Minutes of a meeting of the WEST DEVON DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT & LICENSING COMMITTEE held on TUESDAY the31st day of October 2023 at 10.00am in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILWORTHY PARK
Present Cllr R Cheadle – Chairman
Cllr T Southcott – Vice-Chairman
Cllr A Cunningham Cllr N Jory
Cllr M Ewings Cllr U Mann
Cllr S Guthrie Cllr J Moody
Cllr P Kimber Cllr S Wakeham
Head of Development Management (JH)
Senior Planning Officer (PW)
Monitoring Officer and Head of Legal Services (DF) (Via MS Teams)
Senior Democratic Services Officer (KH)
*DM&L.22 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Cllr C Mott for who Cllr P Kimber substituted and Cllr T Leech for who Cllr M Ewings substituted.
*DM&L.23 DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interests.
*DM&L.24 URGENT BUSINESS
There was no urgent business brought forward to this meeting.
*DM&L.25 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
The minutes from the Committee meeting held on 3 October 2023 were approved as a true and correct record.
*DM&L.26 PLANNING, LISTED BUILDING, TREE PRESERVATION ORDER AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS
The Committee proceeded to consider the reports that had been prepared by the relevant Planning Officer on the following applications and considered also the comments of the Town and Parish Councils together with other representations received, which were listed within the presented agenda report and summarised below:
(a) Application No. 0466/23/FUL Ward: Exbourne
Site Address: Westacre, Sampford Courtenay EX20 2SE
Development: Erection of farm shop with on site parking and
landscaping.
Recommendation: Refusal
Key issues for Committee consideration:
· Principle of development/sustainability
· Design/landscape
· Biodiversity
· Neighbour amenity
· Highways/access
· Drainage
· Low carbon development
The Planning Officer reiterated that it was the suitability of the
location that needed to be addressed first before looking at policy
DEV 15 which addressed supporting business start-up in rural areas.
The Head of Development Management stated that had an
application been presented whereby the building was clustered with the
other farm buildings it may have been more favourable with regard to
any impact on the local environment and landscape.
Speakers included the applicant, and two statements from the two
Ward Members, Cllrs Casbolt and Watts.
The applicant stated that she and her husband ran a dairy farm and
currently employ several local people within their dairy production
business, which included milk and ice-cream production and delivery.
Currently there was an honesty box shed on their driveway at Westacre
Where the Applicant sold their milk in reusable glass bottles. They also
sold grass fed beef and pork along with logs and kindling wood which
are all produced on their farm.
In pre-application talks the Applicant said that they were advised to
move the proposed shop away from the junction where the current
farm shed was. The access point was on a bus route and popular
cycle route. Solar panels would be used for energy and the building
clad with wood from their farm. She stated there would be tables for
use by those using the shop, but food was not being served and
therefore no toilet facilities would be provided. The Applicant explained
that they have around 65 stockists for their products in the area and
they deliver to them.
In the statement from Cllr Casbolt,he stated that he felt the application
would be a great asset for the local economy. He felt it would reduce
carbon emissions for those not travelling to the nearby town of
Okehampton.
In Cllr Watts comments she felt Members should support local
farming communities and supported the comments Cllr Casbolt had
stated.
In debate Members wrestled with Policy DEV 15 whereby support is
given to supporting local businesses in rural areas and why the
site was described as isolated in the officer report. One
Member felt DEV15 had several objective requirements but the
overriding caveat seemed to be whether the site was suitable and
sustainable. They made the comment that the Council had
secured funding from the UK Prosperity Fund to help businesses and
farms to diversify. Government Policy was about stewardship and
diversification of farms. He felt Dev 15 should not stand in the way of
this type of diversification. Another Member said they felt this
application for a farm shop would help to put people back in contact
with their food.
Another Member commented on the positives of a farming family
coming forward in a regenerative way along with showing families
around the farm in an educational way.
Drainage issues were raised and it was suggested that conditions
should be imposed if the recommendation was to grant the application.
The Head of Development Management reminded Members that
they needed to consider the development against the planning
polices in the Development Plan.
The application was contrary to those polices and therefore Members
would need to give reasons why they disagreed if they felt they would
support the application. She also reminded Members that the starting
point in the JLP are the SPT polices -when deciding an application. A
Member pointed out that SPT 1 states a sustainable economy where
opportunity for business growth and a low carbon economy is
encouraged and supported. Sustainable societies whereby
communities have a mix of local services to meet the needs of local
people. Another Member commented that the business had an
excellent reputation. They also felt cycling to the shop from Hatherleigh
on the lanes was safe. A Member stated that part of bringing the JLP
together was to help the farming community diversify. He said if they
don’t do that then it sends out mixed messages.
The Head of Legal reminded Members to have a regard to the
planning polices when making a decision and gave advice about how
the Committee should approach the interpretation of the relevant
policies.
One Member felt the applicant had done all thy could to comply with
the JLP and quoted from the JLP saying it would help a circular
regenerative economy. Another commented that they would not expect
a sustainably location policy to be linked with a farm shop. Another
said people would have a reason to use their bicycle to do a short
journey to the farm shop from one of the local villages, hence
increasing the sustainability.
In summing up, the Committee felt that the application met policies
SPT 1 and Dev 15.
Committee Decision: Conditional Consent. The Head of
Development Management be authorised to grant
approval subject to conditions to be determined in
consultation with the Chairman and Vice-
Chairman of the Development Management and
Licensing Committee, such conditions to include a
condition on drainage.
(b) Application No. 1318/23/FUL Ward: Tavistock North
Site Address: The Kiosk, Bus Station, 20 Plymouth Road,
Tavistock PL19 8AY
Development: Conversion of existing offices into three flats
with associated courtyard area and soft landscaping to front
Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to
completion of Unilateral Undertaking to secure Tamar EMS
mitigation
The Head of Development explained that the application had come
back to Committee for Members to reconfirm their decision made at its
last meeting (Min DM&L19 refer). After
the last Committee meeting it was noticed that the address of the
proposed development was incorrect. It referred to both The kiosk,
Bus Station and 20 Plymouth Road. It has now been corrected to 20
Plymouth Road by the applicant. The application had then been
re-advertised in the local press.
It has then been also noticed that the proposed Flat 2 was not fully
included within the red line on the plans. This was corrected and was
Re-advertised in the local press. Also, following an error in the
description of the Applicant on the application form, the Applicant had
written formally to correct it.
The Head of Development Management confirmed that nothing had
changed in items of the material considerations of the application.
Committee decision: The Committee confirmed its decision
to grant conditional approval as set out at Min DM&L 19
*DM&L.27 PLANNING APPEALS UPDATE
The Head of Development Management took Members through two
Appeal decisions. 1047/22/FUL, construction of a 3-to-4-bedroom house at Station Road, Bere Alston. The application was refused. The
Inspector noted and agreed with the reasons for refusal, however he
did not consider the cottage to be a non-designated heritage asset and felt the Council had not given enough information to demonstrate that it was. She said she would be looking at whether a list of non-designated heritage assets should be drawn up moving forward. The second appeal was 3072/22/HHO, a householder application for a storage enclosure in the back garden. The back garden was located over the West Devon World Heritage Site. The application was refused for this reason and the Inspector agreed with the decision.
*DM&L.28 UPDATE ON UNDETERMINED MAJOR APPLICATIONS
There were no questions on this item.
(The Meeting ended at 11.20am)
______________________
Chairman