*DM&L.42
The
Committee proceeded to consider the report that had been prepared
by the relevant Development Management Specialists on each of 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: 1887/21/FUL Ward:Okehampton
North
Site Address: “Land at Parcel 4B”, East
of Crediton Road, Okehampton
Development: New vehicular access from Crediton Road and associated footway.
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Consent
Conditions:
1.
Standard Time limit
2.
Not to commence until such time as the RM for parcel
4b has been approved
3.
Adherence to plans
4.
Tree protection plan adherence
5.
Drainage condition
6.
Highways splay construction
7.
Bird nesting season hedgerow removal
timing
8.
NE License
9.
Adherence to the ecological mitigation
report
10.
Biodiversity enhancement to be achieved within the
wider 4b parcel Reserved Matters proposal
11.
Landscaping scheme
Speakers who addressed the Committee on the application
were:
Supporter:
Mr Daniel Allwood
West
Devon Borough Council Ward Member: Cllr Tony Leech
Mr
Allwood explained that a significant
amount of time had been spent on developing proposals to minimise
the impact of the development.
The
proposal of the reduced speed limit would result in a safer
environment and a reduction in the quantum of hedgerow loss from
the northern access point in parcel 4b. A proposed single access
point would result in significant engineering retaining structures
which would
be
visually prominent particularly from the south.
Cllr Leech,
as the Ward Member, had submitted a written representation, Cllr
Leech voiced concerns around potential flooding on a site with a
steep hill and said that attenuation of the water would need to be
well designed.
During
debate, the Planning Officer explained in response to
Members’ questions that the reduction in engineering works
that would be required if the proposed secondary access was
approved meant that there would be more usable space so the options
for amenity and urban
design
would be improved. Also, while the reserved matters application for
the layout was yet to be received, it was unlikely that approval of
the secondary access would be integrated across the site and the
SDP also limited the amount of affordable housing that could be
clustered together.
Members
referred to the site having been allocated in the Joint Local Plan
and felt that the secondary access proposed would bring forward a
better and more acceptable development. Accordingly, after
discussion and debate it was proposed and seconded and
Resolved
that:
The
Committee unanimously voted in favour of the Conditional
Consent.
(b)
Application No:2927/21/FUL Ward: Exbourne
Site
Address: Land Adjacent to Hayfield Road, Road from Townsend Farm to
Waterhouse Farm Lane, Exbourne
Development: Change of use of land and coversion of buildings to
provide holiday accommodation.
RECOMMENDATION: Refusal
The site
was poorly related to nearby settlements and was not served by a
satisfactory and safe pedestrian connection that would discourage
use of private vehicles. As such the location of the proposed
holiday accommodation would rely heavily on car use and represented
an unjustified and unsustainable intrusion into this Countryside
location which would set an undesirable precedent. The proposed
use, catering for equine holidays, was also likely give rise to
further pressure for development on the site. As such the proposal
failed to meet policy objectives and policies SPT1, SPT2, TTV1,
TTV25, TTV26 and DEV15.
.
Speakers who addressed the Committee on the
Application were:
Supporter: Mr Stephen Blakeman
West Devon Borough Council Ward Member: Cllr Barry
Ratcliffe
Mr Blakeman stated that the application was
submitted in August 2021 and two Planning Officers had previosuly
been given responsibility. Both had been in support of the
application but a change of view was given as it was 300 metres
from the village and this distance was
deemed to be unsustainable in a rural location.
Cllr Ratcliffe confirmed that he had called this
application to Committee due to the varying interpretation of the
Joint Local Plan. He stated that he found the statements of both
the agent and the Officer informative and looked forward to the
debate and hearing Members thoughts on the application.
During debate, a Member voiced concerns over the
current wooden stable, with the requirements from building
regulations it would become a significantly different
structure.
It was also raised by Officers that a condition
attached to the planning permission for the existing field shelter,
granted in 2002 (Ref:3345/2002/OKE) states that ‘permission
shall enure for the benefits of the applicant only and shall not
enure for the benefit of the land’ Questions were raised over
whether the existing building was unauthorised as the land appears
to have changed ownership.
After discussion and debate it was proposed and
seconded and
Resolved that:
The
application was refused for the reasons set out in the Officer
report.
(c ) Application No.
1861/21/CAC
WARD: Okehampton South
Site Address: The Old Mill, Mill
Road, Okehampton
Development: READVERTISEMENT (Revised plans received)
Conservation area consent for demolition of redundant stone
warehouse buildings
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
Conditions:
1.
Time limit for implementation
2.
Approved drawings and documents including
CEMP
3.
Works to accord with WSI for building recording and
archaeological watching brief
4.
Works to accord with Ecological Impact
Assessment
5.
No works to commence until bat licence
provided
6.
No works to commence until compensatory bat roost
provided
7.
No works to commence until leat safeguarding details agreed
8.
Recycling/salvage of stone strategy
9.
No lighting unless agreed
10. Unexpected contamination
Additional Informatives:
1.
LBC required for any works to listed
Chimney
2.
A Flood Risk Activities permit from the EA is
required.
3.
Works within the highway require separate
consent
Having called the application to Committee, West
Devon Borough Council Ward Member Cllr Yelland clarified that she
did not have anything to add to the reasons given for her decision
to refer the application to Committee and would reserve her right
to speak in debate.
The Senior Specialist, Development Management
confirmed that no dangerous building notice had been served on this
site. As a rule, such a notice was only served when absolutely
required. Devon Building Control officers representatives had
identified that they were dangerous structures and that remedial
work needed to be carried out by either demolition or shoring up.
As there was an application before the Committee to potentially
rectify the issue, to serve a notice. The bat licence had been
served by Natural England since the report was written, therefore
condition 5 would need to be altered to say work would need to be
carried out in accordance with the licence.
The Council’s Conservation Officer was asked
to comment on the objection from Historic England. In doing so, he
explained that the building was regarded as a non-designated
heritage asset, but that it had been recognised that demolition
would be inevitable at some point. He referred to paragraph 204 of
the National Planning Policy Framework which encourages local
planning authorities not to allow demolition without securing an
adequate replacement. This was echoed in the Council’s own
Supplementary Planning Document. The crux of the objection was
therefore the absence of a replacement scheme. He shared Historic
England’s concern. The objection was not one of principle,
but the absence of plans for what is to replace it and a timeframe
for delivery.
In response to Member questions the Senior
Specialist, Development Management responded that:
There were no formal applications or
pre-applications in for a replacement building.
There was no landscaping condition but Members could
add a condition requiring a landscaping strategy to be submitted
and appoved to avoid the site being left vacant and
untidy.
In regard to a question over soil contamination she
confirmed that the Environmental Health service were consulted on
the application and explained how if any contamination were to be
found how this might relate to any landscaping strategy.
In regard to the lack of a replacment building, she
drew Members attention to the concerns raised by Natural
England.
During debate, Members voiced concerns about the
absence of any application to show what was to replace the building
and gave great weight to the objection from Historic England and to
the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.
A proposal to to approve the application in
accordance with the recommendation in the Officer’s report on
being seconded and put to the meeting was declared LOST. It was then proposed,
seconded and
RESOLVED that:
the application be REFUSED for the
reason that it is considered in the absence of suitable replacement
proposals, that the development would cause significant harm to the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area and to the
setting of Listed Buildings. As such the development is contrary to
Policy DEV 21 of the Joint Local Plan, the Supplementary Planning
Document of the Joint Local Plan and paragraphs 196 and 199-207 of
the NPPF.