Agenda item

The Committee considered

·  A report by the Development Manager on various applications for planning permission etc.

·  An Update Report on Item No 2, a copy of which report is attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc. on Item Nos. 1-6, the Speakers List being attached as Appendix 2 to these Minutes

RESOLVED that, in accordance with their delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the Decisions List attached as Appendix 3 to these Minutes

Item 1 No 22 Rotcombe Vale, High Littleton – Erection of a two storey 3 bedroom house in front garden – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions.

The public speaker made a statement against the application.

Councillor Les Kew opened the debate. He considered that the design was alien to the street scene and was overdevelopment of the site. There was a covenant on the existing house restricting the garden to car parking. There was also an issue in that the pre-application advice that had been given indicating that the scheme could be approved had not been referred to in the Officer’s report. He also noted that the application had originally been delegated by the Chair to the Officers for a decision. The Chair responded that it had been signed off for an approval but that he had allowed it to be referred to the Committee afterwards. He would write to the applicant regarding the procedure.

Councillor Bryan Organ could not support the application as it was out from the building line, it was overdevelopment of the site, the design was out of character with surrounding properties and there would be overlooking. On this basis, he moved that the Officer recommendation be overturned and permission be refused. The motion was seconded by Councillor Brian Webber.

Members debated the motion. A number of Members spoke in favour of the development as it was in a sustainable location, the number of cars that could be parked at this and surrounding properties was not an issue and a different design made the street scene more interesting. Other Members supported the motion as they found the design to be unacceptable and would spoil the character of the area. The Chair stated that it was a finely balanced decision but that he would support the proposal.

He therefore put the motion to the vote. Voting: 5 in favour and 8 against. Motion lost.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson therefore moved the Officer’s recommendation to

grant permission, with conditions, which was seconded by Councillor Doug Nicol. The Chair put this motion to the vote and it was carried, 8 voting in favour and 5 against.

Item 2 Parcel 3300, Temple Inn Lane, Temple Cloud - Development of the site for residential purposes (approximately 70 dwellings) with associated public open space, landscaping and parking. Primary vehicular access from Temple Inn Lane to be determined (internal access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for subsequent approval) – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to (A) authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure various provisions relating to Transport and accessibility, Affordable housing, Open space and recreational facilities, Education and Community facilities; and (B) subject to the prior completion of the Agreement, authorise the Development Manager to grant permission subject to conditions (or such conditions as she may determine). The Update Report referred to the Highways Team’s comments on the Cumulative Transport Assessment submitted by the applicant. He stated that hard surfacing could be provided at the junction if approved.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the applications. Councillor Les Kew read out a statement provided by the Ward Councillor Tim Warren who could not attend the meeting.

Councillor Doug Nicol queried the proposed hard surfacing platform in Temple Inn Lane and whether rumble strips would be better. Councillor Eleanor Jackson felt that this was a difficult application but on balance she supported the application and therefore moved the Officer’s recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Doug Nicol.

Members debated the motion. Councillor Nigel Roberts queried whether the cumulative effect of housing developments had been considered. The Case Officer responded that whilst there were concerns regarding the number of houses being built above the suggested limit for a village, the Council could not demonstrate an agreed 5 year land supply for housing – the application would still need to be determined against the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Councillor Les Kew stated that the speed restriction features were not very satisfactory. A lot of traffic would use the Lane which leads to an industrial estate and the Lane in which he lived (he declared an interest in this regard). If approved, the ransom strip for access to the school and community hall should be retained. There would be a big impact on the village but at least there were monies available via the S106 Agreement. Councillor Brian Webber could not support the motion as he felt that there were too many houses which were out of character with the village. The Chair referred to increased vehicular movements at the junction but did not consider it was an unacceptable impact on the village. Some signage at the junction could be removed to assist in visibility. The Team Leader – Development Management stated that the Council could not demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. New planning guidance had been produced recently which stated that this was a key material consideration. The NPPF advised that there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This was considered to be a sustainable location and there were financial benefits via the S106 Agreement. It was a balanced decision but approval was being recommended.

The Chair put the motion to the vote which was carried, 9 voting in favour and 2 against with 1 abstention.

(Note: Councillor Liz Hardman was absent for discussion on this item in view of her interest declared earlier in the meeting).

Items 3&4 Temple Inn, Main Road, Temple Cloud – Mixed use development comprising a 10 bed letting rooms building, 9 residential dwellings and renovation of existing public house (Ref Nos. 13/04456/FUL and 13/04457/LBA) – The Case Officer reported on these applications and her recommendations to (1)(A) authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure various provisions relating to Education, Open space and recreational facilities, Transport and Affordable housing; and (B) subject to the prior completion of the Agreement, authorise the Development Manager to grant permission subject to conditions; and (2) grant consent subject to conditions.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the applications.

Councillor Les Kew relayed the comments of the Ward Councillor Tim Warren on these applications. Councillor Doug Nicol moved the Officer recommendations but conditions should be included so that the works to the listed building are completed before the development is fully occupied and that the letting rooms building be tied to the public house. The Officers stated that the S106 Agreement would secure the works to the listed building and that the letting rooms would not need to be tied to the public house as planning permission would be required for any change of use.

Councillor Bryan Organ moved the Officer recommendations which were seconded by Councillor Manda Rigby. Councillor Les Kew queried the width of the access onto the Lane as he considered that the old entrance could be closed off and the existing walls could be retained as much as possible. Also the materials would be important so sample panels should be supplied. The Officer stated that this was covered in Condition 17.

The Chair put the motions to the vote which were carried unanimously

Item 5 Parcel 3567, Stitchings Shord Lane, Bishop Sutton – Outline planning application for a residential development of up to 32 dwellings and associated infrastructure – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure various provisions relating to Transport, Affordable housing, Open space and recreational facilities and Education; and subject to the prior completion of the Agreement, authorise the Development Manager to grant permission subject to conditions (and such additional ecology conditions as she may determine).

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the application. The Ward Councillor Vic Pritchard made a statement against the proposal.

Councillor Les Kew opened the debate. He referred to the large number of permissions for residential development and the houses already built in the village and considered this to be a step too far. He would not support the proposal. This sentiment was echoed by Councillor Liz Hardman. Councillor Ian Gilchrist agreed and therefore moved that the recommendation be overturned and that permission be refused on the grounds that it was outside the housing boundary. He also had other concerns including the likely increased pressure on the local school. The motion was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal. Councillor Nigel Roberts queried whether the school could expand and considered that this development was not sustainable as it was car-based. In response, the Case Officer stated that a contribution could be made to education facilities and, whilst the school was currently full, the contributions would go towards a school extension for which there was room. There was a presumption in favour of sustainable development under the NPPF – the lack of a Core Strategy made it difficult to defend on appeal as was the case with housing development at Wick Road which was upheld on appeal.

Members continued to debate the motion. Councillor Les Kew felt that it was the cumulative effect that was the issue and the rural habitat needed to be protected. The Team Manager – Development Management stated that the Council was in a difficult position with regard to the 5 year land supply as this had not yet been approved and it would not be appropriate to refuse the application simply because the application site was outside the Housing Development Boundary. However, as it was apparent that the Members were minded to refuse the application, he suggested that the guidance within the recently published Planning Policy Guidance was relevant in this particular instance. This guidance stated that, if the cumulative effect of housing developments is so significant that to grant planning permission would undermine the plan-making process and the emerging Core Strategy was at an advanced stage, then this could be a reason to refuse the application. The mover and seconder agreed. There was some further discussion and the issue of flooding was raised but Officers considered that this could be overcome by engineering solutions.

The Chair put the amended motion to the vote which was carried, 8 voting in favour and 3 against with 2 abstentions.

Item 6 Milford Head, Stitchings Shord Lane, Bishop Sutton – Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide 9 dwellings (Outline with all matters reserved except access)(Resubmission of 12/05599/OUT) – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to (A) authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure various provisions relating to Education, Open space and recreational facilities, Transport and Protection of boundary hedges; and subject to the prior completion of the Agreement, authorise the Development Manager to grant permission subject to conditions (or such conditions as she may determine).

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the application. The Ward Councillor Vic Pritchard made a statement against the proposal.

Councillor Nigel Roberts raised various queries concerning the AONB and the loss of the tennis court and a brownfield site. The Case Officer responded that it was a private tennis court and this brownfield site included the access road. He indicated approximately where he thought the boundary of the AONB ran.

Councillor Les Kew considered that this was overdevelopment and on this basis moved refusal thus overturning the Officer’s recommendation. However, he felt that some housing could be accommodated on the site. The motion was seconded by Councillor Nigel Roberts who considered that this was inappropriate development in the AONB and requested that this be included as a reason for refusal to which the mover agreed. There was some doubt cast regarding the extent of the AONB in this locality and therefore it was felt that it would be better if the application was deferred for clarification. Councillor Eleanor Jackson felt that drainage issues also needed further clarification. Councillor Les Kew therefore withdrew his motion to refuse permission and moved deferral for resolution of these issues which was seconded by Councillor Nigel Roberts.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried, 12 voting in favour and 0 against with 1 abstention.

(Note: After this Item at 5pm, there was a comfort break for 10 minutes).