To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
Minutes:
RESOLVED that the following application be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the various recommendations contained in the list namely:
(i) No 5 on the Plans List (17/00209/HOUSE – External alterations to include alterations to roof and installation of ground mounted solar panels – 4 Blundells Avenue, Tiverton) be granted planning permission subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
(b) No 1 on the Plans List (16/01362/FULL – Conversion of 5 redundant agricultural buildings to 5 dwellings – land and buildings at NGR 279371 101700 (Spencecombe), Crediton).
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location plan. He identified the buildings in question, the access to the courtyard, existing and proposed floor plans and the proposed elevations. He explained that the two open fronted linhays at B and C on the plans did not meet with Policy DM11 and stated that 4 dwellings on the site would be acceptable and have less impact on the setting of the listed building. Members viewed photographs from various aspects of the site.
Consideration was given:
· The increase in vehicles on the site
· How a 4th unit would be formed
· The impact on the setting of the listed building
· The need to maintain the barns in some form in the courtyard
· The fact that the linhays were not suitable for modern agriculture
RESOLVED that the application be deferred for a site visit by the Planning Working Group to consider whether 5 units rather than 4 units on the site would be acceptable and to also consider the impact of the associated number of vehicles on the site.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr J D Squire)
Notes :
i) Cllrs D R Coren and P J Heal made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning matters as they had been involved with discussions regarding the application and had attended Parish Council meetings where the application had been discussed;
ii) Cllr P J Heal and F W Letch declared personal interests as the applicant and his family were known to them;
iii) Mr Garside (Agent) spoke;
iv) Cllr D R Coren and P J Heal spoke as Ward Members;
v) The following late information was reported: The applicant’s agent has circulated a submission to members, and the following is a summary response to the points raised as already articulated in the committee report.
1. The agent challenges if the buildings are listed, taking into account the relevant factors as set out below you officers are of the view that the buildings are curtilage listed:
· The buildings are pre 1948.
· The farm buildings have a close physical relationship with the farmhouse. The farmhouse is called a farmhouse because it has an associated farm holding and associated farm buildings - i.e. the buildings the subject of the application.
· The farm buildings are in the same ownership and have historically been in the same ownership as the farmhouse.
· The use of the farm buildings was historically and is currently directly related to the farm holding and the farmhouse.
· It is inconceivable that the farm buildings have any reason for being other that related to the farmhouse which is adjacent.
· The farm buildings are subordinate to the farmhouse.
2. The agent challenges the views expressed about the Linhay buildings. The architectural design of Linhay conversions is very often complicated. They are commonly very fragile buildings that require considerable reconstruction. This is because they are open fronted and open to weather impacts. The survey work that is referred to by the applicant was carried out in 2015. It was not a full structural survey. It was observational only. There are many caveats in the report that raise more questions about the extent of works required and these have not been properly addressed. The requirement of the policies for barn conversions require more than this as evidence of the structural condition and the works required to repair and/or reconstruct. The design for conversions does not ‘retain the original character’ of the linhays as required by policy.
3. The agent challenges the assertions made about in the officer report about the parking arrangements and makes further comments /suggestions how this issue could be redressed. The comments do not, in the view of officers, address their serious concern that the proposal will have a significant adverse impact on the setting/surroundings of the courtyard group as set out in the report. Harm accrues from a number of factors that are discussed in the officer’s report. It is not just one matter that if amended will overcome the concerns.
4. The conversion of three of the barns does not give raise to concerns. These are supportable. The objections are raised with the works to the linhays are for design and structural reasons and for reasons associated with the impact of the conversions to create a fifth dwelling which will have a negative impact on the setting of the group for a variety of explained reasons in the report. Officers have sought to be proactive in achieving an agreed solution on this basis but this has been rejected by the applicant.
(c) No 2 on the Plans List (16/01772/FULL – Outline for the erection of up to 40 dwellings (including affordable housing), public open space and associated infrastructure – Land at NGR 313382 113489, Culmstock Road, Hemyock).
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report highlighting by way of presentation the location of the site outside of the defined settlement boundary, the indicative masterplan for the site with all matters except for access reserved. Plans were shown of the accesses to the site, for vehicles and pedestrians and the realignment of the footway and verges proposed. She provided information regarding the South West Water response which had been omitted from the report and Members viewed photographs from various aspects of the site.
Consideration was given to:
· The number of dwellings in Hemyock that had planning permission but that had not been built out
· Concerns of the residents with regard to the infrastructure for the development
· The capacity of local services
· The housing need in the area
· Continued discussions by the developer with residents with regard to design
· The support for the development by the Parish Council
· Whether the design was compatible with the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
· The travel plan associated with the application
· The passing places identified within the application
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the provision of Section 106 Agreement/Unilateral Undertaking to secure
a) 35% affordable housing (14 dwellings, tenure and mix to be agreed);
b) Financial contributions towards primary, early years and secondary education totalling £178,540;
c) A minimum of 3 hectares of public open space/green infrastructure to be offered to Hemyock Parish Council together with a commuted sum for maintenance (to be agreed); to provide allotments, community orchard and ancillary public open space.
d) A financial contribution of £15,000 towards provision of passing places on the road between Culmstock and Hemyock;
e) A travel plan to reduce the reliance on private motor vehicles.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge)
Notes:
i) Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest in the application as he had met with the applicant on a number of occasions and stated that he would be abstaining from voting;
ii) Mr Barton spoke on behalf of the objectors;
iii) Mr Steele-Perkins (Applicant) spoke;
iv) Cllr Clist spoke on behalf of the Parish Council
v) Cllr F J Rosamond spoke as Ward Member;
vi) Cllr R L Stanley requested that his abstention from voting be recorded;
vii) The following late information was recorded:
20th November 2016 - The applicant’s agent is advised to contact South West Water if they are unable to comply with our requirements as detailed below:-
Asset Protection - A plan showing the appropriate location of a public sewer in the vicinity. Please note that no development will be permitted within 3 metres of the sewer, and ground cover should not be substantially altered.
Should the development encroach on the 3 metre easement, the sewer will need to be diverted at the expense of the applicant. The applicant/agent is advised to contact the Developer Services Planning Team to discuss the matter further.
Clean Portable Water - South West Water is able to provide clean potable water services from the existing public water main for the proposal.
Foul Sewerage Services - South West Water advises a Planning Condition to emphasise that: Foul drainage from the Development (and no other drainage) shall be connected to the public foul or combined sewer.
Reason: To ensure the discharge of drainage from the Development shall not be prejudicial to the public sewerage system and ensure there are adequate public foul sewerage facilities to receive foul water flows, in order to safeguard the public and environment.
Surface Water Services - The statutory Water and Sewerage Undertaker supports the Planning Policy Guidance for Flood Risk & Coastal Change statement, To accompany its planning application, the applicant must demonstrate how its proposed development will have separate foul and surface water drainage systems and not be detrimental to existing infrastructure, the public and environment (and that any provisions for protecting infrastructure have been agreed with SWWL as service-provider). The applicant should demonstrate to the Local Planning Authority that its prospective surface run-off will discharge as high up the hierarchy has been addressed, and reasoning as to why any preferred disposal route is not reasonably practicable):
1. Discharge into the ground (infiltration); or where not reasonable practicable, Provide written evidence as to why infiltration devices, including Soakaways, Swales, Infiltration Basins and Filter Drain do not meet the design standards as specified in either H3 Building Regulation standards for areas less than 100m2. Soakaways serving larger areas must meet the design standard specified in BS EN 752-4 (para 3.36) or BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design.
2. Discharge to a surface waterbody; or where not reasonable practicable, Provide written evidence for refusal of discharge consent from owner of water body (Environment Agency, Local Authority, Riparian Owner etc.).
3. Discharge to a surface water sewer, highway drain, or another drainage system; or where not reasonably practicable, Provide written evidence for refusal of discharge to drainage system (Highway Authority, Environment Agency, Local Authority, Private ownership).
4. Discharge to a combined sewer (Subject to Sewerage Undertaker carrying out capacity evaluation) South West Water will carry out a hydraulic capacity review of the combined sewerage network before permission will be granted to discharge to the combined sewer.
Having reviewed the applicant's current information as to proposed surface water disposal for its development, please not that method proposed to discharge into the ground (infiltration) is acceptable and meets with the Run-Off Destination Hierarchy. However, should this method be amended, SWWL will require clear evidence to demonstrate why the preferred methods listed within the Run-Off Destination Hierarchy have been discounted by the applicant.
28th March 2017 – Blackdown Hills AONB
The AONB Partnership is appreciative of the Council for commissioning an independent review of the LVIA for this application in the absence of its own in-house landscape expert, which we believe demonstrates the required ‘regard’ to the AONB designation under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act.
I note that the assessment has identified several issues with the LVIA, but doesn’t disagree with the overall conclusion.
The findings do appear to support the AONB view that it is difficult to judge the effects of the development proposals without the detail.
If Committee is convinced by the case for this development in terms of NPPF Paragraph 116, then we would request that the review conclusion and recommendations (page 29 of the Review Final Report) are fully taken account of in relation to any future detailed application. Specifically,
· We support the recommendation in paragraph 62 regarding the Parameters Plan
· We note the conclusion in paragraph 63 and agree with the bullet points, with some reservation on the point about ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ buildings
· We agree with paragraph 64.
On an associated point, the propose Condition 16 (lighting) is welcomed. We would also request that Condition 7 (presumably to be signed off by County Highways) is addressed in a manner commensurate with location and the recommendations of the LVIA review.
28th March 2017 - I would reconfirm South West Water has no objection the development in terms of foul drainage capacity – problems experienced in Longmead have related to blockages//equipment failure (p Station breakdown) which does not indicate a lack of capacity being the only grounds we could justify an objection on.
Also this site will not drain directly through the sewer network in Longmead but rather will enter the sewer network just upstream of the sewage works along a different route.
2 recommendations appear on the report. Delete the first of the two.
(d) No 3 on the Plans List (16/01932/MFULL – Construction of 2 ponds, a wetland area, an attenuation basin and creation of additional 120m of Devon hedgebank – Land at NGR 294211 123012 (Higher Barn, Bampton).
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location and explaining the history of the site, the enforcement issue and the remedial works that were within the application to reinstate the site and make improvements. Members viewed the site layout and the landscape plans; a drainage strategy had been supplied and extensive planting was proposed to try to improve the biodiversity. Photographs were available from various aspects of the site.
Consideration was given to the views of the agent with regard to the completion of the reinstatement of the land and that the service of an enforcement notice would be held for 6 months pending review of progress on the site.
RESOLVED that:
a) Planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration.
(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr B A Moore)
b) Service of the enforcement notice (Planning Committee resolution November 2016) be held off for a period of 6 months from 29 March 2017 pending a review of progress in completing the works contained within the application).
(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr B A Moore)
Notes:
i) Cllrs B A Moore and R L Stanley declared personal interests as some of the objectors were known to them;
ii) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe declared a personal interest as she was familiar with a number of people involved in the application;
iii) Mr Cookson (Agent) spoke;
iv) Cllrs B A Moore and R L Stanley spoke as Ward Members
v) The following late information was reported:
27th March 2017
The reference to drawing numbers in proposed conditions 4 and 5 should be altered to refer to the following drawings.
Condition 4:
Final drainage strategy: 39494-2001-500 Rev A, dated 31 January 2017 and 39494-2001-501 received 15th December 2016
Condition 5:
Final landscape masterplan = SPP 2047.002 Rev D, dated 10 February 2017.
(e) No 4 on the Plans List (17/00090/ARM – Reserved matters for the erection of a dwellings following outline approval 16/00108/OUT – land at NGR 304865 115568 - Corner of Brimstone Lane, Westleigh).
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report highlighting by way of presentation the site location plan, the existing and proposed plans, the floor plans and proposed elevations and a visualisation of the proposed dwelling which she stated was visible from a distance but not prominent but would appear prominent in close views. Members viewed photographs from various aspects of the site.
Consideration was given to:
· The size of the dwelling in the open countryside
· The applicant’s statement with regard for the need of a farmhouse to service the land
· Design and size issues
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted and that delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and Regeneration to produce a set of conditions.
Reason – the application was considered to be acceptable due to the needs and size of the holding and that it was also acceptable with regard to visual impact.
(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr R J Dolley)
Notes :
i) Cllr R J Dolley declared a personal interest as the applicant was known to him and that he played skittles in the area;
ii) Cllr Mrs J F Colthorpe declared a personal interest as the applicant was known to her;
iii) Mr Caudwell (applicant) spoke;
iv) Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge and Mrs C A Collis spoke as Ward Members
v) Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge and P J Heal requested that their vote against the decision be recorded;
vi) A vote to refuse the application was not supported.
Supporting documents: