
· Drainage issues
· Site density
RESOLVED that Members were minded to refuse the application and therefore wished to defer the decision to allow for a report to be received setting out the implications for the proposed reasons for refusal based on the following issues:
· The impact of Plots 1 and 2 on the amenity of existing property due to overlooking issues
· The proposed access and the impact of additional vehicular movements upon highway safety as a result of the proposed 4 dwellings.
· The impact upon visual amenity of refuse arrangements arising from 4 dwellings
· Insufficient drainage arrangements
(Proposed by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge and seconded by Cllr J L Smith)
(Vote 6 for: 5 against)
Notes:
(i) Cllrs: Mrs H Bainbridge, K I Busch, Mrs C Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, R J Dolley, J M Downes, S G Flaws, P J Heal, F W Letch, B A Moore, R F Radford, J L Smith and J D Squire made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had received correspondence regarding the application;
(ii) Cllr F W Letch declared a personal interest as residents were known to him;
(iii) Mr Preston (Agent) spoke;
(iv) Mr Dumble spoke in objection to the application;
(v) Cllr Passey spoke on behalf of the Parish Council;
(vi) Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge spoke as Ward Member;
(vii) A proposal to grant permission was not supported;
(viii) The following late information was reported: 14th December 2015
Additional objection from neighbour (I believe they have already objected, Mr & Mrs Dinnage, no new points made)
Comment on drainage to be added: A Surface Water Drainage Strategy has been submitted and demonstrates that surface water can be dealt with sustainably through the use of soakaways on the site. A condition has been imposed requiring the submission of final design and maintenance details.
Additional response from Sampford Peverell Parish Council:
Sampford Peverell Parish Council has considered, yet again, the latest changes to this application. We have resolved to maintain our objection to it. Our detailed objections, set out several times previously on other amendments remain valid. In summary, the main grounds for our opposition are:
Conservation Area
We remain opposed to the reduction to the conservation area required by this application. Villagers have indicated in the past the importance they place on retaining the conservation area and to resist attempts to eat away at it.
Rubbish, recycling, etc
We consider that the proposals for dealing with waste and so on are totally unacceptable. That the plethora of boxes, bins, etc that householders now need to have should simply be left by the highway, outside other residents’ homes cannot be seen as satisfactory.
Wildlife
We do not consider that the latest plans fully implement the recommendations of the wildlife survey.
Number of dwellings
Above all, we remain of the view that the site does not lend itself to the construction of four dwellings. We believe that three dwellings, as agreed in the outline planning permission, is the maximum that should be permitted. Most of the other problems we see with the current application would be removed or reduced if the application were for three dwellings.
Finally, we wish to express our irritation at the way this application has been allowed to change and develop. It is now fundamentally different to that initially submitted. The incremental changes have made it difficult for us as a parish council and, more importantly, for those residents affected by it to keep up to date with exactly what the latest proposals are. In our view, it would have been far better to deal with it as a fresh application.
Additional condition to read:
Notwithstanding the plans submitted, details of the proposed boundary treatments shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed boundary treatments shall be provided prior to the first occupation of any of the proposed dwellings and shall be so retained thereafter.
(c) No 3 on the Plans List ((15/01439/FULL, Removal of Conditions 7, 9 and 10 of planning permission 06/02131/FULL to allow the Class B1 unit to be incorporated into the main residential accommodation – Westcott Barn, Witheridge).
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the existing ground floor and first floor plans and he explained the condition that restricted the occupation of the building in question, he also highlighted the access to the site and the objection from the Economic Development officer.
Consideration was given to:
· Comparisons with other similar applications
· The difficulties of working in a rural area
· Policy issues
RESOLVED that planning permission be refused as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr K I Busch)
Notes:
(i) Mr Archer (Agent) spoke;
(ii) Cllr Mrs M E Squires spoke as Ward Member;
(iii) Cllr F W Letch requested that his vote against the decision be recorded;
(iv) The following late information was reported: Letter from Agent received 14th December 2015: key points
Attention is drawn to a previous application where a live/work tie had been successfully lifted (14/00047/FULL).
In that case, it is pointed out that no marketing of the unit was requested at the time and there had also been no similar objections raised by the Economic Development Officer.
The personal circumstances of the applicant had also been given due weight by the planning officer in this earlier application, when it had also been considered unlikely that any new occupier of the dwelling would be able to develop/sustain a new B1 business use.
In the present case, the applicant’s employer, ‘Icomera’, planned to locate their UK administrative office at the property, which they did in 2007.However, following the acquisition of another company in 2008, his employer moved the UK office to Sittingbourne in Kent; documentary evidence to confirm this is provided.
Evidence is restated that Mrs Kingsland operated a small cake-making and chocolate making business but that this was not financially viable and closed in 2012: Mrs. Kingsland now works in Exeter and undertakes no work from home.
The workspace available of 80 sq. metres is more than that required for any other normal ‘home-working’ arrangements by Mr. Kingsland in connection with his own work activities
The ‘work’ space area is now ‘dead space’ which they cannot utilise for their growing family.
The property was valued ibn 2014 by Helmores Estate Agents for re-mortgagee/life planning purposes: Helmores confirmed to the applicants that the marketability of the property would be affected by the continuing live/work tie.
There are no current plans to sell.
There would be no structural or internal/external alteration works required.
A statement has been signed by 5 neighbouring residents supporting the application.
Development planning policies are now less restrictive with regard to development of rural buildings than they were at the time of the original consent.
It is not practicable to rent the space out for B1 uses by third parties, separate from the dwelling.
There will be no business benefit by retaining the live/work unit tie: given previous precedent(s), it is seen as difficult to justify that the tie should now remain on Westcott Barn.
The Committee is advised of the following:
Does the he statement raise any new issues for consideration?: much of the additional information provided has been taken into account in the consideration of this report. The statement however draws attention to a separate similar application and draws attention to what is considered by the Agent to be an inconsistency of approach in the views taken by the Planning Officer. However, it is a key principle that each planning application needs to be considered on its individual merit. In this instance , there have been clear concerns/ objections raised by the Economic Development Manager and the application has been assessed against current policy considerations as set out in the report which focus on the need to support the rural economy. It is for members to judge whether they wish to place further weight on the personal circumstances as now set out, or on the statement made by the Agent that the applicants currently have no plans to sell the property.
It is otherwise considered hat the officer recommendation remains justified and for The reasons as set out in the reasons for refusal.
(d) No 4 on the Plans List ((15/01496/FULL, Erection of a poultry house and feed bin and construction of access track – land and buildings at NGR 297741 108766 – (East of Butterleigh Cross,) Cullompton).
The Head of Planning and Regeneration outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location, block plans, the elevation and section drawing of the proposal, access arrangements and proposed landscaping to reduce visual impact. Members also viewed photographs from various aspects of the site and were shown priority routes to the site.
Consideration was given to:
· The location of the proposed poultry house
· Impact on local residents
· Communications between the applicant and local residents
· Possible odour issues
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge)
Notes:
(i) Cllr R F Radford declared a personal interest as a local chicken farmer and chose to leave the meeting during the discussion;
(ii) Cllr K I Busch declared a personal interest as he knew the applicant;
(iii) Cllr Mrs A R Berry declared a personal interest as Ward Member who had been involved in discussions with both parties;
(iv) Cllr Mrs A R Berry spoke as Ward Member.
(e) No 5 on the Plans List ((15/01511/MFUL, Installation of a ground mounted photovoltaic solar farm to generate up to 5MW of power (site area 8.5 hectares and associated infrastructure – Viridor Waste management Ltd, Broad Path Landfill Site, Burlescombe).
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location and the proposed phases of the scheme, the tree and maintenance plan, the elevations, proposed fencing, site access tracks and Members viewed photographs from various aspects of the site including various viewpoints.
Consideration was given to:
· Phasing issues
· The use of Grade 5 agricultural land
· The fact that the site suited the application
· The lack of impact on local residents
· Additional landscaping
· A possible one way traffic proposal
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration with an additional condition regarding supplemental landscaping to screen the site; changes to Condition 3 to read: The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Construction Management Plan and supporting drawing BP1030-D13 received by the Local Planning Authority on the 4th of December 2015.
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 DM2 of Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies).
An additional condition stating:
Prior to the commencement of phase 2 of the proposed development concerning fields 3 and 4 on the Indicative Layout for the Solar Array dated August 2015 and received on the 20th of November 2015 Drawing Figure P3 (Rev C), a Construction Management Plan (CMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CMP shall include the following details:
(a) the timetable of the works;
(b) daily hours of construction;
(c) hours during which delivery and construction traffic will travel to and from the site;
(d) areas on-site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will load or unload building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery vehicles will park on the County highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by the Local Planning Authority;
(e) hours during which no construction traffic will be present at the site;
(f) ) details of proposals to promote car sharing amongst construction staff in order to limit construction staff vehicles parking off-site
(g) details of wheel washing facilities and road sweeping obligations
(h) The proposed route of all construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes.
(i) Details of the amount and location of construction worker parking.
The works shall take place in accordance with the approved construction management plan.
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 DM2 of Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies).
Condition 7 to be changed to read:
The existing hedge and tree screening shall be retained and maintained for the life of development hereby permitted in accordance with the details set out in plan BP1030-D14v2 named Areas of retained woodland during solar array development (Phases 1 and 2), dated December 2015 and received by the Local Planning Authority on the 14th of December 2015. No trees or hedgerow shall be removed without prior consent from the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To ensure adequate screening and to safeguard the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Mid Devon Core Strategy (Local Plan Part 1) COR2 and Mid Devon Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies) DM2.
(Proposed by Cllr F W Letch and seconded by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge)
Notes:
(i) Mr Wishart (Applicant) spoke;
(ii) Cllr R Evans spoke as Ward Member;
(iii) The following late information was reported: A detailed hedge and tree screening maintenance plan has been submitted. All trees will be retained at their existing heights and the existing hedging will be maintained at a height not less than 2 metres.
(f) No 6 on the Plans List (15/01632/FULL, Erection of a dwelling – Jersey Cottage, Sampford Peverell).
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report stating that the revised application was the same as one previously refused except for mitigation provided to deal with noise issues. He presented the site location plan the sections and elevations of the proposal and photographs from various aspects of the site and stated that the proposal was outside the settlement limit of Sampford Peverell and was against Policy COR 18 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Consideration was given to:
· Building outside the settlement limit
· The proximity of the station
· The possibility of setting a precedent of building in the countryside
RESOLVED that planning permission be refused as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration (reason 1 as set out in the report).
(Proposed by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge and seconded by the Chairman)
Notes:
(i) Mrs Anning (Agent) spoke;
(ii) Cllr Mrs C Collis spoke as Ward Member;
(iii) Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge spoke as Ward Member
(iv) The following late information was reported: 14th December 2015
Application 15/01632/Full has 2 reasons for refusal reason 2 is for non-payment of the Open Space Contributions and signing of the Unilateral Undertaking. This has now been paid and so this reason is no longer valid and should be ignored.
Supporting documents: