Skip to main content

Agenda item

THE PLANS LIST (00-08-50)

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)       Applications dealt with without debate.

 

In accordance with its agreed procedure the Committee identified those applications contained in the Plans List which could be dealt with without debate.

 

RESOLVED that the following application be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the various recommendations contained in the list namely:

  

(i) No 7 on the Plans List (17/001602/FULL – Change of use from Use Class A1 (Retail) to Use Classes A3 (Restaurants and Cafes) and A5 (Hot Food takeaways – 10 Market Walk, Bampton Street, Tiverton)be approved subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.

(Proposed by the Chairman)

 

Note:  Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as Cabinet Member for Housing which included the property function.

 

(ii)  No 8 on the Plans List (17/001607/FULL – Change of use of ground floor and basement from Use Class D1 (Healthcare) to use Class A1 (Retail), 37 Bampton Street, Tiverton) be approved subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.

(Proposed by the Chairman)

 

(b)           No 1 on the Plans List (17/00824/FULL – Erection of 3 dwellings with associated access and parking provision – Springbourne, Cullompton).

The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation explaining that the site was part of the CU15 allocation within the Local Plan and highlighting the location of the site, the proposed site plan, the new access, the oak tree with a Tree Preservation Order which would be unaffected by the development, proposed elevations and floor plans for the dwellings and the details of the foul water and waste disposal from the site.  Members viewed photographs from various aspects of the site and were informed about the Town Council’s concerns regarding the access and overdevelopment of the site.  She made reference to the update sheet which outlined a revised recommendation, an addendum to the report with regard to permitted development rights and a proposal for an additional condition which referred to the oak tree.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         Whether the site and access was within the 30 mph speed limit

·         The new access to the development and the existing property

·         The low density on the site.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to:

 

·         The prior signing of a s106 Agreement relating to the provision of £4326 towards improvements to Knightswood play area and £15,654 towards funding community car share schemes and clubs for Cullompton;

 

·         Conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration with an additional condition stating that “Prior to the construction of the new access and driveway, an arboricultural method statement shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The arboricultural method statement should detail how the oak tree (the subject of the Tree Preservation Order) will be protected throughout the construction process as well as details of the no dig proposal and how it will be implemented and overseen”.

 

Reason : To ensure the protection of the oak tree protected by Tree PreservationOrder reference: 13/00001/TPO.

 

 

(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr  B A Moore)

 

Notes: 

 

i)          Mr Farmer (Agent) spoke;

 

ii)         Cllr Mrs A R Berry spoke as Ward Member

 

iii)       The following late information was provided: REVISED RECOMMENDATION: Subject to the prior signing of a s106 relating to the provision of £4326 towards improvements to Knightswood play area and £15,654 towards funding community car share schemes and clubs for Cullompton, grant planning permission subject to conditions:

 

Please note the required contributions have been paid

 

ADDENDUM TO THE REPORT:  Page 7 paragraph titled ‘design and appearance’ advises that a condition will be required to remove permitted development rights to manage the character, scale, massing and design of future extensions or alterations. However, during the writing of the report further consideration was given to the need for the condition and in particular consideration was given to the ‘tests’ for the use of conditions. Para 206 of the NPPF states that planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development being permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable. Given that the development is relatively low density, well -spaced with good size amenity spaces, and no overlooking or relationship issues with neighbouring development, it was not considered that removal of permitted development rights were necessary or reasonable.

 

ADDITIONAL CONDITION:

Prior to the construction of the new access and driveway, an arboricultural method statement shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The arboricultural method statement should detail how the Oak tree (the subject of the Tree Preservation Order) will be protected throughout the construction process as well as details of the no dig proposal and how it will be implemented and overseen.

 

Reason : To ensure the protection of the Oak tree protected by Tree Preservation Order reference: 13/00001/TPO.

 

 

(c)          No 2 on the Plans List (17/00910/FULL – Erection of 5 dwellings  and alterations to existing bungalow and the erection of garage – 10 Mayfair, Tiverton).

The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the location of the site, the existing site plan which identified the existing bungalow which would remain and the location of the tree group within the site plan, the proposed siting of the 5 new dwellings and the distances between the new dwellings (plots 4 and 5) and No’s 14 and 16 in Mayfair; the proposed elevations and floor plans of the proposed dwellings, the removal of the balcony from plot 5 which had originally been planned along with the reduced ridge height and a deeper landscaping buffer in this location.  She explained the junction improvements that had been made referring Members to Condition 5 and provided photographs from various aspects of the site.

