To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
Minutes:
RESOLVED that the following applications be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the various recommendations contained in the list namely:
(i) No 1 on the Plans List (17/00855/MFUL – Erection of extension to garden centre to form additional retail space, pallet store, covered entrance and covered outdoor areas and erection of a separate warehouse following removal of polytunnels – Bow Garden Centre, Bow) be approved subject to conditions and informative notes as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration with an amendment to Condition 4 which states that: “No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the drainage scheme as set out in the Surface Water Drainage Strategy Report prepared by Aquatech (dated 30th August 2017) has been fully implemented and maintained as such thereafter as set in approved report”.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
(ii) No 5 on the Plans List (17/01197/CAT – Notification of intention to coppice 1 Sycamore tree (T2); coppice Hornbeam trees (G3) and Sycamore trees (G1) to form a hedge; crown raise Sycamore trees (G2) t 4m and raise crown of 1 Oak tree (T3) by 3m within the Conservation Area – Land at NGR 301044 112936, between 46-48 High Street, Halberton) thatno objection be raised to the proposed work as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Note: Cllr R F Radford declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in the matter as he was the applicant and left the meeting whilst the vote took place.
(iii) No 8 on the Plans List (17/01265/HOUSE – Retention of 1.8m high fence on block wall on west boundary and erection of 1.8m fence on existing block wall on north boundary – Hilary, Barnsfield, Crediton) be approved subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Notes:
(i) Cllr F W Letch declared a personal interest in the matter as the applicant was his daughter and chose to leave the meeting whilst the vote took place.
(ii) A further late representation was reported: Crediton Town Council had provided comments on 20 September 2017 stating that it had no objection to the application.
(iv) No 9 on the Plans List (17/01332/HOUSE – Erection of two storey extension following demolition of single storey extension and porch; internal and external repairs and alterations; alterations to northern boundary/access; erection of den and relocation of greenhouse and polytunnel – Shapcott Cottage, Whitnage) be approved subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
(v) No 10 on the Plans List (17/01333/LBC – Listed Building Consent for the erection of two storey extension following demolition of single storey extension and porch; internal and external repairs and alterations; alterations to northern boundary/access; erection of den and relocation of greenhouse and polytunnel – Shapcott Cottage, Whitnage) be approved subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
(b) No 2 on the Plans List (17/00914/OUT – Outline for the erection of 9 dwellings with associated access – land at NGR 277111 102951, Sunnymead, Copplestone)
The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report highlighting by way of presentation the location of the site outside the defined settlement boundary but central to the village envelope; the proposed access, the proposed parking area, the pavement which would be extended into Sunnymead and the indicative layout to the proposed dwellings to include the retention ponds. He highlighted the proposed footway link from the development to the school, the ditch which would be culverted and photographs from various aspects of the site.
He provided answers to the questions posed in public question time:
The impact of the proposed development on the residents – any impact would be greater during the construction period which could be controlled by conditions; Condition 5 required a construction maintenance plan to be provided which would include, the hours of work allowed and the construction material delivery method which would provide an element of control. With regard to parking, residents would still be able to park outside their houses if they chose too, a specific parking area was proposed as well as an extended pavement. The ditches near to the original dwellings would be culverted these would be dealt with via Condition 9. Advice had been sought from South West Water with regard to run off from adjacent fields, this was covered within conditions 9, 10 and 11. The designated turning area could be controlled. He was not aware of any thoughts regarding double yellow lines in the area.
Consideration was given to:
· The lack of 5 year land supply
· The proposed Section 106 agreement with regard to air quality and the commuted contribution towards the delivery of two affordable houses off-site
· The impact of the development on local residents in Sunnymead and the well-being of those residents
· Possible unacceptable strains on local facilities
· Possible alternative access routes
· The Highway Authority’s comments on the proposal
· Whether the village of Copplestone was sustainable
· Previous applications in the village and the S106 Agreements for those applications.
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 based on the following issues:
· The proposed development was outside the settlement limit
· The access arrangements were inappropriate
· Impact of the development on the residents of Sunnymead who all had special requirements and therefore the proposal would have a detrimental impact on their amenity
· Overdevelopment of the village.
(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr B A Moore)
Notes:
(i) Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as the access to the site was through the Council’s HRA land and he was the Cabinet Member for Housing;
(ii) Cllrs P J Heal and D R Coren declared personal interests as Ward Members and that they knew the applicant and objectors;
(iii) Mrs Greig spoke on behalf of the objectors;
(iv) Mr Pearcey (Applicant) spoke;
(v) Cllr Mrs Ollson spoke on behalf of the Parish Council;
(vi) Cllrs D R Coren and P J Heal spoke as Ward Members;
(vii) A proposal to approve the application was not supported;
(viii) The following late information was provided:
Amend the drafting of condition 9 as follows:
No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, incorporating any requirements resulting from the proposed alterations to the existing drainage ditch that runs parallel to the site boundary with Sunnymead.
The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system will be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in Preliminary Drainage Layout (Drawing No. 0663-PDL-101-B, Rev. B, dated 26/07/2017). The approved details shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved and maintained as such thereafter.
Amend condition 13 as follows:
No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a Phase 1 intrusive investigation has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include:
(i) A survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;
(ii) An assessment of the potential risks to:
- human health,
- property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes,
- adjoining land,
- groundwaters and surface waters,
- ecological systems,
- archeological sites and ancient monuments;
(iii) An appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).
This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'.
(c) No 3 on the Plans List (17/01108/OUT – Outline for the erection of a dwelling and new vehicular access – land and buildings at NGR 301748 115242 north-east of Twin Oaks, Uplowman)
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report highlighting by way of presentation the position of the proposed dwelling on the edge of the village, the proposed access point in the centre of the hedgerow, the existing access which would remain as access for agricultural use and photographs from various aspects of the site. She explained that being a village, Uplowman did not have a defined settlement limit.
Consideration was given to:
· Whether the proposal was defined as infill
· The school, public house and post office in the village
· Whether there was any physical harm of using the land for development of one dwelling
· Planning Policy with regard to development in unsustainable villages
· Repercussions of allowing such a site to be developed
· A previous appeal decision
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted for the following reasons:
The proposal is considered to be acceptable in that, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the benefits of provision of a single dwelling that respects the existing development pattern of Uplowman and has no unacceptable impact on highway safety, visual amenity and the amenity of neighbouring residents, are considered to outweigh the harm caused by new residential development in a countryside location that is considered to be unsustainable in planning policy terms.
Delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration to draft a set of conditions for the development and to secure relevant planning obligations under a Section 106 agreement.
(Proposed by Cllr R F Radford and seconded by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge)
Notes:
(i) Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge, Mrs C Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, R J Dolley, P J Heal, D J Knowles, F W Letch, B A Moore, R F Radford, J D Squire and R L Stanley made declarations in accordance with Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in deal with Planning Matters as they had received correspondence regarding the application;
(ii) Cllr R J Dolley declared a personal interest as he knew members of the public and the applicant;
(iii) Cllr R F Radford declared a personal interest as the applicant was known to him;
(iv) Mr Collier (Agent) spoke;
(v) The Chairman read a statement on behalf of the Chairman of Uplowman Parish Council;
(vi) A proposal to refuse the application was not supported (5 for: 6 against)
(d) No 4 on the Plans List (17/01142/FULL – Variation of Condition 9 of planning permission 16/01180/FULL to change sections i) and ii) of the condition with reference to the location and source of feedstock and the subsequent ultimate destination of digestate from the anaerobic digester – land at NGR 299621 112764 (Red Linhay) Crown Hill, Halberton)
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report highlighting by way of presentation the variation to Condition 9 related to the requirement for further sites for cropping and digestate supply. He highlighted via a plan the existing sites for cropping from and digestate to and the land currently being used. The variation to the condition would allow the farmer some flexibility with regard to rotation and crop failure.
He provided answers to questions posed in public question time:
The liquid would be taken by tankers and he did not foresee an increase in the number of trips, he also stated that there had been no objection from the Highway Authority. The variation of the condition allowed for crop rotations and crop failure. With regard to the silage stored on the site, this was part of the farming activity, having spoken with the Environmental Health Department, there has not been any reports regarding this issue.
Consideration was given to:
· Transport issues with regard to the number of trips and the size of the vehicles
· The impact of the variation on the village of Halberton
· Whether crop rotation could take place with the land that was already set out in previous applications
· The fact that there would not be an increase in the number of trips
· The intensity of spreading the digestate
· The flexibility required.
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.
(Proposed by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge and seconded by Cllr P J Heal)
Notes:
(i) Cllr R J Dolley stated that due to certain circumstances he would need to excuse himself from any discussion to do with the application and left the meeting during discussion thereon;
(ii) Mr Manley (Applicant) spoke.
e) No 6 on the Plans List (17/01224/OUT – Construction of new footpath and access steps to school entrance – land at NGR 301924 107472 – adjacent to St Andrews Primary School, St Andrews Estate, Cullompton)
The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report.
Consideration was given to the proposed footpath and whether there was an additional route to the school without having to use steps. It was explained that the existing route did not have steps
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
f) No 7 on the Plans List (17/01240/OUT – Outline for the erection of a dwelling – land at NGR 306965 114496 (2 Appledore Court) Burlescombe
The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report highlighting by way of presentation the site location plan, the access and photographs from various aspects of the site. She explained that this application was identical to the one previously refused by the Committee in July 2017.
Consideration was given to:
· The lack of a 5 year land supply and whether 1 dwelling would make a difference
· The proposal was a single dwelling in an unsustainable location
· The location of the proposal in the open countryside albeit in a small cluster of houses
RESOLVED that the Local Planning Authority declined to determine the (duplicate) application under S70 (b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge)
Notes: Mr Sebbinger (Agent) spoke;
Supporting documents: