To receive a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration deferred from the previous meeting for a site visit by the Planning Working Group.
Minutes:
The Committee had before it a * report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding the above application which had been deferred from the previous meeting so that a site visit could be made by the Planning Working Group.
The Principal Planning Officer and the Head of Planning and Regeneration provided responses to questions posed within public question time:
· The views of the residents had been taken into consideration; there had been opportunity for involvement in the application as there were 2 stages of consultation and at the previous committee meeting along with involvement in the site visit.
· The application had to be determined on the basis of national and local policy evidence and material consideration. A number of revisions had been made to the scheme in response to objections from the parish Council and local residents.
· The impact on the historic environment had been considered and 3 stakeholders including Historic England and the Conservation Officer had provided responses None were recommending refusal, Mid Devon’s Conservation Officer noted that only less than substantial harm arose. Devon County Council’s archaeology team were satisfied that mitigation via the use of conditions was acceptable.
· With regard to the local heritage asset listing, the site was originally identified on the heritage asset list, this was subject to information coming from local parties, some of which agreed and some disagreed. The site was removed from the register and a letter sent on 16 November 2015 to that effect, having reassessed the issues against criteria for selection.
· The Conservation Officer had stated that more information was required to assess the impact – this was provided by the applicant and used to inform the assessment of impact to the historic environment.
· With regard to green space – the site was proposed as Local Green Space in the Local Plan Review – however the Local Plan Review had yet to be adopted and there were objections to the designation, it would now rest with the inspector at examination.
· With regard to the application being less damaging than the previous with regard to the historic environment - more information was available to enable a fuller assessment of the scheme’s impact.
· With regard to relevant planning policies, consideration had to be given to the Uffculme appeal decision regarding land supply, in which the inspector concluded policies COR 3, COR 17 and COR 18 were not up to date. The Local Plan Review would rectify this.
· Reference to the Core Strategy and services and infrastructure, the 4 dwellings would not lead to an increase in services or facilities, however the level of facilities within the village was a consideration in reaching the recommendation to approve the scheme.
He continued by outlining the contents of the report by way of presentation, highlighting the site plan, the proposed elevations of the development, the proposed section drawings and photographs from various aspects of the site.
The representative from Devon County Council Highway Authority stated that with regard to the visibility splay, as the road was single track you could take the visibility from the centre of the carriageway. There were also a lot of brambles that could be removed which would aid visibility and result in less hedge removal.
Consideration was given to:
· The site visit that had taken place
· The possible negative impact on local wildlife
· The trees and general landscaping of the site
· The careful design work that had taken place
· Planning policy and the recent appeal decision
· The local infrastructure surrounding the site
· The condition and appearance of the site, its surroundings and the character of the village
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration with 2 additional conditions stating:
1.No development shall begin until a scheme for tree planting and tree management has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the completion of the development and shall thereafter be permanently retained, managed and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme. New tree planting should be in accordance with the processes laid out in ‘BS8545:2014 Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape – Recommendations’.
2.No development shall begin until an Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan shall be strictly adhered to before and during construction of the approved development.
Reasons:
1.To safeguard the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Local Plan Part 3: Development Management Policies.
2.To ensure the development makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area by protecting existing trees during development in accordance with policy DM2 of the Local Plan Part 3: Development Management Policies.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr F W Letch)
Notes:
(i) Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge, Mrs C A Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, R J Dolley, P J Heal, F W Letch, B A Moore and R L Stanley made declarations in accordance with the protocol of good practice for Councillors dealing in planning matters as they had received correspondence regarding the application;
(ii) Cllr R J Dolley declared a personal interest as both sides were known to him;
(iii) Mrs Hetherington spoke in objection to the scheme
(iv) Ms Banks (Agent) spoke;
(v) Cllr Harrison (Bickleigh Parish Council) spoke;
(vi) Cllr R M Deed spoke as Ward Member;
(vii) Cllrs B A Moore and R L Stanley requested that their vote against the decision be recorded;
(viii) The following late information was reported: Supporting information submitted –
Arboricultural Input Assessment Plan Drawing Ref 04728-AIA.TPP-Aug2016 dated 3.8.16
Since the application was considered at the Planning Committee meeting of 3rd August, the application paperwork has been supplemented with additional information and assessment of the existing trees on site. The additional information includes an assessment of amenity value of the trees by the Council’s Tree Officer and an Arboricultural Impact Assessment from the applicant’s arboriculturist. The Council’s tree officer assessment scoring confirms their initial view that the trees do not have significant enough amenity value to warrant protection by a Tree Preservation Order.
The Arboricultural Impact Assessment provides a more detailed evaluation of the existing trees on site than previously provided by the applicant. It confirms the tree grouping to the south of the development is of moderate quality though is reasonably visible in the local landscape. The assessment states that the loss of the tree group is unfortunate, but notes that the trees are not particularly well-formed, having grown at such close spacing; the trees within the group are aerodynamically dependant on each other having developed together from a young age and recommends phased removal and replacement tree planting. These proposals have already been taken into account in the consideration of the application. One further tree, located to the west of the tree group is noted of low quality and is also recommended for removal because of its poor structural condition. The tree has significant bark inclusion and weak union between its two main stems. The removal of this tree is not noted in the committee report, being new information arising from the impact assessment. Given its poor condition, its loss is considered a minor impact and mitigation planting would ensure provision of a more suitable long-term replacement. The impact assessment recommends the imposition of conditions for the management and maintenance of the trees and the protection of existing trees during construction phases. The following conditions are therefore proposed to be added to any permission if granted in addition to those stipulated in the report:
1.No development shall begin until a scheme for tree planting and tree management has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the completion of the development and shall thereafter be permanently retained, managed and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme. New tree planting should be in accordance with the processes laid out in ‘BS8545:2014 Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape – Recommendations’.
2.No development shall begin until an Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan shall be strictly adhered to before and during construction of the approved development.
Reasons:
1.To safeguard the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Local Plan Part 3: Development Management Policies.
2.To ensure the development makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area by protecting existing trees during development in accordance with policy DM2 of the Local Plan Part 3: Development Management Policies.
In addition, it should be noted that the officer’s report incorrectly states that Bickleigh Castle (grade I listed building and conservation area) lies 1.5km to the south west of the site. The distance has been re-measured and is approximately 600 metres. This is not considered to alter the conclusions in relation to the impact on the historic environment as the less than substantial harm identified is associated with change to views to and from the church. The church has also now been able to confirm the height of the tower, which is 18.2 metres from the centre crenellation to the ground. A spiral staircase leading to the tower roof is external to the tower and has its own conical roof which adds 0.7m to the overall height. The applicant has amended the cross sectional drawings using a height of 18.9m accordingly.
The planning committee working group also asked if further consideration could be given to reducing the size of the visibility splay and the associated loss of hedgerow. Subsequently the site was visited by the case officer and Devon County Council’s highway officer. The latter confirmed that the width of the splay was at the lowest level relative the local speed limit and could not be reduced further. However, the size of the splay was measured to determine the exact extent of the impact on the hedge. The highways officer estimated that the actual loss of hedgerow may be less than that identified on the plans, potentially being down to 5m on the south side of the proposed access (as opposed to approximately 10m). Bramble growth along the frontage of the hedgerow to the south of the proposed access artificially enlarges the depth of the hedgerow, with the bank set back relatively deep. Once the overgrowth is removed the bank is unlikely to be affected to the extent identified. To the north of the proposed access the boundary the splay overlaps with the existing access so the loss of hedgerow is about 6m from the edge of the proposed access – this will be lost as it is proposed as part of the footpath to the site. In total the loss of hedgerow is likely to be approximately 16-20m (having taken account of the loss from the proposed access road of 4.5m) – the range being dependent on the amount to be reduced on the south side;
(ix) *Report previously circulated, copy attached to signed minutes.
Supporting documents: