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.
To receive the Council Tax Reduction Scheme
Decision Maker: Cabinet
Made at meeting: 16/01/2020 - Cabinet
Decision published: 21/01/2020
Effective from: 25/01/2020
Decision:
Arising from a report of the Group Manager for Revenues and Benefits, the Community Policy Development Group had recommended that:
a) The Council Tax Reduction (banded) scheme be adopted; and
b) The updated Exceptional Hardship Policy (revised) be adopted.
The Cabinet Member for Finance outlined the contents of the report stating that the Council Tax Reduction Scheme also known as Council Tax Support was introduced in April 2013 and had replaced the national Council Tax Benefit Scheme, with a 10% funding reduction he highlighted the different schemes for working age customers and those that received a pension. He made reference to funding streams, the roll out of universal credit and the hardship scheme available.
Consideration was given to:
· The Hardship Policy and how it was made available
· Enforcement responsibilities
RESOLVED that the recommendation from the Policy Development Group be approved.
(Proposed by Cllr A White and seconded by Cllr L D Taylor)
Note: *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
Lead officer: Andrew Jarrett
To receive the annual review of the Corporate Health & Safety Policy from the Director of Corporate Affairs and Business Transformation.
Decision Maker: Cabinet
Made at meeting: 16/01/2020 - Cabinet
Decision published: 21/01/2020
Effective from: 16/01/2020
Decision:
Arising from a report of the Director of Corporate Affairs and Business Transformation, the Community Policy Development Group had recommended that the Cabinet note that the Health and Safety Policy had been approved by the JNCC on 4th September 2018, following subsequent review by the Health and Safety Committee and representatives from the union, there were no changes to be made to the current policy.
The Cabinet Member for the Working Environment and Support Services outlined the contents of the report stating that it was a legal requirement to review the policy on an annual basis and that no amendments had been required to the existing policy.
RESOLVED that the recommendation of the Policy Development Group be approved.
(Proposed by Cllr N Woollatt and seconded by Cllr D J Knowles)
Note: *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
Lead officer: Jill May
To consider changes to the Off Street Parking
Places Order
Decision Maker: Cabinet
Made at meeting: 16/01/2020 - Cabinet
Decision published: 21/01/2020
Effective from: 25/01/2020
Decision:
The Cabinet had before it a further *report of the Deputy Chief Executive (S151) following the decision at the previous meeting to defer the item so that the Cabinet could consider objections and representations made in regard to the proposed changes to the Off-Street Parking Places Order (“OSPPO”).
Also Members were requested to consider the following recommendation from Council following receipt of a petition: RECOMMENDED to the Cabinet that the decision to increase parking charges in Tiverton specifically the Multi-Storey Car Park and the loss of 30 minutes free parking in Westexe South and William Street be reconsidered.
The Leader indicated that consideration would be given to the petition, the Cabinet were not ‘anti’ people in the town or those who used the car park. The initial decision had been made in August 2019 on recommendation from the Economy Policy Development Group who had considered the views of the Car Parking Working Group. The Scrutiny Committee had called in the decision and requested that the decision be reconsidered which it had been. He therefore proposed to discuss the issue again, following further concerns raised by local businesses.
The Cabinet Member for Finance stated that there was a need to consider the objections and representations made during the public consultation and to consider the wording of the petition presented to Council. Some of the parking prices had been reduced and he highlighted the most used tariff for one hour’s parking and emphasised the value of purchasing a permit. He understood the concerns raised and therefore made further proposals to reduce costs further: a charge of 50p for 30 minutes in Westexe South Car Park, Tiverton and William Street Car Park, Tiverton which he felt was good value for money. The preservation of free parking for 30 minutes between the hours of 8.30-9.30am and 3-4pm, Monday to Friday at William Street Car Park to allow for school arrivals and pick up times. And the changes to the tariff in the Multi-Storey Car Park to allow for 5 hours parking for £3 and 10 Hours parking for £5.
Consideration was given to:
· The compromises that had been made
· The need to increase footfall in the town
· The lack of free parking in Crediton and Cullompton
· The process for consultation which was a legal requirement
· Whether a working group should be reconvened to reconsider the whole issue of car parking in the towns
· Whether the Economy PDG be requested to review parking charges in a year’s time
· The need to finance the maintenance of the car parks
· The parking available in the area of Westexe
· Permits available to purchase and the direct debit facility available
· The need for savings to be made by the Cabinet across other services to allow for the reduction in charges
The Chief Executive answered questions posed in public question time: with regard to the capital receipt from the Premier Inn, he confirmed that these funds were set aside in a reserve but were not set aside for maintenance work. With regard to Councillors and staff using the car park: 42 councillors used the car park as did about 80-100 staff, many of the staff lived locally and were able to walk to work. The Group Manager for Financial Services explained that capital receipts had to be spend on capital items and therefore could not be used to maintain the car parks.
Having considered
· all duly made representations and objections to the proposed Order;
· the petition presented to Council on 8th January 2020; and
· the recommendation of the Council arising from its consideration of the said petition
RESOLVED that the Order (including the charges and tariffs) be made in accordance with the public notice previously given, with the following modifications:
(1) the re-introduction of 30 minutes’ parking in Westexe South Car Park, Tiverton charged at £0.50 Monday to Saturday;
(2) the re-introduction of 30 minutes’ parking in William Street Car Park, Tiverton charged at £0.50 Monday to Saturday, save for the preservation of FREE parking for 30 minutes between the hours of 8.30-9.30am and 3-4pm Monday to Friday; and
(3) the proposed charges for parking in the Multi-Storey Car Park, Tiverton be reduced as follows:
(a) for 5 hours’ parking, the proposed charge is reduced from £4 to £3; and
(b) for 10 hours’ parking, the proposed charge is reduced from £6 to £5.
(Proposed by Cllr A White and seconded by Cllr Mrs N Woollatt)
Notes:
i) Cllr D J Knowles declared a personal interest as a number of objectors were known to him;
ii) Cllr C J Eginton declared a personal interest as he had a business in Tiverton;
iii) Cllr Miss E Wainwright left the meeting at this point;
iv) *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
Lead officer: Andrew Jarrett
To consider the tender outcome.
Decision Maker: Cabinet
Made at meeting: 16/01/2020 - Cabinet
Decision published: 21/01/2020
Effective from: 25/01/2020
Decision:
The Cabinet had before it a report of the Director of Operations advising Members on the results for the tendering of the Replacement PVCU Windows and Doors Programme 2020–2025 and confirm the award of the contract.
The Cabinet Member for Housing and Property Services outlined the contents of the report stating the term of the contract was 3 years with a possible 1 year extension subject to budgets, performance and the approval of the Cabinet Member. He explained the budget for the works and the number of homes which would receive replacements.
RESOLVEDthat the new five-year (3+1+1) PVCU Windows and Doors Replacement Contract be awarded to Contractor 1 with a forecast annual cost £400,000.00. The contract has been awarded to the contractor with the highest combined price/quality score with 40% of the total score based on price and 60% on quality.
(Proposed by Cllr S J Clist and seconded by Cllr D J Knowles)
Note: *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
Lead officer: Mark Baglow
To request approval to go out to Stage I
consultation on the masterplan documents.
Decision Maker: Cabinet
Made at meeting: 16/01/2020 - Cabinet
Decision published: 21/01/2020
Effective from: 25/01/2020
Decision:
The Cabinet had before it a *report of Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration considering the key themes detailed in this and seeking approval to progress to a Stage 1 Public consultation on the Cullompton Town Centre Masterplan and Delivery Plan.
The Group Manager for Growth, Economy and Delivery outlined the contents of the report stating that a baseline report (outlining the key messages gathered from a visioning workshop during Sept 2019) was presented to Members of the Planning Policy Advisory Group (PPAG) as well as consultation boards for discussion which had focussed on the following themes.
Principle 1: Cullompton’s distinctive historic buildings and landscape will be restored and enhanced
Principle 2: Cullompton’s centre will rediscover its historic role as a place of work and making
Principle 3: Cullompton will draw people into the town centre with an enticing experience for visitors
Principle 4: Cullompton’s spaces will be reclaimed and redesigned to support a vibrant community life
Principle 5: Cullompton will be a sustainable town for its growing community: with education, community and recreational facilities
Principle 6: It will be easy of move around on foot, on bicycle, by bus and by train.
Changes to the consultation boards requested at PPAG included more emphasis on:
a) Road / traffic
b) Living in the town centre
c) The use of key heritage assets e.g St Andrew’s Church, The Walronds, The Manor Hotel and Town Hall.
d) Delivery of public / private partnerships
e) The third (community) economy.
Consideration was given to the consultation process and the possible use of ‘Survey Monkey’ and/or different forms of social media.
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that:
a) The themes set out in this report to form the basis for a Stage 1 Public Consultation be agreed; and
b) The associated Strategic Environmental Assessment Screening Report and the Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Report for consultation be approved.
c) Delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration to finalise the material and arrangements for consultation.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Note: *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
Lead officer: Jenny Clifford
Decision Maker: Cabinet
Made at meeting: 16/01/2020 - Cabinet
Decision published: 21/01/2020
Effective from: 25/01/2020
Decision:
Following the meeting on 19th December 2019, the following *decision had been called in by members of the Scrutiny Committee:
1. The specific scheme that came forward in advance of the forthcoming Tiverton Town Centre Masterplan be postponed, and allows the second stage of the process to be properly completed before seeking to prioritise strategic investment opportunities.
2. The Cabinet Members for Planning & Economic Regeneration and Housing and Property Services:
a) Consider how a Tiverton Town Centre Regeneration Fund might be established to facilitate match-funding opportunities and encourage external investment into the town, with proposals to be brought back to the Cabinet.
b) Work with Tiverton Town Council, market traders, the Town Centre Partnership and other businesses in the town to identify a programme of works that will make a significant improvement to the Town Centre in the short term.
Following consideration of the item at its meeting on 6 January 2020 the Scrutiny Committee had recommended that the decision to defer the Tiverton Town Centre Regeneration Project – Tender Outcome be reconsidered.
The Leader addressed the meeting raising the issue of the lack of consultation with Tiverton Town Council over the proposed scheme and the view that a better scheme could come forward and that it was not value for money to finance a scheme that was not supported by the town council. He highlighted the various schemes that had come forward over recent years and the cost of those projects
Discussion took place regarding:
· The reasons for the call in and that Article 15 (Principles of Decision making) had not been breached
· The views of the lead member for the call-in with regard to a difference of opinion and that there were no clear plans if the project was postponed nor the amount of funding that would be required if a further project was agreed
· The cost of the project to date
· The meetings that had taken place with Tiverton Town Council over the last few months and whether the ideas being put forward were realistic and could be funded and that a bigger scheme would require the loss of the bank which would impact on the residents of the town
· The concerns of local traders
RESOLVED that having reconsidered the decision to postpone the specific scheme, the original decision be confirmed. The Cabinet wishes to expedite a substitute scheme to be implemented as quickly as possible with a view to improving the Tiverton Town Centre Regeneration Project.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Notes:
i) Cllr R L Stanley declared a personal interest as he had been involved in the initial scheme;
ii) Cllr C J Eginton declared a personal interest as he had a business in the town;
iii) * Decision previously circulated copy attached to minutes.
To request approval to go out to Stage II
consultation on the masterplan documents.
Decision Maker: Cabinet
Made at meeting: 16/01/2020 - Cabinet
Decision published: 21/01/2020
Effective from: 25/01/2020
Decision:
The Cabinet had before it a *report of Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration requesting approval of the Draft Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension SPD Area B Masterplan for Stage 2 Public consultation.
The Group Manager for Growth, Economy and Delivery outlined the contents of the report stating that the report had been presented to the Planning Policy Advisory Group who had recommended a number of amendments relating to bus provision, car parking, allotment provision and maintenance of open space.
An update sheet had been provided as a supplement to take the above into account.
Discussion took place with regard to the need to engage with local councillors.
RESOLVED that:
a) The Draft Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension SPD Area B Masterplan for Stage 2 public consultation be approved (as amended);
b) The associated Strategic Environmental Screening Report and the Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Report for consultation be approved; and
c) Delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration to finalise the material and arrangements for consultation.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Note: *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
Lead officer: Jenny Clifford
To consider the draft budget
Decision Maker: Cabinet
Made at meeting: 16/01/2020 - Cabinet
Decision published: 21/01/2020
Effective from: 25/01/2020
Decision:
The Cabinet had before it a * report of the Deputy Chief Executive (151) reviewing the revised draft budget changes identified and discussing any further changes required in order for the Council to move towards a balanced budget for 2020/21. Also, to highlight the impact of the proposed changes on the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP).
The Cabinet Member for Finance outlined the contents of the report stating that there was a need to consider the budget gap referred to in table 1 of the report and that there was a need to look to use reserves to bridge the gap unless further savings could be realised.
Consideration was given to:
· The proposed savings that had been put forward which included the removal of the weed team and collection calendars
· The special meeting of the Environment Policy Development Group planned for 30 January to consider budget issues
· How effective the weed team had been
· A gard copy of collection calendars would be available on request
· Tiverton Town Council’s involvement in the maintenance and planting of flower beds
· The impairment of 25% of 3 Rivers working capital loan
It was therefore RESOLVED that:
a) The updated budget proposals for 2020/21 included in Appendix 1 and 2 and the Capital Programme included in Appendix 4 be agreed.
b) The payment in advance of the next 3 Years’ Pension Deficit (see Section 4) be agreed.
c) The revised Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) be noted.
d) A minimum General Reserves (General Fund) limit of £2m see Section 5 and Appendix 6 be agreed
(Proposed by Cllr A White and seconded by Cllr L D Taylor)
Note: *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
Lead officer: Andrew Jarrett
Decision Maker: Planning Committee
Made at meeting: 15/01/2020 - Planning Committee
Decision published: 21/01/2020
Effective from: 15/01/2020
Decision:
The Committee had before it a *report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration following the submission of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against non-determination, the report requested members to advise how they would have determined the application.
The Area Team Leader outlined the application and the allocation within the Local Plan Review and the fact that the contingency status of the site had been removed within the emerging plan. She provided by way of presentation the site location plan, the illustrative masterplan for development and photographs from various aspects of the site.
The officer then provided answers to questions posed in public question time:
Cllr Gordon Guest had referred to the wish of Cullompton Town Council to see an additional access off Colebrooke Lane. The application had been deferred at committee on 5th June for officers to investigate this option. The comments from various consultees and the applicant were clearly set out in members agenda papers today.
Cllr Gordon Guest had also referred to the fact that Colebrooke Lane floods regularly and increasingly. He referred to having walked the Cole Brook with a representative of the EA about 3 years ago who identified obstructions and overgrown vegetation at that time. He commented that since that time no widening or clearing had taken place. The Town Council were concerned that developing the application site could result in the existing problem being made worse.
She was aware of correspondence between Cllr Guest and the Environment Agency just before Christmas. The EA make it clear that it is the responsibility of the landowner of the watercourse to ensure that water can flow unhindered and that DCC or MDDC may have powers to serve notice on the owner of the watercourse or carry out clearance works themselves. Members are advised that this is not a power under the Planning Acts but officers can write to DCC and MDDC on behalf of the Planning Committee if that is members’ wish. She made it clear that the Environment Agency and the Local Lead Flood Authority were satisfied that surface water from the development could be dealt with and that what has been referred to was an existing problem which should not be exacerbated by the development, but solutions could be explored to try to resolve the existing problem, as set out previously.
Cllr Gordon Guest also referred to the proposed attenuation ponds which were proposed to deal with surface water from the development only and were not there to deal with the existing problem. This is correct. We cannot require a developer to deal with an existing flooding problem, only to mitigate against the development they are proposing.
Mr Harper felt that his issues and concerns had largely been dealt with by Cllr Guest before him and she was not aware that he raised a separate point which I need to address.
Mr Harris was concerned that the questions he asked at the committee in June last year have not been answered to date. His concerns related to the inadequacies of Siskin chase, being only 3.55m wide at one point and the restricted visibility at the junction with Swallow Way. Whilst Mr Harris considers that his points haven’t been specifically addressed, Members will recall that Mr Sorenson from DCC Highways was at that meeting and spoke to answer members questions. The minutes of the meeting clearly show that members’ consideration of the application included ‘the views of an objector who felt that the development was not sustainable and that the access point through Siskin Chase was not wide enough to support additional traffic flow.
Mr Sorenson has previously advised on these points as follows:
“The narrowing in Siskin Close is a standard speed reducing feature utilised on residential estates and is a standard detail in the Devon design guide and the retention of this feature is seen as a safety benefit rather than a safety concern. The access has been tested through the transport assessment and is suitable to cater for the volumes of traffic generated by the development and the existing estate road traffic, it has been looked at through a stage 1 safety audit by the developer and not found wanting”.
Mr Harris went on to ask what measures were intended to make the road safe. The plans do not include any measures on Siskin Chase and the Highway Authority do not refer to the need for any in their consultation response.
Mr Harris referred to an access from Colebrooke Lane rather than Siskin Chase which she had already referred to. Finally, he referred to the allocation in Local Plan Review and referred to this appearing to have already been agreed as its set out in the policy CU21. This was the emerging policy and again the policy position was set out in members agendas.
Mr Jones spoke and referred to a notification neighbours have received relating to the second application. Whilst she understood the confusion, the letter clearly referred to a different application number than the one members were considering today.
The officer then referred to the update sheet and the amended resolution with regard to the required S106 agreement following the receipt of viability information.
Discussion took place regarding:
· The road narrowing arrangements in Siskin Chase and the Manual for Streets
· Additional traffic from the site would have to go through the town prior to the construction of the relief road and the air quality issues that may bring
· The contribution required from the development for the relief road
· The percentage of affordable housing proposed for the development
· The views of one of the objectors with regard to local concern about the access to the site via Siskin Chase, the narrowness of the road and road safety issues, the parking that already takes place in the road in the evenings and weekends. The air quality issues that the development would have on the road network of the town.
· The views of one of the Ward members with regard to the need for a second highways outlet from the site, the pinch point in Siskin Chase, the flooding issues in Colebrooke Lane and a response he had received from Devon County Council Highways with regard to landownership.
· The emerging planning policy within the Local Plan review
It was RESOLVED that had the committee had the opportunity to determine the application then it would have refused the application for the following reason:-
The tilted balance in paragraph 11 of the NPPF applies to the determination of this application. The application should be approved unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF, taken as a whole. In considering this application, the LPA are of the view that the proposed point of access from Siskin Chase is not considered suitable for the additional increase in traffic anticipated from the proposed development of 105 dwellings. Siskin Chase is a cul-de-sac which was designed to accommodate those vehicles attracted to the housing it currently serves and incorporates features to narrow the road such as a chicane. The increase in car ownership since the development was built has led to an increasing number of vehicles being parked on the public highway. The use of Siskin Chase as the sole access to the proposed development of 105 new dwellings is not considered acceptable and would lead to conflict between existing and proposed residents and would interrupt the free flow of vehicles, particularly emergency vehicles. In the opinion of the LPA this identified harm significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies in the NPPF, taken as a whole and is considered to be contrary to policies COR1 and COR9 of the Local Plan Part 1 ( Core Strategy) and policy DM2 of the Local Plan Part 3 ( Development Management).
(Proposed by Cllr L J Cruwys and seconded by Cllr Mrs C A Collis)
As part of the procedure required for the appeal there was a need to agree a S106 agreement prior to the Inspector’s determination of the appeal,
It was therefore
FURTHER RESOLVED
i) That delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee and the local Ward Members to secure the necessary s106 requirements with the provision of a financial contribution towards the Cullompton Town Centre Relief Road being prioritised at £7,500 per dwelling (£787,500) and the provision of affordable housing being between up to 20% ( figure to be confirmed by verification of applicants viability submission) with a split of 75% affordable rent and 25% shared ownership;
ii) Financial contribution of £7,500 per dwelling towards the provision of the Cullompton Town Centre Relief Road
iii) Implementation and monitoring of a Travel plan
iv) Provision of public open space, allotments and play areas on site.
v) The transfer of an area of land to the north of the site to DCC or MDDC to ensure that unencumbered access may be provided in future to the land to the north, if required.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Notes:
i) Cllr B G J Warren declared a personal interest as one of the objectors was a former colleague;
ii) Mr D Harris spoke in objection to the application
iii) Cllr E J Barry spoke as Ward Member for Cullompton South;
iv) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe requested that her vote against the first decision be recorded
v) The following late information was provided:
1) A letter from the agent has been received as follows:
Section 5.0 on pg75 states as follows:
“Consultation responses from Devon County Council Highway Authority and MDDC Public Health do not raise an objection to the application, however this is based on it making financial contribution towards the delivery of the relief road. The traffic assessment provided with the application indicates the additional traffic generation that is expected to arise as a direct result of this development including additional traffic movements between the site and the M5 motorway junction 28 and the town centre. The development will therefore increase traffic through the town centre, the impact of which on air quality will be mitigated via financial contribution towards the relief road in accordance with the policies set out above.”
The text highlight above is factually incorrect and is misleading.
Neither County Highways nor MDCC Public Health have requested a contribution towards the relief road.
The Public Health response (copy attached) confirms that air quality impact form the scheme is not significant. Moreover, it has been agreed with County Highways that no off-site infrastructure improvements are required to make the development acceptable in Highway terms and it is also agreed that the proposed development could come forward in terms of capacity and safety, in accordance with the Planning inspectors decision relating to Increased traffic set out in relation to application 16/01811/OUT and Appeal decision APP/Y1138/W/17/3172380 without the Town Centre Relief Road (para 5.3 of the attached SoCG refers).
The factual position seems to be correctly recorded at para 2.1 of the report which states as follows:
“Since the application was last considered by Planning Committee, the Council has produced its proposed main modifications which were approved for public consultation by Council on 4th December 2019. Within that document (MM35 and MM36), it proposes that the contingency status of the site has been removed in response to the Inspectors Post Hearing Advice Note, with the site instead becoming an allocation. In addition, Devon County Council has advised the timing of the development of the site is not dependent on the Cullompton Town Centre Relief Road coming forward as long as financial contributions are made towards the delivery of the relief road. As a result of this document being approved for public consultation by Council, some weight can be attributed to the document as a material consideration in the determination of this application.”
Section 5.0 of the report should be corrected to reflect the factual position.
1) Photos have been received from a resident (forwarded to members of the planning committee by email) showing Colebrooke Lane after a period of rain
S106 UPDATE:
Officers have had the viability information submitted by the applicant, independently assessed and this has included the services of a Quantity Surveyor. They are satisfied that the case put forward by the applicants is robust. On this basis, the scheme cannot viably support 35% affordable housing and the £1.8 million s106 package set out on page 69 of the agenda.
The applicants have put forward 3 proposed s106 packages as follows:
a) No affordable housing and the full £1.8m financial package
b) 28% affordable housing ( which is emerging policy compliant) and £318,015 OR;
c) 20% affordable housing and £660,030
Members will be aware that MDDC have received Housing and Infrastructure Funding (HIF) for the provision of the Cullompton Town Centre Relief Road (TCRR). The terms of the funding include that MDDC ‘use all reasonable endeavours’ to recover the cost of the road from development. Therefore Officers have requested that the applicant puts forward a s106 package which includes £787,500 (£7500 per dwelling) towards the TCRR with a lower percentage of affordable housing provision. On this basis, there would be no provision for the development to contribute towards items iii) – vii) as set out on the agenda ( which includes education provision, bus service improvement and NHS funding)
The Planning Inspectorate have set a deadline of 13th February for the submission of a signed s106.
REVISED RECOMMENDATION:
2) That delegated authority is given to the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration to secure the necessary s106 requirements with the provision of a financial contribution towards the Cullompton Town Centre Relief Road being prioritised at £7,500 per dwelling (£787,500) and the provision of affordable housing being between up to 20% ( figure to be confirmed by verification of applicants viability submission) with a split of 75% affordable rent and 25% shared ownership
NOTE: Members are advised that as a result of the revised recommendation set out above, the items from page 69 of the agenda would no longer form part of the s106 agreement are highlighted red below, those items which will form part of the s106 are highlighted green and those items amended but included in the s106 are highlighted blue, as follows:
i) 35% affordable housing in accordance with a scheme to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority
ii)Financial contribution of £7,500 per dwelling towards the provision of the Cullompton Town Centre Relief Road
iii) A financial contribution towards delivery of the new primary school of £4004.75 per dwelling, (equating to £420,498.00 for 105 dwellings).
iv) A financial contribution towards secondary education facilities of £345,255.00 (based on 105 dwellings and the DfE extension rate of £21,921 per pupil).
v) A financial contribution towards Early Years provision for 2, 3 and 4 year olds of £26,250 (based on 105 dwellings at £250 per dwelling).
vi) A financial contribution of £135,000.00 towards the maintenance/provision/improvement of the bus service
vii) A financial contribution of £1457.32 per dwelling to the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust towards maintaining service delivery during the first year of occupation of each unit of the accommodation in the development.
viii) Implementation and monitoring of a Travel plan
ix) Provision of public open space, allotments and play areas on site.
x) The transfer of an area of land to the north of the site to DCC or MDDC to ensure that unencumbered access may be provided in future to the land to the north, if required.
vi) *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
Decision Maker: Planning Committee
Made at meeting: 15/01/2020 - Planning Committee
Decision published: 21/01/2020
Effective from: 15/01/2020
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 (19/01961/HOUSE Conversion Of garage to additional ancillary accommodation to include extension and alterations to boundary wall – 1 Oak Crescent, Willand) be approved subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.
(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;
ii) A question was raised with regard to the conversion of the garage and any loss of parking;
iii) The following late information was available on the update sheet:
All consultation responses have now been received and are summarised below:
Willand Parish Council: 15/12/19 - Willand Parish Council had the following concerns relating to the proposal, firstly as to whether or not the garage extension could become a separate dwelling. Secondly, there does not appear to be sufficient parking for two vehicles and if this is achieved by using part of the front lawn then there is concern as to visibility for vehicles when entering from Meadow Park. The Councillors would wish the Officer to be satisfied that this was not over development of the site.
Highway Authority: 10.12.19 - Standing advice applies please see Devon County Council document
Environmental Health: Householder development and alterations within Flood Zone 1 - No EA consultation required.
No other letters of representation have been received.
b) No 2 on the Plans List (19/01309/FULL Erection of a dwelling including demolition of a garage (Revised Scheme), Fair Havens, Mill Street, Crediton).
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting: the application site, the access off Mill Street, the Conservation Area boundary, plans of the previous dwelling on the site, the proposed landscaping and block plan of the current application along with the layout of the site, the parking areas, proposed elevations and floor plans for the proposal in question. She informed the meeting that the 2003 planning consent had related to a bungalow on the site and provided the approved plans, she also provided comparative drawings of the 2003 application and the current application and stated that approval had been granted for 3 dwellings on the site in 2014. Members also viewed photographs from various aspects of the site.
Consideration was given to:
· The visual impact of the dwelling
· The views of the objector with regard to the proposal and that she had obtained planning permission for a dwelling in Downshead Lane but had followed the correct procedures, this was not the case for the application in question. The large and ugly building that had been built, the fact that it did not conform with any planning permission in place on the site. The orange tiled roof was out of keeping within the Conservation Area and the visual impact of the development could be seen across Crediton
· The views of the agent with regard to the 2003 approval and that work had commenced on the site in 2004, although the works had not been completed it was felt that the permission was still live and had been highlighted within the presentation by the comparative drawings, this was not entirely a new development and that the application should be considered on its merits.
· The views of the representative from the Town Council with regard to the impact on the Conservation Area the contribution to the local character and the setting of the listed building. The dwelling did not integrate with other local buildings due to the size and colour of the roof and the location of the site made it difficult to screen the property
· The views of one of the Ward Member’s with regard the development at Wellparks and how that had been designed to fit in with the local area, the need for procedures to be followed and that the development did not include any modern features to mitigate climate change.
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that: the application be deferred to allow a site visit to take place by the Planning Working Group to consider relevant parts of Policy DM2 as follows:
Policy DM2 requires designs of new development to be of high quality based upon and demonstrating the following principles:
a) Clear understanding of the characteristics of the site, its wider context and the surrounding area
c) Positive contribution to local character including any heritage or biodiversity assets and the setting of heritage assets
e) Visually attractive places that are well integrated with surrounding buildings, streets and landscapes, and do not have an unacceptable adverse effect on the privacy and amenity of the proposed or neighbouring properties and uses, taking account of:
ii) Siting, layout, scale and massing
iv) Materials, landscaping and green infrastructure
(Proposed by Cllr F W Letch and seconded by Cllr B G J Warren)
Notes:
i) Cllr J M Downes declared a personal interest as he could see the site from his house;
ii) Cllr F W Letch made a declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as a Chairman of Crediton Town Council;
iii) Ms Partridge spoke in objection to the application;
iv) Mr Wright (agent) spoke;
v) Cllr Mrs Brookes Hocking spoke on behalf of Crediton Town Council;
vi) Cllr J M Downes spoke as Ward Member;
vii) The following late information was reported:
CREDITON TOWN COUNCIL- 9th January- It was resolved to strongly reaffirm the Council’s original objections made to the application and to also add that the development is over-scaled, the materials used are unsympathetic and the planting scheme is inadequate compared to what existed prior to development. The Council is also disappointed to note that the developer has proceeded with the development prior to obtaining the necessary planning consents.
· The overgrown grass on the bank adjacent to the driveway has a negative visual impact, proper landscaping should be carried out here.
· Concerns regarding the accuracy of the site location plan in terms of the extent of the applicant’s ownership (NB: please note update on this as below)
c) No 3 on the Plans List (19/01340/FULL Erection of a dwelling - land at NGR 266108 (Paddons Farm), Wembworthy)
The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report explaining that Wembworthy was a village without a settlement limit, therefore there was no planning policy to support an open market dwelling in the countryside. There had been an application for 2 dwellings on the site in 1991 which had lapsed and he explained that planning policy had moved on since then. He explained the self-build policy and the S106 agreement (the affordable or low cost housing to remain affordable for and available to local people in perpetuity, limited to no more than 80% of its market value upon resale).
The meeting was shown a presentation which outlined the proposals for a 4 bedroom dwelling, which included the elevations, a landscape plan and photographs from various aspects of the site.
Consideration was given to:
· The detail of the S106, the criteria for a self build and whether the property could be claimed to be affordable
· The views of the applicant with regard to the detail of the S106 which he felt was a restriction but that he fully intended to stay within the village;
· The views of the local County Councillor supporting the application.
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that: planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration and the signing of a S106 agreement to secure the affordable or low-cost housing to remain affordable for and available to local people in perpetuity, limited to no more than 80% of its market value upon resale.
(Proposed by Cllr B G J Warren and seconded by Cllr Mrs C A Collis)
Notes:
i) Mr Fowler (applicant) spoke;
ii) The Chairman read a statement on behalf of Cllr Mrs M E Squires (County Councillor);
iii) The following late information was reported
Revised comments received from Wembworthy Parish Council via agent for applicant. 13/1/2020 Comments from a councillor were a personal opinion and not written as a representation of the Parish Council. The Parish Council previously voted in favour of the development of the site and instructed the clerk to write to Mid Devon expressing this decision.
Further comments from Parish Clerk 14/1/2020 - The comments sent in originally were the only ones received from the PC during the original timescales and provided by a named councillor. Otherwise the council had no objections to the application. I have no knowledge of a letter dated 13 January 2020.
d) No 4 on the Plans List (19/01507/OUT Outline for the erection of a dwelling and formation of access – 48 Twitchen, Holcombe Rogus).
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the location of the application, the existing dwelling on site and the use of the existing access. The site was currently outside of the settlement limit, however the Local Plan Review would amend the settlement limit. He provided an indicative layout of the proposed dwelling and the location of the drainage gully and the open drain adjacent to the site. He explained that the drain collected water from the fields behind the site with the pipe depositing the water into the road, this was a highways issue and would not impact on the site itself. Members also viewed photographs from various aspects of the site which included the flooded road.
Consideration was given to:
· The views of the objector with regard to the build up of water in her garden and that the erection of a dwelling could cause damage to the culvert or if the drain was blocked this would cause her property to flood. The busy road to the village was narrow and prone to flooding and the closeness of the play area to the application site.
· The views of the applicant with regard to the results of the flood risk assessment which had stated that the proposal would not contribute to any more flood water. The proposed dwelling would sit 3 feet above the road level and was just an outline application.
· The views of the Chairman of the Parish Council with regard to the flooding in the area, surface water issues, how much hard surface would be incorporated into the site which could create drainage issues and the lack of facilities in the village with the closure of the village shop.
· The views of one of the Ward Member’s with regard to the views of the Parish Council and local flooding issues
· The results of the SUDS report which had indicated the capability of storing water on the site and allowing it to percolate slowly into the drain.
· Whether the additional dwelling would have any major impact on the flood issues already present.
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that: planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.
(Proposed by Cllr E J Berry and seconded by Cllr S J Clist)
Notes:
i) Cllr R F Radford declared a personal interest as he knew the applicant and chose to leave the meeting during the discussion thereon;
ii) Cllr D J Knowles declared a personal interest as the applicant was known to him;
iii) Mrs Barker (objector) spoke;
iv) Mr Archer (agent) spoke;
v) Cllr Butler spoke on behalf of Holcombe Rogus Parish Council;
vi) A proposal for a site visit was not supported.
vii) Cllr Mrs C A Collis requested that her vote against the decision be recorded.
e) No 5 on the Plans List (19/01900/FULL The erection of a dwelling and formation of access – Southertons Farmhouse, Westleigh).
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the proposal of a single storey dwelling which was a revised scheme to that approved in 2018, the site location plan, the location of the garden wall which would provide access, the proposed design and elevations and photographs from various aspects of the site. He also provided a comparison drawing of the previous approved permission and the current proposal.
Consideration was given to:
· The views of the objector and the impact that the proposal would have on her property, she felt that any excavations would undermine her property, the proposal would have an adverse impact on her property and therefore would be against policy DM2. She also felt that the proposal would impact on her visual amenity and that there would be a loss of light and that the proposal was too close to her dwelling. She also highlighted a covenant which referred to the height restriction of any dwelling in that area.
· The views of the agent, who referred to the revised scheme being a more appropriate dwelling at only 3 metres high. The neighbouring property had obscured glass on the ground floor overlooking the site, there would be no loss of light and only a small amount of soil would need to be removed.
· The views of a representative from the Parish Council with regard to the loss of light in the kitchen of the neighbouring property, the lack of consultation with the neighbours and concerns with regard to the wall.
· Whether the proposal would result in any material loss of daylight and sunlight to rooms in an adjoining property
· The revised scheme being better than the previous application which already had permission.
· The fact that the covenant was not a planning matter.
It was therefore:
RESOLVED that: planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration.
(Proposed by Cllr F W Letch and seconded by Cllr E J Berry.)
Notes:
i) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe made a declaration in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as she had received a letter from the objector;
ii) Mrs Wynne-Jones spoke in objection to the application
iii) Mr Archer spoke as agent;
iv) Cllr Worrow spoke on behalf of Burlescombe Parish Council;
v) Cllr Mrs C A Collis requested that her vote against the decision be recorded.