Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received form Councillors Denton and Whitehead.

There were no items brought forward which in the opinion of the Chair should be considered by the meeting as a matter of urgency.

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).

There were no declarations of interest announced.

Reserved matters application under Regulation 3 of the T & C P General Regulations 1992 notification by NDC pursuant of the outline application of 73606 - Outline application for 180 dwellings together with all associated infrastructure) (amended plans/documents). Report by Lead Planning Officer (Major Applications) (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Lead Planning Officer (Major Applications) regarding planning application 76784 (circulated previously).

Marsh Pullen (representing Barnstaple Town Council), Tony Hopwood (agent) and SarahJane Mackenzie-Shapland (applicant) addressed the Committee.

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer read a statement received from Councillor David Knight, in his capacity as Ward Member, to the Committee.

The Chair advised that as Councillor C. Leaver had arrived after the start of the consideration of this item, was unable to move or second a motion or take part in the vote, however was able to ask questions

In response to questions, the Lead Planning Officer (Major Applications) advised the following:

·       The scheme needed to demonstrate that regard had been had to the National Design Guide and relevant strategic and development policies in the Local Plan.  There was a conflict in terms of policy DM04 in terms of design, DM07 and ST017 in terms of planning and listed building and paragraphs within the National Planning Policy Framework.

·       There were some concerns regarding the 6 storey element and the scheme had been redesigned and it was now proposed that the 6^th storey would be stepped back.

·       Further details had been provided in relation to the design and materials and how it would look when it had been built. High quality materials would be used and landscaping had been included within the design to minimise some of the impact.  However, there was still a slight conflict with policy DM04 which had been given moderate weight as a planning judgement.

·       The Heritage and Conservation Officer had advised that the element of hard on the listed building was less than substantial harm and this needed to be considered against the public benefits.

·       Having considered the benefits versus the disbenefits, it was a matter of planning judgement as to how the balance will fall. In considering the cumulative weight of the disbenefits, against that of the benefits, the weight of the benefits arising from this proposal would clearly outweigh the harm arising from policy conflict identified above. The balance of achieving a sustainable, viable and attractive development in this location were highly challenging and the scheme presented was not the perfect scheme however this was not considered to result in a such significant conflict to the development plan, when read as a whole, which would justify refusal of the scheme.

·       The plans had not been reviewed by a Design Review Panel. This was not a statutory requirement.  However recommendations of a Design Review Panel could be given weight as part of the planning process. Officers had reviewed the design and external consultants had provided their critiques.

·       The relocation of the higher density part of the scheme from the riverside to the south west part of the site had not been considered as part of the reserved matters application. The proposed designed optimised the layout for the site.

·       There were taller residential buildings already located on the other side of the river adjacent to the Oliver  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

RESOLVED that it being 11.51 am that the meeting be adjourned for a short comfort break.

RESOLVED that it being 12.00 pm that the meeting be reconvened.

Application under Regulation 3  of the T & C P General Regulations 1992 notification by NDC for creation of external terrace to building with new external stair link from main building balcony. Report by Lead Planning Officer (North) (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Lead Planning Officer (North) regarding planning application 77915 (circulated previously).

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

Change of use from council depot (Sui Generis) to vehicle storage (B8). Report by the Lead Planning Officer (North) (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Lead Planning Officer (North) regarding planning application 77952 (circulated previously).

Carl Metcalfe (applicant) addressed the Committee.

In response to a question, the Lead Planning Officer (North) advised the following:

·       That further to the comment made by the Highways Authority stating “It should be noted that the Barnstaple with Bideford and Northam Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan indicates a future aspiration for a cycle route through this land from the Tarka Trail to Rolles Quay and this proposal should not prejudice that aspiration”, he did not consider that this application would prejudice this aspiration.

·       Currently the use of this site was for a council depot and the application was purely for a change of use with no physical development.

·       The Highways Authority had not raised an objection to the using of the proposed access to the site.

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