Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Crabb, Davies, Fowler, Leaver, Mack and Tucker. Councillor Walker had been appointed as a Substitute Member for Councillor Tucker.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings held on 10 August 2022 and 31 August 2022 (circulated previously) be approved as correct records and signed by the Chair subject to the amendment of minute 52, reason 1 to read as follows:

1.    “The proposal was contrary to policy DM01 “Amenity considerations” and explanatory text 13.1  of the adopted North Devon and Torridge Joint Local Plan by reason of significant detriment to amenity that would be caused by the proposal compared to the relative peace and tranquillity enjoyed by the residents of St Andrews Road, St Peters Road and Church Farm. This disturbance would arise from noise, light intrusion, traffic movements and loss of privacy caused by the traffic movements generated by the development.”

(a)  Review of Developments previously granted planning permission

The Chair advised that former Planning Committees had undertaken site inspections to review developments that had been granted planning permission to look at good and bad examples and asked whether the Committee would wish to carry out such a review prior to Christmas.

It was agreed the Committee undertake site inspections to review developments that had been granted planning permission to look at good and bad examples and that this be arranged prior to Christmas.

(Please complete the form provided at the meeting or telephone the Corporate and Community Services Team to prepare a form for your signature before the meeting.  Items must be re-declared when the item is called, and Councillors must leave the room if necessary)

There were no declarations of interest received.

Reserved matters application for the provision of an agricultural workers' dwelling to serve an established dairy business (outline permission 71928) (outline planning permission 71928 - provision of an agricultural worker's dwelling to serve an established dairy business (all matters reserved)).  Report by Planning Officer (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Planning Officer (CS) (circulated previously).

The Lead Planning Officer (South) presented the application to the Committee.

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer read a statement received from Mr Richard Halliday, Chair of Landkey Parish Council to the Committee.

Colin Tucker (supporter and on behalf of the applicant) and Alex Perraton (supporter) addressed the Committee.

Councillor Lane (Ward Member) addressed the Committee

In response to comments made, the Lead Planning Officer (South) advised the following:

·       The Rural Workers’ Dwellings Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) set the size standards and were not minimum sizes. The SPD was adopted in 2020. The SPD made reference to the national described space standards. The size standards included an additional 15% for functional living requirements such as the provision of office space. It was prescriptive on the floor areas.  Any increase in size above the standards prescribed in the SPD needed to be justified in accordance with need and the financials of the enterprise.

·       Councillor Lane had emailed her examples of other schemes approved where the sizes of dwellings were larger.  Some of these examples pre-dated the SPD and one scheme that had been approved since 2020 had been justified due to the needs of the enterprise.

·       It was for the Committee to consider whether there was a justified need in this instance to uplift the size of the dwelling.

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

·       An application for the provision of separate office accommodation would be considered in accordance with other planning policies such as policy DM14.  If the accommodation was linked to the farm it would be considered as ancillary.  The majority of enterprises of this size would require office accommodation.

·       The outline planning permission tied the dwelling to the enterprise as a perpetuity clause had been included as part of the section 106 agreement. Due to it being a third dwelling on the site and its relationship with the holding, it had been considered necessary to tie the dwelling to the enterprise.

In response to a question that the Lead Planning Officer (South) was unable to answer, Colin Tucker (on behalf of the applicant) advised that his parents lived in the listed farmhouse which was 2 storeys with a small office and his brother lived in a 2 storey 3 bedroomed dwelling with no office accommodation.

Councillor Jenkins arrived.

RESOLVED (9 for, 0 against, 0 abstained) that the application be APPROVED subject to authority being delegated to the Lead Planning Officer (South) to impose standard conditions for the following reason:

1.    The scale of the enterprise and the fact that the existing dwelling was not suitable to provide additional administration and office accommodation.

Report by the Senior Planning Support Officer (attached).

The Committee considered and noted the appeal report by the Senior Planning Support Officer (circulated previously).