Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Denton, C. Leaver and Spear.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 9 October 2024 (circulated previously) be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

(a)  Recording of Meeting

The Chair advised that a member of the public would be recording discussions in relation to planning application 76857 and that he would also be recording the meeting.

(b)  Order of Agenda

RESOLVED that application 78873 be considered prior to application 79237 as there were members of the public registered to speak on this application.

Please telephone the Corporate and Community Services team to prepare a form for your signature before the meeting. Interests must be re-declared when the item is called. A declaration of interest under the Code of Conduct will be a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, an Other Registrable Interest or a Non-Registrable Interest.  If the item directly relates to your interest you must declare the interest and leave the room for the item, save in the case of Other Registrable Interests or Non-Registrable Interests where you may first speak on the item as a member of the public if provision has been made for the public to speak.  If the matter does not directly relate to your interest but still affects it then you must consider whether you are affected to a greater extent than most people and whether a reasonable person would consider your judgement to be clouded, if you are then you must leave the room for the item (although you may speak as a member of the public if provision has been made for the public to speak) or, if you are not, then you can declare the interest but still take part).

The Solicitor and Data Protection Officer gave a reminder to the Committee in relation to the declaration of interests. A declaration under the Code of Conduct will be a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, an Other Registerable Interest or a Non-Registerable Interest. If the matter does not directly relate to the interest but still affects a Councillor then they must consider whether they are affected to a greater extent than most people and whether a reasonable would a reasonable person would consider their judgement to be clouded.

The following declaration of interest was announced:

Councillor Maddocks – planning application 79173, disclosable pecuniary interest.

Erection of open market dwelling (amended size, scale, siting and design) (amended description & plans). Report by the Senior Planning Officer (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Senior Planning Officer (SE) (circulated previously) regarding planning application 76857.

Graham Townsend (Planning agent – supporter), Oliver Perrin (objector), James Bradley (objector), Jemma Grigg (applicant) and Matt Steart (agent) addressed the Committee.

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer read a statement on behalf of Liz Lillicrap (objector) to the Committee.

In response to comments made, the Service Manager (Development Management) advised the following:

·       In accordance with section 36 of the Planning Act, all planning applications  should be determined in accordance with the Planning Acts and also in accordance with the development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

·       An interpretation of principal built form relating to Patchole was referenced in the Planning Inspectorate Appeal decision of 2022.

·       The principle consideration in relation to this application was the tenure of development and whether the site was within the principal built form or well related to the settlement.

·       The Planning Policy Officer, who had been involved in the preparation of the Local Plan, was present at the meeting, to answer any questions in relation to the interpretation of the principal built form.

·       If the Committee were minded to approve the application, there was a need to evidence the reasons for going against the officer recommendation.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Service Manager (Development Management) advised the following:

·       The National Design Guide was a material consideration and was required to be considered as part of the balance of weighting of the whole application. 

·       In accordance with Planning law, all applications were required to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.  The Development Plan was sound as it had been tested.

·       The interpretation of policy for each settlement under Policy DM23  would be different depending on the physical circumstances of the particular settlement.

·       Approval of this application could set a precedent although future applications would be determined on their merits and facts.

·       The Planning Inspectorate Appeal decision of 2022 sets out a view as to where the principal built form is located in Patchhole.

·       In accordance with Policy DM23 of the Local Plan, defining the principal built form of a settlement would be a question of application of the accepted principle based on the physical layout of the settlement and its relationship to a development site.

·       There was a housing crisis and officers consider that this site should support the provision of affordable housing as it wasn’t considered to be part of the principal built form but could be considered to be well related to the settlement.

·       It was considered that the property located at the North East was outside of the built form.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Senior Planning Officer (SE) advised the following:

·       The ownership and use of the land adjacent to the listed barns was unknown to Officers at the time of the Committee meeting. The curtilage of the site was a separate matter.  In his opinion, the area referred to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

RESOLVED that it being 12.23 pm that the meeting be adjourned for a comfort break and that it be reconvened at 12.34 pm.

Change of use of vacant garage to residential dwelling with parking and landscaping. Report by Planning Officer (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Planning Officer (KW) (circulated previously) regarding planning application 78873.

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer read out a statement on behalf of Amy Wells (supporter) to the Committee.

Laura Lethaby (applicant) addressed the Committee.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Planning Officer (KW) advised the following:

·       There had been two appeals decisions relating to this site.  Planning permission had been refused in 2015 for a new dwelling which was located close by to the north of this site.  One of the reasons for refusal had been in relation to highways safety, which was a similar reason that had been given by Devon County Council Highways Authority in relation to this application. The appeal had been dismissed and the Inspectorate had agreed with the Highways Authority objections to the application.

·       The second was in 2020 which related to enforcement case 10878 for the subdivision of the main dwelling into flats and the use of the garage/store as a dwelling. The appeal was dismissed with regards to the use of the garage/store as a dwelling as the Inspectorate had agreed with the Highways Authority in relation to concerns for the increased risk of highway safety and that it was likely to generate 6-8 vehicle movements per day.

·       There was no underpass located under Kiln Lane. Kiln Lane was a no through road.  He showed the accesses to the site on a Google maps image.

·       There were already an amount of existing vehicle movements for the existing ancillary building. These were not relevant to the new building proposed.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Service Manager (Development Management) advised the following:

·       Planning application reference 40120 was for the erection of a garage/workshop to be used ancillary to Manleigh House.

·       The planning appeal was in relation to a new dwelling outside of the development boundary.  This application was for a conversion, therefore the principle of development was different.

·       Read out paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework in relation to cumulative impact.

RESOLVED that it being 1.00 p.m. that the meeting continue in order for the remaining business to be transacted.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Planning Officer (KW) advised the following:

·       The A399 was 30 mph.  The Devon County Council Highways Officer was not present at the meeting, therefore, the total number of vehicle movements per day using this junction could not be confirmed.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Service Manager (Development Management) advised the following:

·       Devon County Council Highways Authority, if present, would advise that this proposal would generate an additional 6-8 vehicle movements per day.

·       This development would not result in the removal of the vehicles from the site.  It was assumed that the vehicles shown on the photographs were for other dwellings.

·       It was for the Committee to consider whether there were benefits of reusing the existing building and if these outweighed the concerns raised by the Highways Authority in relation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

Extension and alterations to dwelling to provide new entrance and wet room. Report by Graduate Planning Officer (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Graduate Planning Officer (circulated previously) regarding planning application 79237.

RESOLVED (unanimous) that the application be APPROVED as recommended by the Graduate Planning Officer.

Erection of a wildlife tower (amended location and block plans). Report by Planning Officer (attached).

Councillor Maddocks re-declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in the above application and left the room during the consideration thereof.

The Committee considered a report by the Planning Officer (KW) (circulated previously) regarding planning application 79173.

The Service Manager (Development Management) advised the Committee that following the receipt of an amended plan the consultation period did not expire until 13 November 2024, therefore it was recommended that the application be deferred and considered at the next meeting of the Committee in December 2024.

RESOLVED (unanimous) that the application be DEFERRED and considered at the next meeting of the Committee in December 2024 as the consultation period following the receipt of an amended plan did not expire until 13 November 2024.

To consider the report by the Planning Support Officer (attached).

RESOLVED that consideration of the appeal report be deferred until the next meeting of the Committee.

Service Manager (Development Management) to report.

RESOLVED that consideration of the presentation by the Service Manager (Development Management) on Class Q Permissions be deferred until the next meeting of the Committee.

There were no planning site inspections required to be undertaken by the Committee.