Skip to main content

Decisions

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.

Earlier - Later

Decisions published

30/11/2016 - ENFORCEMENT LIST ref: 435    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 30/11/2016 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 05/12/2016

Effective from: 30/11/2016

Decision:

Consideration was given to a case in the Enforcement List *.

 

Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to signed Minutes.

 

Arising thereon:

 

a)            No. 1 in the Enforcement List (Enforcement Case ENF/16/00269/NUDRU–   unauthorised carrying out of engineering operations and excavation works on agricultural land to create a slurry pit – Pulsards Farm, Pennymoor, Tiverton).

 

The Enforcement Officer outlined the contents of the report informing the meeting that an application had been submitted retrospectively to Devon County Council; she had been informed that this had not been validated to date as some of the information required was missing.  There was a need to establish whether this application would be a county matter or whether it would sit with the District Council.  However legal advice had been sought which had confirmed that enforcement action could proceed.  She outlined the issues at Pulsards Farm where works had been undertaken without permission which had involved the excavation and works for a slurry pit within 400 metres of a protected building.  A temporary stop notice had been served following consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee.

 

She addressed the issues raised in public question time: the landlord had received a copy of the Stop Notice and would receive any copies of further notices.  She requested that Miss Coffin contact her separately with the detail of her other questions and she would provide a written response.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         the continuity of the temporary stop notice and any other notice.

·         the work that had taken place as described by the agent and the link  between the AD plant at Edgeworthy and the transport statement submitted as part of that application.

·         The extent of the works that had taken place without permission.

 

 

RESOLVED that the Legal Services Manager be given delegated authority to:

 

a) Issue a Stop Notice requiring the cessation of all works in connection with the creation of slurry pit or digestate storage facility at the site, and;

 

b) Issue an enforcement notice requiring the cessation of all works in connection with the creation of a slurry pit or digestate storage facility at the site and reinstate the land to the same contours and levels as the surrounding agricultural fields;

 

c) Take any legal action deemed appropriate including prosecution or Direct Action in the event of non-compliance with the notices.

 

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

 

Notes:

 

(i)  Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe declared a personal interest as the landowner, tenants and others were known to her, she was also Ward Member;

 

(ii)  Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe and P J Heal made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had been involved with the issuing of the Stop Notice;

 

(iii) Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as he knew some of the objectors and the person undertaking the work;

 

(iv) Cllrs R J Dolley and B A Moore declared personal interests as some of  the objectors were known to them;

 

(v)  Mr Roberts (Agent) spoke;

 

(v)  the following late information was reported :

 

The enforcement officer was made aware on the 29th November that a planning application has been submitted to Devon County Council in relation to the works undertaken.  At present this is invalid as essential information has not been supplied.  Devon County Council are also yet to determine whether the application is a County matter or whether it should be dealt with by Mid Devon District Council. Advice has been sought from the Legal Services Manager who has confirmed that the submission of this application does not have an impact on the continuation of formal enforcement action at present as the County are yet to determine if the matter falls under their jurisdiction.

 

Two emails had been received in support of the Council taking enforcement action in relation to this matter. The first reads as follows:

 

Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinions with regard to the above case. In previous conversations with planning officers, I was informed that no slurry pit can be sited without planning permission within 400m of any dwelling. The nearest dwelling to the positioning of this site is 110m, well inside 400m. A further nine houses are within 200m and 40 dwellings are all WITHIN 400m. For this reason, it is clear to see that the applicant needs planning permission for installing this pit. 

In GOV UK it states that ‘You must notify the Environment Agency at least 14 days before you build new storage for slurry or make substantial changes to an existing store’.  The applicant did not notify the environment agency at all prior to starting the slurry pit and has shown total disrespect for the environment; removing at least 70m of Devon hedgerow and positioning the pit too close to a waterway and local dwellings.

The installation of this slurry pit will significantly affect the immediate 40 dwellings but will also have a massive effect on the village; the smell initially will affect the houses in close proximity. Last year when the applicant stored chicken manure, none of the local dwellings could open their windows for weeks or put out washing, due to the awful smell that was omitted. Installation of the slurry pit will cause this problem again, why should we have to live behind closed windows?  To fill the pit constant traffic will be used to transport millions of litres of AD waste/slurry down narrow and unsuitable lanes. The applicant last year used these lanes to transport chicken waste to Pulsards leaving the lanes unpassable and dangerous for traffic and pedestrians. On one occasion the police were called to warn motorists and to get the applicant to restore the lanes, making them safe again. This previous disregard for the safety of local residents clearly shows what little the village safety means to this farmer, he has left the lanes on numerous occasions unpassable and dangerous and transporting slurry to this pit will cause this to happen time and time again. The pit is being sited too close to a water course and with this there is the potential of pollution (please note I have been made aware that this is something the applicant has already been prosecuted for on his other farms). The applicant was informed to remove the old slurry pit, which had no actual planning permission, he totally ignored this and instead completely removed a Devon hedgerow and increased the slurry pit to a size that is far greater than the farm requires, with no regard for planning, site and soil suitability and the impact on the environment or village. On completing the work already carried out (removing the old slurry pit, removing the hedgerow and digging a crater), the work force were working into the early hours of the morning, numerous machines were used and floodlights were shining throughout the night, keeping local residents awake on several nights and once again showing NO consideration for people who live locally. 

 

I have lived in this village all of my life and totally know what it is like living and working in a rural community. I have lived in my current home for 21yrs, near to this farm. Since the current tenant has taken over the tenancy, the farm buildings have all deteriorated and many are now beyond repair.  These shed can’t and don’t hold the number of livestock that warrant a slurry pit the size that has been created. He states that he is using the pit to store digestate from other farms, the tenant has several other agricultural sites, which would be better suited than at Pulsards. 

We live in a society were rules are there for a reason and we should all live by them. Why is it this applicant thinks that he is different from everybody else and can totally ignore planning rules and destroy the local environment in the process? Taking all the above into account I would appreciate the committee to support the 'stop notice' and for the council to refuse any future planning permission for this work to Pulsards Farm.

 

The second states the following:

I am writing in reference to the works at Pulsards Farm, Pennymoor.

 

I have previously contacted the council and spoken to the Duty Planning Officer to  advise of works being carried out.  At the time the planning officer confirmed that planning permission had not been granted for any work at this address. 

 

I would like to make the council aware of my concerns regarding work at the above address:

1.         The area being excavated is only approx. 100 metres away from residential dwellings.

2.         The tenant has previously stored chicken effluent in the silage pit at this address which was reported to the council.  I am led to believe that this was to be used in a local Anaerobic Digestion plant (despite not being detailed as a storage site on the related planning applications).  This 'material' greatly affected the close residences because of the "stench" it emitted - resulting in windows having to be kept closed and washing not being able to be hung out.  Because of this connection, and the known connection Mr Reed has, to the Anaerobic Digestion plant I am fearful that this excavation work will eventually result in additional storage for fuel for the Anaerobic digestion plant resulting in potential odour and additional traffic through the village.

3.         Work commenced without planning consent being sought.  This included the removal of a Devon bank with beech hedge which previously marked the boundary for the existing slurry pit.  This demonstrates the underhand way in which the tenant acts with total disregard to local people.

Taking all of the above into account I would greatly appreciate the committee to support the 'stop notice' and for the council to refuse any future planning permission for this work to Pulsards Farm, Pennymoor.

 

 

 


30/11/2016 - THE PLANS LIST ref: 436    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 30/11/2016 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 05/12/2016

Effective from: 30/11/2016

Decision:

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 4 on the Plans List (16/01391/HOUSE Erection of extension to ground floor utility and erection of first floor extension above – 38 Higher Town, Sampford Peverell) be approved as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

(Proposed by the Chairman)

 

Notes:

 

(i)   Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as he knew the applicant very well;

 

(ii)  All Members present declared that they did know the applicant;

 

(iii)  Cllr R L Stanley requested that his abstention from voting be recorded.

 

 

(ii)   No 6 on the Plans List (16/01599/FULL Erection of extension and alterations to layout of existing car park, Exe Valley Leisure Centre, Bolham Road, Tiverton) be approved as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

(Proposed by the Chairman)

 

Note:  Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as he had been involved in discussions regarding the proposal.

 

(b)          No 1 on the Plans List (16//01117/FULL Change of use of agricultural land and buildings to form camping site, to include provision for 2 shepherds hut pitches, 2 safari tent pitches and 6 bell tent pitches; conversion of existing stables to shower/toilets, office meeting room, sensory room for visitors, washing facilities, and storage; erection of 2 new blocks to serve campsite; and formation of equestrian area for grazing of miniature horses – Ingleton Farm, Ashill).

The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report highlighting by way of presentation the site location plan, aerial photographs of the site, the existing and proposed site layout, the proposed access, details of the proposed pitches and Members viewed photographs from various aspects of the site.

 

She provided answers to questions posed in public question time, with regard to the highway issues,  she was not aware of any road improvements planned for the area, representations had been received from the Highway Authority who had no issues with the application.  With regard to the hedge, there were no plans to move the hedge line however an amended Condition 9 referred to landscaping issues.  With regard to the benefit of the application, she felt that the application would have a positive impact and would be of economic benefit to the local area.

 

Consideration was given:

 

·         The land was outside the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

·         Further licenses that would be required

·         The number of supporters to the application and where these supporters lived

·         Possible noise issues

·         Boundary screening and possible loss of daylight

·         Highway safety issues

·         Possible overdevelopment of the site

·         Recent planning history

·         Whether the business plan would stand up

RESOLVED that temporary planning permission for a period of 3 years be granted in order to show that there was an established business case for the project subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration with a revised Condition 9 stating that ‘Before the first use of the site for its permitted use, a landscaping plan detailing all hard and soft landscaping shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme should include the provision of a physical boundary within the paddock area to provide additional screening to Brimley Cottage and Prospect Place. Once implemented, the landscaping scheme as approved shall be maintained as such.’

Reason: To ensure that the character and amenity of the rural area is maintained and that the privacy of neighbouring properties in maintained in accordance with DM2 of the Mid Devon LP3 (Development Management Policies).

Condition 9 should also refer to mature planting as part of the boundary screening

An additional Condition 14 stating that : ‘No play equipment shall be provided at the site until details of the play equipment, including a plan indicating its proposed siting shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved play equipment shall be provided on the site’.

Reason: To ensure that the character and amenity of the rural area is maintained and that the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties in maintained in accordance with DM2 of the Mid Devon LP3 (Development Management Policies).

Delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and Regeneration to make amendments to conditions in relation to the temporary permission granted

(Proposed by Cllr Mrs J Roach and seconded by Cllr P J Heal)

 

Vote 6 for: 5 against (Chairman’s casting vote)

 

Notes: 

 

i)             Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge, Mrs C Collis, Mrs F J Colthorpe, R J Dolley, P J Heal, F W Letch, 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 this application;

 

ii)            Mr Summerfield (Agent) spoke;

 

iii)          Mr Powell spoke on behalf of the objectors;

 

(iv)      The following late information was reported: 4 letters of representation have been received in relation to the application since the publication of the officers’ recommendation report to the planning committee. The main issues contained in the 4 letters include: the principle of development on the site; the need for a campsite in this location; the proximity of the proposed development to neighbouring properties; the location of the conservation area; the absence of persons supervising/ managing the site at night; the redacted business plan which has been put out for further public consultation; traffic issues and movements from the site; surface water issues; and noise impacts.

One of the objector’s comments list noise as one of the issues which is believed by objectors will result in an unacceptably detrimental effect on the amenity of the residential property. They state that noise will be contributed to through vehicle movements and associated people movements (including doors slamming and people conversing with one another), the operation of a play area, night time conversation around campfires, the existing gate alarm, the playing of music. It is stated that these activities will be above background noise levels for a countryside location. There is no acoustic screening proposed.

Comments received from Environmental Health in response to objector comments regarding noise are as follows:

I don’t agree with a lot of the comments made, please find my response below. 

People glamping will potentially create a certain amount of noise (people noise).  However, this type of noise is likely to be very sporadic in its nature.  The background noise levels for the site are likely to be dominated by the large farm adjoining the Southern side of the site and the Country road to the West and therefore, it is unlikely that the background noise levels in this area will be around the 30-35 dB(A).  They will be higher.  It must be remembered that our Countryside is in fact a working environment that must be managed accordingly to allow for this management to take place.  While it is true that a car on the road can produce a noise level of 80 dB farm vehicles can be 10-15dB louder.  The assessment criteria’s that have been used are the Guidelines for Community Noise, World Health Organisation (WHO)1999 and the Night Noise Guidelines for Europe. World Health Organisation 2009.

These guidelines have given us the following:

Day time

The WHO suggests that to protect the majority of people from a moderate noise annoyance during the day time outdoor noise levels should not exceed 50 dB (LAeq 1hr).  It is not foreseen that the noise level from people camping in a field will produce a noise level anywhere near 50 (LAeq 1hr).   Where the external noise is < 50 dB (LAeq 1hr) (3m from the façade) the internal noise levels even with an open window (window opened normally for ventilation) will be at an acceptable level of around 35-40 dB(A).

Night-time

Our overriding nigh-time objective is to prevent sleep disturbance for the residents.   The WHO guidance suggests that for sleep disturbance the external noise level should be < 45 dB (LAeq 15min) (3m from the façade) with a 55 dB (LAFmax).

On reviewing the above information, I believe that the external noise levels from the site will typically fall below the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) and therefore, the internal noise levels at the nearest residential dwellings will be below the LOAEL.  Taking this into consideration I still have no objection on the grounds of noise as I see no adverse or significant adverse noise impacts from this proposed application.

One point I didn’t mention was the fact that no noise complaints were received over the summer while the campsite was operating

Further clarification was sought from the Highway Authority regarding the basis on which the assessment of the effect of the traffic increase was made. Clarification from the Highway Authority is as follows:

The traffic generated by the tents is likely to be in the region of 36 movements per day, The traffic generated by existing dwellings, agriculture and commercial enterprises in the area will be considerably greater and the additional 36 movements per day will not be significant in planning terms, nor will it be considered as severe under Paragraph 32 of the NPPF.

Further clarification was sought from South West Water regarding the sewage output assessment, and the water run-off comments which were provided initially following consultation. Clarification from South West Water is as follows:

Naomi our response in relation to the above simply confirms that we are satisfied that the public foul drainage network has capacity to accept the foul flows to be generated by the proposed development.

It also states that we will not permit any surface water from roofs/hard paved areas from any new buildings etc to be connected to the public sewer but as this element is proposed to be discharged to a ditch system as stated in the drainage strategy this requirement will be met.

Officers recommend the replacement of Condition 9 with a new condition to cover proposed hard and soft landscaping to include the provision of a physical boundary within the paddock area to provide additional screening to Brimley Cottage and Prospect place.

Revised condition 9 – recommended condition: ‘Before the first use of the site for its permitted use, a landscaping plan detailing all hard and soft landscaping shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme should include the provision of a physical boundary within the paddock area to provide additional screening to Brimley Cottage and Prospect Place. Once implemented, the landscaping scheme as approved shall be maintained as such.’

Reason: To ensure that the character and amenity of the rural area is maintained and that the privacy of neighbouring properties in maintained in accordance with DM2 of the Mid Devon LP3 (Development Management Policies).

It is also recommended that an additional condition is included to require the approval of any play equipment within the play area including the siting of any play equipment.

Addition condition (14) – recommended condition: ‘No play equipment shall be provided at the site until details of the play equipment, including a plan indicating its proposed siting shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved play equipment shall be provided on the site’.

Reason: To ensure that the character and amenity of the rural area is maintained and that the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties in maintained in accordance with DM2 of the Mid Devon LP3 (Development Management Policies).

 

 

(c)          No 2 on the Plans List (16/01221/FULL Change of use of part of garden for the retention of shed for property letting office (Use Class A2 – Todd Lettings Office, 11 Meadow Gardens, Crediton).

The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the location plan, the layout of the proposed office and photographs of the residential property.

 

Consideration was given:

 

·         The business of the applicant and that the majority of contact was made on-line

·         The screening around the garden

·         Possible parking issues

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted for a 2 year temporary period and for the personal benefit of the applicant whilst she is resident at No 11 Meadow Gardens, with conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

 

(Proposed by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge and seconded by Cllr B A Moore)

 

Notes: 

 

i)      Miss Todd (Applicant ) spoke;           

 

(ii)   The following late information was reported: Page 40:  Since the report was written a further letter of support for the application scheme has been received.

 

 

(d)          No 3 on the Plans List (16//01365/FULL Erection of 2 dwellings for security staff; part change of use of agricultural building to form sentry office on the mezzanine level and formation of an elevated walkway – land and buildings at MGR 285635 103526 (Trew Farm) Chilton).

The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by highlighting the site location plan, the existing dwellings, the converted barns, the proposed elevations and proposed floor plans of the sentry office along with section and elevation plans.  He stated that the site was in the open countryside however Members were required to balance that issue with the security need as set out in the report.

 

Consideration was given to the circumstances of the application.

 

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

 

(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr Mrs C Collis)

 

Notes: 

 

i)          The Chairman read a statement from Cllr P H D Hare-Scott the local Ward Member;

 

(ii)       The following late information was reported: Two further representations have been received in respect of this application:

 

16th November 2016 - A representation was received on behalf of Mel Stride MP which asked the planning committee to give consideration to the points raised by the applicant’s agent in respect of the security needs of the applicant.

 

22nd November 2016 - Cllr Hare-Scott provided the following representation: As the Ward Member I wish to add my wholehearted support to the recommendation to approve the above application. It is clear the circumstances behind this are exceptional and it is crucial for the family’s security. I urge members of the committee to accept the recommendation.

 

(e)          No 5 on the Plans List (16//01501/FULL Erection of 3 dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling, Old Den, Lapford).

The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report highlighting the location of the application, the existing and proposed site plans, proposed sections and elevations.  He identified the access and Members viewed photographs from various aspects of the site.

 

Consideration was given:

 

·         The number of dwellings proposed on the site

·         Parking issues

·         Possible overdevelopment of the site

 

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

 

(Proposed by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge and seconded by Cllr Mrs C Collis)

 

 

Notes: 

 

(i)         Cllr P J Heal declared a personal interest as the applicant was very well known to him;

 

(ii)        Cllr Mrs J Roach requested that her vote against the decision be recorded;

 

 


01/12/2016 - Recommendation from Environment Policy Development Group - Draft Budget ref: 438    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Made at meeting: 01/12/2016 - Cabinet

Decision published: 05/12/2016

Effective from: 10/12/2016

Decision:

Arising from a report of the Director of Finance, Assets and Resources regarding options available in order for the Council to set a balanced budget, the Environment Policy Development Group had recommended that:

 

a)    Bulky Waste collection fees be increased by £1 from April 2017; and

 

b)    Garden Waste collection fees be increased by £1 for both size bins from October 2017.

 

The Cabinet Member for the Environment emphasised that the recommendation was for the 2017/18 budget year and that if approved within the budget would not come into effect until October 2017.

 

The Director of Finance, Assets and Resources confirmed that any future increases would be considered in the autumn of each year.

 

RESOLVED that the recommendation be approved.

 

(Proposed by Cllr K I Busch and seconded by Cllr C R Slade)


01/12/2016 - Minutes of the Previous Meeting (00-00-54) ref: 437    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Made at meeting: 01/12/2016 - Cabinet

Decision published: 05/12/2016

Effective from: 01/12/2016

Decision:

The minutes of the special meeting held on 21 November 2016 were approved as a true record and signed by the Chairman.