Venue: Chamber - Kilworthy Park
Contact: Kathy Hoare Senior Case Manager - Democratic Services
Apologies for Absence
No apologies were received
Declarations of Interest
In accordance with the Code of Conduct, Members are invited to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, Other Registerable Interests and Non-Registerable Interests including the nature and extent of such interests they may have in any items to be considered at this meeting;
Members and officers were invited to declare any interests in the items of business to be considered during the course of this meeting, but there were none made.
Items Requiring Urgent Attention
To consider those items which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be considered by the Meeting as matters of urgency (if any).
There was no urgent business brought forward to this meeting.
Meeting held on 19 July 2022
The Minutes of the Development Management and Licensing Committee Meeting held on 19th July 2022 were confirmed as a correct record, subject to deletion of the initial ‘C’ and replacement with the initial ‘D’ for Cllr D Moyse in the list of attending Committee Members.
To see Letters of Representation and further supplementary information relating to any of the planning applications on the agenda, please select the following link and enter the relevant Reference number: http://westdevon.gov.uk/searchlanding
WARD NAME Hatherleigh
APPLICATION NUMBER 0529/22/FUL
LOCATION "Lower Longwood Farm", Highampton
DEVELOPMENT Replacement dwelling (Resubmission of 3874/21/FUL)
WARD NAME Buckland Monochorum
APPLICATION NUMBER 2334/22/HHO
LOCATION 1 The Village, Buckland Monochorum
DEVELOPMENT Householder application for garden home office with shed replacing old shed
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: 0529/22/FUL Ward: Hatherleigh
Site Address: Lower Longwood Farm, Highampton
Development: Replacement dwelling (resubmission of 3874/21/FUL)
Speakers included: Supporter: Mr Bailey, Parish Council Representative: Cllr Rose, Local Ward Member: Cllr Kemp
With the aid of the plans and supporting photo montages, the Planning Case Officer (DH) introduced the proposals. In so doing, DH stated that one of the key reasons for his officer recommendation to refuse this application was that he did not agree with the application being described as a ‘replacement dwelling’. The Committee was informed that the proposal sought to construct a dwelling on the site of a now demolished agricultural building.
Before the speakers addressed the Committee, the Monitoring Officer (DF) was invited to provide a statement on the relevance of the ‘Mansell v Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council’ case law and the Class Q ‘fallback position’. The Monitoring Officer proceeded to inform that Class Q enabled for an existing agricultural building to change its use to that of residential. He explained the extent to which limited building operations were (e.g. the adding of windows and doors). However, Class Q did not permit for a complete demolition and re-build of a dwelling. The Monitoring Officer further explained that a person wishing to rely on Class Q for a change of use had to obtain the Council’s view as to whether prior approval was required in respect of certain matters. He said that if the conditions were met then there was a planning permission that could be implemented. The Monitoring Officer then explained how the existence of a planning permission under Class Q was capable of being a fallback position. Firstly, however he explained what a fallback position was and that, for a planning permission to be considered to be a fallback, then there had to be a real prospect of it being implemented. Mansell decided that a possibility that it would be implemented was sufficient. Whether there was a real prospect or a possibility of it being implemented was a matter of planning judgment for the Committee. If the Committee decided that there was a real prospect of the Class Q permission being implemented, then it was for the Committee to decide what weight it should have. That he said involved a judgement as to the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the development proposal before the Committee and the development that had been granted permission under Class Q. The analysis was set out in the published case officer report.
The Committee was then invited to ask any questions and proceeded to seek clarity over the: proximity of the nearest settlement; the proposed increased floor size; the size of the smallholding; ... view the full minutes text for item *DM&L .17
The Head of Development Management (JH) provided an update on the planning appeals and the Committee subsequently recognised the importance of adopting a Neighbourhood Plan.
In discussion on the list of undetermined major applications, support was expressed for both of the applications on the wool grading centre being considered (and determined) at the same time.
With regard to completion of the Section 106 Agreement for the planning application at the land South of Plymouth Road, Tavistock officers informed that this was now almost finalised and it was intended for a Member Briefing to be convened at the appropriate time.
The Committee considered the latest set of performance indicators and noted the recent upward trend in Planning Enforcement cases that had been received by the Council.