Use the below search options at the bottom of the page to find information regarding recent decisions that have been taken by the council’s decision making bodies.
Alternatively you can visit the officer decisions page for information on officer delegated decisions that have been taken by council officers.
Decision Maker: Cabinet
Made at meeting: 13/02/2020 - Cabinet
Decision published: 17/02/2020
Effective from: 22/02/2020
Decision:
The Cabinet had before it a * report of the Director of Corporate Affairs and Business Transformation advising Members of the results for the tendering of the External Painting and Repairs of the Council homes for the next 5 years (2020-2025).
The Cabinet Member for Housing and Property Services outlined the contents of the report stating that the contract was for 3 years with the option to extend it for a further two individual years subject to performance and informed the meeting of the number of houses repaired and painted per annum.
RESOLVED that: the contract for works required to decorate the Council’s homes for 2020-2025 be awarded to Contractor 3with a forecast annual cost £300,000.00 be approved. This is a three year contract with the option to extend for a further two individual years subject to acceptable performance. The contract has been awarded to the contractor with the highest combined price/quality score with 60% of the total score based on price and 40% quality.
(Proposed by Cllr S J Clist and seconded by Cllr G Barnell)
Note: *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
To consider a revised policy.
Decision Maker: Cabinet
Made at meeting: 13/02/2020 - Cabinet
Decision published: 17/02/2020
Effective from: 22/02/2020
Decision:
Arising from a *report of the Group Manager for Building Services, the Homes Policy Development Group had recommended that the Review of Improvements to Council Properties Policy be approved.
The Cabinet Member for Housing and Property Services outlined the contents of the report stating that there had been minor changes to the policy which would be for officer use and tenant reference, this policy would be aligned with the latest tenancy agreements and also the tenant compensation policy.
Consideration was given to the involvement of the Tenants Together Group with the Group Manager for Housing agreeing to provide additional feedback to members.
RESOLVED that the recommendation of the Policy Development Group be approved.
(Proposed by Cllr S J Clist and seconded by Cllr D J Knowles)
Note: * Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
To consider a revised policy.
Decision Maker: Cabinet
Made at meeting: 13/02/2020 - Cabinet
Decision published: 17/02/2020
Effective from: 22/02/2020
Decision:
Arising from a *report of the Group Manager for Building Services, the Homes Policy Development Group had recommended that the revised Tenant Compensation Policy be approved.
The Cabinet Member for Housing and Property Services outlined the contents of the report highlighting the summary of additions and revisions outlined in appendix 1, which took into consideration tenant feedback, comments and complaints and provided greater clarity to tenants seeking compensations or looking to make qualifying improvements
Consideration was given to the involvement of the Tenants Together Group with the Group Manager for Housing agreeing to provide additional feedback to members.
RESOLVED that the recommendation of the Policy Development Group be approved.
(Proposed by Cllr S J Clist and seconded by Cllr L D Taylor)
Note: * Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
Decision Maker: Cabinet
Made at meeting: 13/02/2020 - Cabinet
Decision published: 17/02/2020
Effective from: 22/02/2020
Decision:
Arising from a report of the Deputy Chief Executive (S151), the Homes Policy Development Group had made the following recommendation with regard to the budget: that the proposed savings identified in relation to the weed team be removed and that the budget in this area be retained.
It was also noted that the other 3 PDGs had also agreed with the above recommendation.
The Cabinet Member for the Environment informed the meeting that the Weed Team project was added very late in the 2019/20 budget with no cost appraisal and without an idea of how effective it would be. The 2 man team had focussed on Tiverton, there had been little evaluation of the work that had taken place and that a number of parishes already precepted for such work to take place within their own areas. It was felt that this was a discretionary service and that the statutory responsibility lay with the County Council.
Discussion took place with regard to:
· The volunteers who picked up litter and disposed of weeds
· Whether the weed team could be funded by the parishes through their precepts
· The need to consider savings within the budget
· The possible requirement for a policy to consider what we would expect the town and parish councils to precept for.
It was therefore
RESOLVED that the recommendation of the Policy Development Group not be supported and that the proposed savings identified in relation to the weed team remain.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
To consider the disposal of an asset
Decision Maker: Cabinet
Made at meeting: 13/02/2020 - Cabinet
Decision published: 17/02/2020
Effective from: 22/02/2020
Lead officer: Andrew Busby
To receive an update on the income generation
and financial implications of the number of Business Rate
properties and to approve the NNDR1.
Decision Maker: Cabinet
Made at meeting: 13/02/2020 - Cabinet
Decision published: 17/02/2020
Effective from: 22/02/2020
Decision:
The Cabinet had before it a *report from the Group Manager for Revenues and Benefits providing Members with an update of the income generation and financial implications of the number of Business Rate properties in Mid Devon and to approve the NNDR1 (estimated income to be generated in 2020/21 from business rates). The report also included the introduction of the refreshed Business Rates Discretionary Relief Policy.
The Cabinet Member for Finance outlined the contents of the report informing the meeting of the statutory collection process for business rates, the estimated net yield from business rates for 2020/21 and how this was redistributed. There would be no grant from the DCLG towards collecting the business rates but that the authority would continue to retain the income from qualifying renewable energy schemes.
Consideration was given to:
· What qualified as renewable energy schemes
· The business rates reserve
· The Devonwide business rates pool
· Discretionary relief
RESOLVED :
a) That the calculation of the NNDR1 net yield of £15.600m from 3206 Business Rated properties be noted and approved for 2020/21;
b) That the proportions distributed to the respective authorities and Central Government be allocated as per the statutory regulations; and
c) That Members note that Central Government will reimburse the Council through a Section 31 grant to compensate it for the reduction in collectable business rates as a result of introducing reliefs;
d) That the revised Business Rates Discretionary Relief Policy be approved.
(Proposed by Cllr A White and seconded Cllr G Barnell)
Note: *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
Lead officer: Andrew Jarrett
To consider a revised policy.
Decision Maker: Cabinet
Made at meeting: 13/02/2020 - Cabinet
Decision published: 17/02/2020
Effective from: 22/02/2020
Decision:
Arising from a *report of the Group Manager for Housing, the Homes Policy Development Group has recommended that the revised Income Management Policy be approved.
The Cabinet Member for Housing and Property Services outlined the contents of the report stating that slight amendments had been made to the original policy with reference to vulnerable clients, payments arrangements, and expectations of new tenants, the rationale for new tenant visits and generally how both parties should act.
RESOLVED that the recommendation of the Policy Development Group be approved.
(Proposed by Cllr S J Clist and seconded by the Leader)
Note: * Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
Decision Maker: Planning Committee
Made at meeting: 12/02/2020 - Planning Committee
Decision published: 14/02/2020
Effective from: 12/02/2020
Decision:
The Committee had before it a * report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration considering revisions to the wording of three of the Heads of Terms of the S106 agreement and the associated S106 implications from those proposed revisions. The resolution made by Members of the Planning Committee on the 19th September 2018 was for planning permission to be granted subject the prior signing of a S106 agreement, with the revisions sought relating to planning obligation numbers 1, 2 and 4 as outlined within the resolution. Delegated authority was also requested to allow minor changes to the wording of planning conditions in order to allow for a phased approach to development across the site.
The Area Team Leader informed the meeting of the contents of the update sheet which referred to an enquiry from Sandford Parish Council with regard whether S106 contributions towards improvements to the existing public rights of way could be used to deliver a footpath/cyclepath between the site and the village of Sandford.
He answered the questions posed in public question time
· With regard to what would happen to the land if the school was not progressed, then the land would go back to the applicant and further planning permission would be required.
· With regard to the policy allocation for 200 dwellings whereas the proposed development was for 257 which was considered due to viability in order to provide land for the rugby club. The 257 dwellings were granted planning permission in 2018, where it was noted that the viability appraisals did not include for this provision in the Heads of Terms.
· With regard to the rugby club and that they were being kept at arms length with regard to any discussions. He stated that officers had been in discussions with the rugby club with regard to the transfer of the land, the rugby club had wanted a nil or nominal rate; this had been clarified by Counsel’s advice; the land would be safeguarded for the rugby club but would not be transferred at a nil/notional value.
The officer further explained and listed the Heads of Terms that required amendment (as identified in the report) and the delegated authority that was sought for the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.
Consideration was given to:
· Clarification with regard to the safeguarding/transfer of land and the amendment that pre-commencement conditions be removed
· That maybe following delegation to the Head of Planning Economy and Regeneration consultation take place with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Ward Members to make any changes to the wording of the planning conditions
· The views of the representative of Crediton Rugby Club with regard to how the club had supported the application on the basis that they would receive land; any transfer on terms discussed today would not enable the club to move. He asked that the application be reviewed in it’s entirely so that all matters could be reconsidered.
· The views of the agent for the applicant with regard to the fact that amendments to the 3 Heads of terms would enable the development to be unlocked, the safeguarding of the land for a period of 15 years for the rugby club, the policy changes within the emerging Local Plan which had an impact on the Gypsy and Traveller site and that the flexibility within the S106 agreement would allow for the funding of the proposed cycle path.
· The views of the Chairman of Sandford Parish Council with regard to the vision of a footpath/cyclepath between the development and Sandford village
· The view of the representative from Upton Hellions Parish Meeting with regard to the financial package and the need for further consultation to benefit both the parishes impacted upon by the development.
· The views of the Ward Members with regard to the flexibility within the S106 to contribute towards a footpath between the development and Sandford Village. The need for consultation with the local communities, the need for community engagement, cycling/walking routes should be encouraged and flexibility within the S106 for sustainable travel.
· Clarification from officers that the cycleway could be formed from the flexibility within the S106 agreement
· The provision of the school on the site
RESOLVED:
a) That the revisions to the s106 agreement as set out in paragraph 3.1 be agreed and a S106 agreement be entered into in line with the proposed revisions.
b) That delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration in consultation with Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee and local Ward Members to allow minor changes to wording of planning conditions as reported within the committee report to allow for a phased approach to development across the site.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Notes:
i) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe declared a personal interest as the applicant was known to her;
ii) Cllr F W Letch declared a personal interest as he had attended a presentation at the rugby club;
iii) Cllrs: E J Berry Mrs F J Colthorpe, Mrs C P Daw, Mrs C Collis, L J Cruwys, S J Clist, F W Letch, E G Luxton, D J Knowles, R F Radford, Mrs M E Squires , Miss E Wainwright and B G J Warren made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had received correspondence from the applicant/agent;
iv) Mr Graves spoke on behalf of Crediton Rugby Club;
v) Mr Smith spoke as agent;
vi) The Chairmen of Sandford parish Council and Upton Hellions Parish Meeting spoke;
vii) Cllrs Mrs M E Squires and Miss E Wainwright spoke as Ward Members;
viii) The following late information was reported:
Sandford Parish Council has enquired whether S106 contributions identified towards improvements to the existing Public Rights of Way network could be used to deliver a footpath/cycleway between the Pedlerspool site (Creedy Bridge) to the village of Sandford. Through a meeting with the Local Highway Authority it was explained that the S106 monies contained within the Heads of Terms have been allocated to identify projects and therefore changes at this late stage are not possible.
The scheme for the Sandford Path has not been worked up to a point to show exact costings involved with confirmation obtained by land owners but an alternative route of achieving this project following further work such as through the Boniface Trail (which has Cabinet support from Devon County Council) has been outlined to Sandford Parish Council.
Extract from officers report to highlight changes being proposed
3.1 The proposed changes to the planning obligations heads of terms 1, 2 and 4 are as follows:
1. The safeguarding of a 1.1ha site for a Primary School and obligations securing the transfer of said site to Devon County Council if required by the County Council within an agreed time period running from Commencement of Development and expiring 5 years after any Commencement on the western development parcel.
2. The setting out of a 0.3ha site for provision of up to 5 pitches for the Gypsy and Traveller Community or (if approved by the Council pursuant to the approved scheme) provision of a site with equivalent capacity off-site (or the expansion of an existing Gypsy and Traveller Site) and the following provisions regards delivery and operation:
Prior to Occupation of more than 75% of Dwellings:
(i) Provision of 5 serviced pitches on-site prior to Occupation of more than 75% of Dwellings; OR
(ii) If approved by the Council in writing (having regard to criteria under DM7) provision of 5 serviced pitches off-site (new site or extension to existing) OR provision of land off-site and contribution of £500K for Council to deliver.
Prior to Occupation of more than 43% of Dwellings:
(i) Submission and approval of scheme confirming which of the above options is proposed
Cascade:
If offer the pitches/site (whether on or off site) to RP’s for more than 12 months (and then Council) for nominal consideration and Owner is unable to find party willing to contract to take the G&T site then Owner may opt instead to discharge obligation through the provision of 5 extra Affordable Housing Units (either on the G&T site pursuant to new full application for said land or elsewhere within the Development). Mix of said units to be 60/40 rented/intermediate as per existing Affordable Housing units.
4. The safeguarding of 8.6ha of land shown edged [ ] on Plan x appended hereto for the relocation of the Crediton Rugby Club and provisions requiring:
· said site to be transferred to the Council or its nominee (i.e. the Rugby Club) if called for within a period expiring at the date 15 years from the grant of the planning permission; and
· the provision of a suitable temporary and permanent access road to the boundary of said site.
Decision Maker: Planning Committee
Made at meeting: 12/02/2020 - Planning Committee
Decision published: 14/02/2020
Effective from: 12/02/2020
Decision:
RESOLVED that the following application be determined or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the various recommendations contained in the list namely:
(i) No 1 on the Plans List (19/02034/LBC Listed Building Consent for internal alterations to create an en-suite shower room - The Old Carriage House, St Andrew Street North, Tiverton)) be approved subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.
(Proposed by Cllr L J Cruwys and seconded by Cllr D J Knowles)
b) No 2 on the Plans List (19/0928/MFUL Erection of buildings incorporating employment (B1/B2/B8) with associated infrastructure – land at NGR 305390 112177 (Hitchcocks Business Park) Uffculme).
The Interim Group Manager for Development outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the location of the proposed development within the site, the proposed floor space of the 3 proposals and members were reminded of the fact that this was now a revised smaller scheme than originally proposed. Members viewed the layout of the 3 areas, the site sections, floor plans and elevations and viewed photographs from various aspects of the site.
The officer added that the proposal was in line with Policy DM20 of the Local Plan and highlighted the updates within the update sheet which included the following: a representation from the MDDC, Growth, Economy and Delivery Section and Halberton Parish Council, a response from the Environment Agency and a further objection.
The officer then supplied answers to questions posed in public question time:
· With regard to climate change and the Council’s aim to become net zero by 2030, there was a need to look at the current planning policies within the existing Local Plan.
· With regard to light pollution, the application had been thoroughly scrutinised and external consultees had found that the mitigation that had been put in place was acceptable.
· With regard to responses to the original application, those responses were still on the file for everyone to view.
· With regard to Policy DM20, the policy did allow for this type of development, officers had been working with the Growth, Economy and Delivery Team to make sure that the needs of the policy had been met.
Consideration was given to:
· The details of the travel plan
· The lateness of the Growth, Economy and Delivery Team’s response
· The views of the objector with regard to the views of the local community with regard to the proposal, the cumulative impact of continued development on the village of Uffculme and the roads leading to the village. The number of applications that had been submitted for the site and the fact that the local habitat was being changed forever.
· The views of the applicant with regard to the 100% occupancy of all units on the site and the mixture of small and large businesses in residence. The application would contribute to the traffic on local roads but lots of cars travelled along that road heading for the motorway junctions. It was intended that investment would be made in solar energy where possible. The site continued to provide employment in the local area.
· The views of the local Ward Member with regard to the scaled back proposal, Halberton Parish Council were in support of the proposal and it would create jobs in the area, the smaller units on plot 1 should be encouraged, the Growth, Economy and Delivery Team supported the proposal and there had been no objection from the Highway Authority.
· The site was not outlined within the current or emerging Local Plan, although officers considered it to be in line with Policy DM20; there was a need for the countryside to be protected and maybe there was a need for an additional condition with regard to extra planting/screening around the site.
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that: planning permission be granted subject to the prior signing of a S106 agreement to secure:
a) A financial contribution towards the installation of a visibility control at the junction roundabout at J27 of M5 or the installation of the scheme to address the issue of minor shunts and:
b) A travel plan to seek to reduce overall reliance on private car travel to the site.
And conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration with an additional condition to be added after Condition 2 to state:
Reason: To ensure that the size of the units remains appropriate for starter and grow on space
With a further condition in respect of screening/additional planting around the site.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Notes:
i) Cllr B G J Warren made a declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as a member of Willand Parish Council which had been involved in discussions regarding the site;
ii) Mr Hills spoke on behalf of the objectors;
iii) Mr Persey (applicant) spoke;
iv) Cllr R F Radford spoke as Ward Member;
v) The following late information was reported:
MDDC - Growth, Economy and Delivery (GED) – 3 February 2020.
The Growth, Economy and Delivery (GED) team strongly supports this planning application.
The award winning business park has delivered a significant proportion of the District’s economic growth (delivery of employment space, job creation and business investment) over the past 5 years, and is looking to build upon this success. The proposed units will enable local businesses to grow, and will help to meet the demand for business space which is currently outstripping the supply of commercial and industrial units across Mid Devon and the surrounding areas (most of our business sites and commercial land owners have waiting lists of interested businesses).
The site’s occupants provide employment for over 600 people, with jobs at a variety of salary levels, including higher level technical and specialist roles.
It is unfortunate that the owner has chosen to withdraw the larger scheme they originally put forward and is instead going for a smaller project. The larger, masterplanned scheme would have delivered far greater benefits to the local area (greater pedestrianisation between Willand and Uffculme, park and community facilities etc), and there is a real risk of these benefits being lost through a potential return to a piecemeal approach to developing Hitchcocks. However, we recognise the reasons behind the decision, and will continue to support the business park and its further development.
HALBERTON PARISH COUNCIL 15th January 2020 - No objections. The Council supports the scaled down application and the provision of much needed local employment.
Response from Environment Agency 07.02.2020
Thank you for re-consulting us on this application.
Environment Agency position
Following review of the Foul Drainage Statement (AWP, dated 23rd December 2019), we confirm that we have no objection to the proposed development. The reason for this position and advice is provided below.
Reason – We have reviewed the further information provided within the Foul Drainage Statement and consider this to adequately demonstrate that the proposed foul drainage arrangement is acceptable. The proposal complies with our requirements and with the General Binding Rules.
Additional condition to be added after Condition 2
· The floorspace hereby approved under drawing reference 180209 Unit F3 01 01 C shall not be amalgamated and/or let to provide an individual unit of more than 288 sq m.
· The buildings hereby approved under drawing reference 180209 Unit F1 01 01 F shall not be amalgamated or let to provide an individual unit of more than 216 sqm.
· The buildings hereby approved under drawing reference 180209 Unit F 01 01 H shall not be amalgamated or let to provide an individual unit of more than 216 sq m. and there shall be no more than three units beyond 144 sq m in total.
Reason: To ensure that the size of the units remains appropriate for starter and grow on space
From an objector :
Re: Scientific report on behalf of the applicant on air quality and proposed additional HGV and car movements (60 lorries and 700 cars):
· Cars, of the employees (approx. 700), in all probability will all turn up to and exit the site at roughly the same time; and anyone familiar with the locality cannot possibly consider that the impact of such a significant increase in vehicular movement and accompanying pollution (air quality) could be anything other than significant; especially as additional to the existing and currently expanding new developments of residential properties in close proximity on two sides of the site’s perimeter and only metres away.
· The residential developments themselves are a source of additional vehicular movement and pollution to the existing residential developments (both the established developments and those still under construction). No consideration at all has been given to the fact that the full effects of the latter properties are yet to have been established as not yet built/completed! Already, residential vehicles and ‘white’ goods vehicles are congested up and down Bridwell Lane; a lane which cannot accommodate the passing of two cars even, in places, let alone commercial vehicles with local car drivers having to repeatedly reverse a significant distance back along a narrow and bendy road with road users displaying varying degrees of ‘courtesy’ and ‘care’ (often both absent) i.e. not very safe.
· Much of the commercial traffic (although not all) will probably arrive via the M5 and travel along the upper road to Uffculme B....’, which is already becoming increasingly congested; especially at the Old Well / Waterloo Cross roundabout and the access road from it to the M5 roundabout resulting often in 20 minutes of vehicular queueing; especially when loading is taking place at the ‘Waterloo Cross’ (the linking road suffering much pot-holed disrepair which will be exacerbated throughout the area if the expansion goes ahead).
· The residents of Uffculme have limited road access to the M5, the main two running alongside Bridwell Manor and Uffculme School; both already suffering from the lack of two car passage at certain points; both with difficult access to join the top road (B) to access the M5 at Jctn 27; both already becoming increasingly hazardous due to the already increased weight of traffic, especially heavy goods vehicles; posing a hazard to people, children and domestic vehicles.
· Both these access roads are hazardous, having generally poor visibility, including at their respective junctions with the upper road B... (which also has poor lighting), currently having no assistance provided to aid safe access across oncoming traffic to join the traffic flow in direction of the M5.
· The alternative is to travel the ‘long’ route, Uffculme Road (the ‘Uffculme straight’), to Willand roundabout and then retrace the journey back along the B... (upper road) where the site’s access for 700 to 800 vehicles is to be situated, including at least 60 heavy/commercial vehicles! This weight of traffic is compounded by the relative narrowness of the road for heavy lorry usage with large vehicles passing very close as they travel in the opposite direction, also creating sudden and significant backdraft as they hurtle pass small vehicles travelling in the opposite direction (and pedestrians).
· Similarly, potential pedestrian use of the upper road (B... ) has not been considered. The pavement, in combination with a lack of lighting is already inadequate and dangerous for the safe passage of pedestrians; especially due to the closeness of the road to the path and the strong back draft created by passing heavy goods vehicles.
· There seems to be no consideration of the yet to be built Junction 27 major industrial and commercial development (or the current expansion of the Mid Devon Industrial Park with its industrial units or the large scale residential developments, not only in Uffculme but also Willand and Tiverton Parkway localities). Travelling along the ‘Uffculme straight’ in the direction of Willand to access Cullompton and/or the M5 at J 28 is becoming increasingly congested; with traffic already trailing at peak times the whole length of Millennium Way at Cullompton for those travelling to Cullompton Tesco etc or the M5 at J 28; where queuing is regularly 30 minutes plus (on outward and incoming journeys).
Noise Pollution – This has been given little if any consideration; either whilst proposed building works take place or/and when the site is completed and the site is up and running:
· 700 cars and 60 lorries are going to generate significant noise and gas emissions/pollution.
· The noise and vibration effects from building works in the early stages of Luccombe Park, were protracted and invasive. I am sure no residents in the locality would relish a prolonged repeat of this; with the constant ‘thumping’ sound and accompanying vibration felt all day every day, for weeks; even though we ourselves are not the nearest of properties to the building works; it drove us ‘mad’; initially thinking a neighbour had a washing machine and tumble dryer running constantly in their garage (not attached to our house) but subsequently found this not to be the case as it was the building works.
· Is Mid Devon going to allow residents to suffer a repeat of the Luccombe Park building nightmare and inconvenience; including protracted use of temporary traffic lights, which impacted upon residents’ movements (‘imprisoning’ Culm Valley Way residents for significant periods) and the additional misery which would be created going forward?
All the above makes a mockery of the applicant’s expert conclusion that they do not see any negative traffic or pollution impacts prior to 2024! The area is already suffering impact from these!
Sewage - What exactly is the provision for this? This seems a vital consideration which has yet to be fully considered or addressed! How can a ‘large scale’ development such as this be given any consideration at all without detail of provision for this and drainage in place? We often suffer drainage issues and have noticed an increase in vehicular ‘drainage’ activity in the locality; as well as historical flooding across the Uffculme straight in the region of the Luccombe Park development and beyond.
Flood risk (none?)
· I find this a strange conclusion as I have repeatedly, following heavy rainfall had to travel along Bridwell Lane up to the ‘top ‘road’ (B... ); to avoid the flooding which takes place along the stretch of road passing between the Hitchcock’s site and Langlands Industrial Estate/ Luccombe Park (Uffculme Road); and have witnessed other more intrepid drivers stranded, broken down in the flood water as their vehicle has not been designed to negotiate deep water or ‘flooding’!
· Surely the further reduction in natural soakaway land down to Uffculme Road and across it, by the increase in concrete coverage will exacerbate the likelihood and extent of flooding in this locality (and potentially of homes); especially as the land on the ‘Uffculme straight’ side of the site (and the site itself) slopes downwards to the ‘Uffculme straight’ and beyond?The fields becoming flooded now from Uffculme to Cullompton (and no doubt beyond)
Finally, the existing site is an eyesore and very visible from Bridwell Lane and Uffculme Road. The village of Uffculme remains a small one, which would be visually and practically dominated by such an extension of the Hitchcock’s site, as proposed. To allow this proposal to go ahead would render Uffculme a giant industrial estate which has a tiny residential component at its centre. Its residents would find themselves living in the middle of a giant industrial estate (combined areas)with detrimental associated issues. This cannot be right or humane on any level; noise, pollution, flooding, inconvenience, hazard, ‘green’, environmental and ecological issues and last but not least, the health and safety of local residents with their right to live in a decent and appropriate environment; one in which they can thrive and which is conducive to their general well-being.
If the residents of Uffculme had been happy to live in the midst of an industrial estate, they would have moved into an area where such existed and one in which the house prices and council charges would have been significantly lower than residents of Uffculme have paid for the privilege of enjoying some semblance of the benefits just listed There must be more appropriate ‘brown’ sites where this plant could be situated; it certainly does not need to be situated in a location which results in residents finding themselves but a speck in the middle of an industrial estate/s!
I hope these comments may contribute to any discussionand subsequent decision.
c) No 3 on the Plans List (19/01608/HOUSE – erection of a single storey extension and separate garage/annex/workshop accommodation – Tanglewood, Dukes Orchard, Bradninch).
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report and reminded those present that the application had been deferred from a previous meeting to allow for a site visit to take place by the Planning Working Group. He highlighted by way of presentation the location of the application site, the proposals which included the proposed elevations and floor plans and photographs from various aspects of the site.
Consideration was given to:
· How the proposed condition 10 would be enforced
· The views of the objector with regard to the impact of the proposal on her property, the garage with accommodation would have an overbearing impact and there would be overlooking issues on her bungalow and her garden.
· The major concern was that of the position of the proposed garage not the erection of a single storey extension
· Whether the proposal was visually unattractive and had an adverse effect on the amenity of the neighbouring property and therefore against policy DM2 of the Local Plan
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that: Members were minded to refuse the application and therefore wished to defer the application for an implications report to consider the proposed reasons for refusal, that of: the proposal was not in accordance with Policies DM13 (a) and (c) of the Local Plan Part 3 (Development Plan Policies)
a) Respect the character, scale, setting and design of existing
dwelling;
c) Will not have a significantly adverse impact on the
living conditions of occupants of neighbouring properties.
and DM2 (a) and (e) of the Local Plan Part 3 (Development Plan Policies)
a) Clear understanding of the characteristics of the site, its wider
context and the surrounding area;
e) Visually attractive places that are well integrated with
surrounding buildings, streets and landscapes, and do not have
an unacceptably adverse effect on the privacy and amenity
of the proposed or neighbouring properties and uses, taking
account of:
i) Architecture
ii) Siting, layout, scale and massing
iii) Orientation on and fenestration
iv) Materials, landscaping and green infrastructure
(Proposed by Cllr B G J Warren and seconded by Cllr E J Berry)
Notes:
i) Cllr E J Berry declared a personal interest as he knew the objector;
ii) Mrs Brown (objector) spoke;
iii) A proposal to approve the application was not supported.
d) No 4 on the Plans List (19/01156/FULL Installation of a 24MW Reserve Power Plant with associated infrastructure – land at NGR 302839 111143, Lloyd Maunder Road, Willand).
The Interim Group Manager for Development outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the location of the proposal, which was outside of the settlement limit but close to existing development; blocks plans, a plan identifying the treeline and gas pipe, proposed elevations, photographs of the proposed power plant and also photographs from various aspects of the site. She highlighted page 154 of the NPPF and the need for renewable and low carbon energy, she explained how the proposed power plant would be fuelled using bio-methane, derived from both the national grid and the neighbouring AD facility and how that power would be distributed and when and that the energy would be classed as renewable.
Referring to the question posed in public question time, there was a need to consider the application before the committee today. The application had been screened for an Environmental Impact Assessment but was not an Environmental Impact Assessment development.
Consideration was given to:
· The views of the representative of the CPRE who felt that the proposal was for a mini power station on greenfield land, the proposal was not a renewable energy generator or a low carbon facility that therefore contrary to policies COR5, COR18 and DM5. The proposal would have a massive carbon footprint which would only be used for a maximum of 4 hours per day.
· The views of the agent with regard to the need to support the Devon Climate Declaration, the proposal was in line with becoming carbon neutral but that there was an intermittent source of sun/wind and therefore a fluctuation of energy generation, it was therefore necessary for storage facilities to be made available. She reminded those present that the NPPF was very clear with regard to the need for low carbon technology to reduce emissions and the certification process that was required.
· The views of the representative from Willand Parish Council with regard to the proposal not complying with the NPPF or policy COR 18, that natural gas was a fossil fuel, there had been no discussion with regard to the safety of the plant and no agreement with the National Grid/Western Power that they would accept the energy.
· The views of the Ward Members with regard to the impact on the local residential area, the proposal was outside of the settlement limit, would the energy being used be renewable? How would it be known that the energy being drawn from the national Grid was renewable. Was there any evidence for the need. An application to increase the tonnage used in the AD plant.
· Whether the application was premature as there was a need for the additional tonnage for the AD plant to be determined.
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that: Members were minded to refuse the application and therefore wished to defer the application for an implications report to consider the proposed reasons for refusal:
The application was:
· In the open countryside
· Not producing renewable energy
· Not an energy efficient measure
· Not in accordance with Policies COR5, DM5 or COR 18(f) of the Local Plan
And that there was cumulative impact with other Devon renewable energy plants in the area.
(Proposed by Cllr B G J Warren and seconded by Cllr R F Radford)
Notes:
i) Cllr B G J Warren made a declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as a member of Willand Parish Council which had been involved in discussions regarding the site and had called the application in;
ii) Cllr R Evans made a declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as he had had discussions with regard to the application as a local Ward member;
iii) Miss Coffin spoke on behalf of the CPRE;
iv) Ms Cairns spoke as applicant;
v) Cllr Grantham spoke on behalf of Willand Parish Council;
vi) Cllrs R B Evans and B G J Warren spoke as Ward Members;
vii) The following late information was reported: There is an error on page 63 of your agenda (Plans List No 4)
Under conclusion it states that ‘The proposal is considered to be unacceptable, having regard to the Development Plan…..’
This should read ‘The proposal is considered to be ACCEPTABLE, having regard to the Development Plan….’