 

Answering the question posed in public question time regarding density, she stated that she felt that the density was suitable to accommodate family style accommodation on this site; the density was 13.6 dwellings per hectare for this application. 15-20 dwellings per hectare were proposed for the adjacent part of Area B of the Eastern Urban Extension.

 

Consideration was given:

 

·         The density proposed for this site against that of Area B of the Eastern Urban Extension

·         The width of the driveway and access issues for construction traffic

·         Whether the drive would be adopted and the bin collection method

·         The design of the proposed dwellings

·         The density of the proposed development squeezed into one part of the site

·         Concerns regarding the impact of the development on existing properties in Mayfair

 

RESOLVED that the application be deferred  to allow for a site visit by the Planning Working Group to take place to consider:

 

·         The access

·         Whether the proposal was deemed to be overdevelopment of the site

·         The design and height of the proposed dwellings

·         The impact of the development in relation to existing properties

·         Whether the screening proposed was sufficient.

 

(Proposed by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge and seconded by Cllr R J Dolley)

 

Notes: 

 

(i)            Cllrs  Mrs H Bainbridge, Mrs C A Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, R J Dolley, P J Heal, B A Moore, R F Radford, J D Squire and R L Stanley made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning Matters as they had all received correspondence regarding the application;

 

(ii)          Mr Menheneott spoke on behalf of the objectors;

 

(iii)         Cllr C R Slade spoke as Ward Member;

 

(iv)         The following late information had been provided: Cllr Colin Slade has requested that the application be determined at Planning Committee to consider the extent of impact on the neighbouring properties including traffic impact.

 

The 3rd paragraph to Section 4: Social Infrastructure and Services should read as follows:

 

A recent change in planning legislation (May 2016) indicates that Local Planning Authorities should only seek affordable housing contributions from developments of over 10 units as financial contributions within Tiverton Settlement Limits.  As such, affordable housing cannot be sought for this proposal of 5 units.

 

During application discussions residents made a request that Councillors view the proposal on site.

 

Cabinet on 26 October 2017 resolved that subject to acceptable planning impacts, alternative access arrangements into Area B of the Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension may be considered that do not include Mayfair and / or Manley Lane / Post Hill Junction.

 

Government changes to the planning system (2016) indicate that within the settlement limit of Tiverton, as in this case, affordable housing can only be sought from developments of more than 10 houses. This application is for 5 houses.

 

(d)          No 3 on the Plans List (17/01310/FULL – Retention of summerhouse and decking – The Wharf House, Holcombe Rogus)

The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location plan, the proposed site plan, the proximity to the Grand Western Canal, the proposed existing elevations, the proposed floor plans as existing and photographs from various aspects of the site including views from the canal towpath.  She explained the proposed condition (3) which only permitted the garden room to be used ancillary to the main dwelling known as the Wharf House which may overcome some of the concerns of the Ward Member.

 

Consideration was given:

 

·         To the fact that the garden room was well screened

·         The concerns of the Ward Member with regard to the proximity of the proposal to the unspoilt area of the canal

·         Water mains and sewage issues

·         The  lack of concern from the Parish Council

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration

 

(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr J M Downes)

 

Notes: 

 

i)           Mr Cookson (Agent) spoke;

 

ii)         Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge spoke as Ward Member;

 

iii)       Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge requested that her abstention from voting be recorded.

 

(e)          No 4 on the Plans List (17/01344/FULL – stabilisation of existing bank to allow development permitted under planning permission 15/00779/MFUL – land at NGR 294775 111860, Palmerston Park, Tiverton)

The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the requirement for the stabilisation of the existing bank to allow development of the site to continue.  She explained the construction of 26 affordable dwellings, highlighting the site of the retaining wall, the development work that had taken place to date and the need to coppice the sycamore trees to ground level to allow for the soil nailing to be undertaken and for mesh to be put in place, the trees would then have the ability to re-grow.  Members viewed photographs from various aspects of the site which identified the slope, the maccaferri wall and the site access.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The development on the site

·         The trees that would be coppiced to allow for soil nailing and be allowed to re-grow

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration

 

(Proposed by Cllr R J Dolley and seconded by Cllr P J Heal)

 

Notes: 

 

i)          Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as the Cabinet Member for Housing and chose to leave the meeting during discussions thereon as he had been involved in matters with regard to the site;

 

ii)         Cllr R J Dolley declared a personal interest as he was Ward Member and had had discussions with the site manager and workers and had accompanied other Members to the site;

 

iii)       Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe made a declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning Matters as the site was within her County Ward;

 

 

iv)       Cllr R J Dolley spoke as Ward Member.

 

(f)           No 5 on the Plans List (17/001430/FULL – Installation of 8 replacement windows to west elevation – 17 St Peter Street, Tiverton)

The Conservation Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the location of the Grade II Listed Building and the elevation (for the installation of the windows) facing onto St Peters Street.  She explained that the property had been adapted to flats in the 1970’s and that the building been listed in 2000, when only the exterior of the property had been viewed.  During the adaptation into flats much of the historic interior value had been lost.  The applicant had contacted Historic England to request that the property be delisted because of the lack of historic value internally, however this had been declined.  She further explained that the current timber window frames were in poor condition, but that she could not support the use of uPVC windows which she felt would harm the authenticity of the listed building.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The use of uPVC in listed buildings

·         The quality of the uPVC and whether you would notice the difference

·         The replacement windows would improve the front elevation of the dwelling

·         The fact that the building was in a bad state of repair

·         An example of where uPVC had been used in an  unlisted building in a Conservation Area

·         The Georgian property and the fact that none of the original windows remained

·         That the internal layout of the flats created partitions that crossed windows, and therefore the original pattern of the windows could not be reintroduced

·         The possibility of accepting a compromise so that the façade could be improved

·         Whether the insertion of uPVC windows would set a precedent.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted for the following reasons: having considered carefully the existing character and appearance of the property and its location, the proposal was considered an improvement over the existing windows and to not detract from the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and that delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration to produce a set of conditions.

 

(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr P J Heal)

 

Notes: 

 

(i)        Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe declared a personal interest as the applicant was known to her;

 

(ii)       Cllr R L Stanley made a declaration in  accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning Matters as he had received correspondence regarding this matter;

 

(iii)      Mr Burrage (applicant) spoke;

 

(iv)      Cllrs Mrs B M Hull and Mrs E J Slade spoke as Ward Members;

 

(v)       A proposal to refuse the application was not supported;

 

 

(g)          No 6 on the Plans List (17/001431/LBC – Listed Building Consent for Installation of 8 replacement windows to west elevation – 17 St Peter Street, Tiverton)

The Conservation Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the location of the Grade II Listed Building and the elevation (for the installation of the windows) facing onto St Peters Street.  She explained that the property had been adapted to flats in the 1970’s and that the building been listed in 2000, when only the exterior of the property had been viewed.  During the adaptation into flats much of the historic interior value had been lost.  The applicant had contacted Historic England to request that the property be delisted because of the lack of historic value internally, however this had been declined.  She further explained that the current timber window frames were in poor condition, but that she could not support the use of uPVC windows which she felt would harm the authenticity of the listed building.

 

Consideration was given to :

 

·         The use of uPVC in listed buildings

·         The quality of the uPVC and whether you would notice the difference

·         The replacement windows would improve the front elevation of the dwelling

·         The fact that the building was in a bad state of repair

·         An example of where uPVC had been used in an  unlisted building in a Conservation Area

·         The Georgian property and the fact that none of the original windows remained

·         That the internal layout of the flats created partitions that crossed windows, and therefore the original pattern of the windows could not be reintroduced

·         The possibility of accepting a compromise so that the façade could be improved

·         Whether the insertion of uPVC windows would set a precedent.

 

RESOLVED that Listed Building Consent be granted for the following reasons: having considered carefully the existing character and appearance of the property as a listed building and its location, the proposal was considered an improvement over the existing windows, to cause less than substantial harm and to not detract from the character or appearance of the Listed Building  taking into account the specific replacement windows proposed in terms of their design, materials and resultant quality;and that delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration to produce a set of conditions.

 

(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr P J Heal)

 

Notes: 

 

(i)            Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe declared a personal interest as the applicant was known to her;

 

(ii)      Cllr R L Stanley made a declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning Matters as he had received correspondence regarding this matter;

 

(iii)         Mr Burrage (applicant) spoke;

 

(iv)         Cllrs Mrs B M Hull and Mrs E J Slade spoke as Ward Members;

 

(v)          The following late information was reported: Delete reference to COR2 from development plan policies, material considerations and reason for refusal 1.Unlike the accompanying planning application, as this is an application for Listed Building Consent, Local Plan policy COR2 is not relevant.

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: