There were no apologies for absence received.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2024 (circulated previously) be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

(a)  Voting on the approval of minutes

The Chair advised that following the last meeting of the Committee, clarification had been sought from the Senior Solicitor and Monitoring Officer who had confirmed that Councillors could move, second or vote on the approval of minutes from a previous Committee meeting if they had not been in attendance at that meeting.

(b)  Annual Site Inspections – 26 June 2024

The Chair sought feedback from Councillors who had attended the comprehensive Annual Site Inspections that had taken place on 26 June 2024 in relation to the site inspections that had taken place and suggestions for future site inspections.

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 received.

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

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

The Senior Planning Officer (SE) advised the Committee of a typographical error on page 19 of the agenda, fourth paragraph from the bottom of the page, whereby the reference to paragraph numbers were incorrect and should have stated “paragraphs 7.35 and 7.36” and not “paragraphs 3.35 and 3.36”.

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer read out statements to the Committee on behalf of Liz Lillicrap (objector), Diana Simpson (objector) and Clive and Pauline Deen (objectors).

James Bradley (objector), Oliver Perrin (objector), Jemma Grigg (applicant) and Graham Townsend (agent) addressed the Committee.

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

·       The National Design Guide and National Planning Policy Framework sat alongside the Local Plan and did not outweigh the Local Plan.  In 2023, the Planning Advisory Service had tested the Local Plan and confirmed that it was still sound for decision making.  Therefore Policy DM23 was still sound.

·       The principle form was not defined in the Local Plan and was open to the decision makers judgement.  The site was not within the principle built form of the village, however, it was clear that the site was well related to as defined in the Local Plan and the affordable housing Supplementary Planning Document.  This matter of well related had also been considered by the Planning Inspectorate recently.

·       Further to the issuing of a Consent Order by the High Court of Justice allowing the judicial review which concluded that the decision of the Committee on 6 September 2023 be quashed, officers in consultation with Legal had taken the view that the application had to be re-considered as originally submitted.  Amended plans had been submitted on 30 January 2024 and therefore could not be considered as this was after application had been considered by the Committee and this decision, along with the amended plans were quashed as part of the Judicial Review.

·       The Judicial Review looked at the reasons and the policies that the Committee had considered as part of its decision making process and concluded that the decision should have, but failed, to give adequate reasons for its decision to grant planning permission contrary to Officer’s recommendation.  The Judicial Review looked at the process of decision making and not whether the decision was right or wrong.  As part of the decision making process, the Committee had not considered all of the policies that Officers had considered that the application was contrary to.

·       Policy ST19 Affordable Housing on Exception site looked to assist the rural housing crisis and support local needs.  However, this application was for a self build and open market dwelling.

·       This location did not trigger a local needs dwelling in accordance with Policy DM24.

·       The proposal would extend the settlement unduly into the countryside.

·       The second reason for refusal could not be removed as the decision was considered as a whole as part of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

RESOLVED that it being 11.23 a.m. that the meeting be adjourned for a short comfort break.

RESOLVED that it being 11.33 a.m. that the meeting be reconvened.

Retrospective application for the erection of an agricultural building for the storage of agricultural machinery, straw, hay and fodder, and market gardening purposes together with mezzanine floor, welfare facilities and first floor balcony (amended red outline). Report by Senior Planning Officer (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Senior Planning Officer (DB) (circulated previously) regarding planning application 78362.

Dr John Ingram (objector), Brian Hookins (objector), Graham Clark (agent) and Luke Trowells (objector) addressed the Committee.

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

Councillor R. Knight left the meeting.

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

·       A wildlife trigger list had been submitted which identified trigger areas for an ecology report to be submitted.  It was her understanding that there was not any hedgerow, woodland or scrub to be removed as part of this proposal.  Therefore, a wildlife report could be not be requested.

·       Planning enforcement action was being undertaken on the site for other breaches.

·       There were no invasive species on the site such as Japanese Knotweed, therefore it was assumed that Part C of the wildlife trigger list had not been completed in error.

·       The Biodiversity Net Gain requirement came into force with effect from April 2024 on minor sites such as this and could not be considered for applications that had been submitted prior to this date.  This application had been submitted in February 2024.  There was no biodiversity net loss on this site.  If Committee were mindful to consider including a condition requiring a detailed landscaping plan, consideration needed to be given as to whether such a condition was reasonable, sound and appropriate for this application to meet the test of applying planning conditions.

·       In terms of welfare facilities that were located in the barn, a caravan could be located on the site providing welfare facilities which would not require planning permission.  There was a need for the Committee to consider the application which was before them.  If there was a breach of a condition, then a breach of condition notice could be issued.  There was no right to appeal and would go straight to the Court.

·       Biodiversity Net Gain could be considered for retrospective planning applications.

·       The profits of a business could only be considered if an application was made, for example, for a rural workers dwelling and could not be considered as part of this application.  A rural workers dwelling would require a full planning application to be submitted and tested in accordance with policies.

·       For a site for horticulture use with 5 hectares, a storage building could be built under permitted development rights.

·       A landscaping condition could only be justified where that was a visual impact to mitigate risk of harm.  There was no visual impact.  This barn was for agricultural purposes and anything that was for domestic purposes would require planning permission.

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer (DB) advised the following:

·       That there was no evidence that trees or hedgerow had been removed on the site.

·       There was an open planning enforcement action on this site to deal with works that did not form part of this application.

·       On the last visit to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

Part retrospective change of use of former tennis courts to pitches for motor homes and a public car park with WC block. Resurfacing of existing track to provide access to private parking / motor homes area and delivery area. Widening / improvement to existing site entrance. Report by the Senior Planning Officer (attached).

Councillors Haworth-Booth and Spear left the meeting.

The Committee considered a report by the Senior Planning Officer (JJ) (circulated previously) regarding planning application 78425.

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 Senior Planning Officer (JJ) advised the following:

·       Condition 3 required the owner or operator to maintain a register of occupants.

·       The car park was privately owned.

·       A motorhome was a single vehicle which can drive on to the site.

·       Condition 4 stated not more than eight motor homes shall be stationed on the site at any time.

·       The surface water from the roof would go to the soakaway and the foul water to the sewer.

Councillor Williams, in her capacity as Ward Member, addressed the Committee.

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

Installation of 5 no. hardwood, double glazed opening casement windows, in the platform area of the building. Report by Planning Officer (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Planning Officer (KW) (circulated previously) regarding planning application 78668.

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

The Chair advised that the only planning site inspection required was in relation to planning application 76857: Land at Ley Lane, Patchole, Barrnstaple, Kentisbury EX31 4NB.  The site inspection would be arranged on a Wednesday.