Present:
K Mansbridge (Vice Chairman), P Watt, C Parr, D Snook, S Creed Castle, C Peck, C Sage, K Tubb and 8 members of the public.
1. Apologies:
S Johnson and C Bailey.
* In Cllr Johnson's absence Cllr Mansbridge chaired the meeting *
2. Public Discussion Period:
The meeting was suspended for public discussion but nothing was discussed.
3. Declarations of Interest:
The meeting was re-opened. There were no declarations of interest.
4. Resolution to Approve Minutes of the Planning Meeting held on the 4th August 2009:
The minutes were accepted as a true copy, this was proposed by Cllr Mansbridge and seconded by Cllr Snook.
5. Actions Following Last Meeting:
The council's comments were passed to WDDC in the usual way.
6. Planning Applicants Presentation: None.
7. Planning Application to Consider
Highcliffe Cottage, Fishpond - 1/D/10/001059: Cllr Snook gave a history of previous planning applications and went on to state that herself, Cllr Mansbridge and Cllr Sage had looked at the latest application to renovate the main building, update facilities and extend to the rear of the property.
* Cllr Tubb joined the meeting *
Cllr Snook commented that the Geotechnical Survey submitted by A&P Construction is incomplete and unsatisfactory. We are still unhappy with paragraph 1.2 of the introduction. The survey was submitted in July 2007. In paragraph 4.4, section 4 of the survey, it clearly states that a ground investigation will need to be undertaken to confirm the expected geological conditions and to allow detailed design of foundations, but this has yet to be done. Cllr Snook also commented that on the south elevation overlooking the valley there is excessive glass frontage on the extension and balconies and there is no mention of reflective glass. Based on these comments we cannot recommend approval. One of the neighbours in attendance at the planning meeting stated that they strongly objected to the plans and spoke of their grave concerns over the land stability. Cllr Tubb urged them to submit these objections to the planning department once again. After all Cllrs had looked through the plans and discussed the application at length, Cllr Sage proposed that Cllrs Snook's comments be submitted to the planning department. This was seconded by Cllr Snook and all Cllrs were in agreement.
8. Planning Application to Consider
Oaklands, Fishpond - 1/D/10/001195: Miss Farley, the named applicant at Oaklands, stated that this application is a resubmission of a previous application. All comments from the previous application have been taken on board and the size of the extension has now been reduced, therefore reducing the amount of glazing. Cllr Snook commented that herself, Cllr Mansbridge and Cllr Sage had looked at the application to demolish the single storey extensions, remove chimneys and pitched roof, build a first floor extension and new single storey extensions, porch, balcony and dormer windows. Cllr Snook stated that she had no objections to make but commented that the natural stone element would be enhanced if Flintstone was used. After all Cllrs had looked through the plans, Cllr Sage proposed that Cllr Snook's comments be passed on to the planning department, this was seconded by Cllr Snook, and all Cllrs were in agreement.
9. Planning Application to Consider:
Cross Farm, Whitchurch Canonicorum - 1/D/10/001104: Cllrs Snook, Mansbridge and Sage looked at this application for an agricultural general purpose building. Cllr Sage commented that there was no objections to the plans, that the location of the proposed building was the most logical site, it would be well screened and traditional building materials would be used that are sympathetic to the surroundings. After all Cllrs had viewed the plans, Cllr Snook proposed that these comments be sent on to the planning department, this was seconded by Cllr Sage, and all Cllrs agreed.
10. Planning Application to Consider::
Arne, Morcombelake - 1/D/10/001197: Cllrs Watt, Parr and Everidge looked at this application to demolish a bungalow and build a new replacement dwelling. Cllr Watt reported that the originals plans, never submitted to the District Council, have been modified following lengthly discussions with neighbours. Cllr Watt commented that the main points of concern are that three stories will set a precedent and will make the house more visible, however this will depend on the tree survey being adhered to as per plan. The new entrance is opposite a substantial wall and turning in and out will be difficult. Finally, the boundary between Arne and The Knoll is not well defined. After all Cllrs had viewed the plans and had discussed the application at length, Cllr Watt proposed that these comments be submitted to the planning department. This was seconded by Cllr Parr and all Cllrs were in agreement.
11. Any Other Business:
Cllr Creed Castle stated that now she was part of the planning committee she would like to be more involved and asked what criteria is followed when looking at planning applications. It was explained that Cllrs must only look at the facts provided and not make assumptions, that we should only consider what is relevant to planning and that the views of local people should be considered. Cllr Snook stated that she has a document that outlines the areas to look at that she will pass to Cllr Creed Castle. It was also agreed that Cllr Creed Castle would shadow Cllr Parr on planning visits to learn what is required.
Cllr Creed Castle asked why some applications are not discussed at the Parish Council meetings and the Clerk explained that if an application is thought to be very involved or controversial then she can apply to the planning department for an extension to the time limit to allow the application to be discussed at a full meeting. However, if the time limit is due to expire before the next meeting and the application is for something straightforward and there are no objections from neighbours then it is normal for the comments to be sent on to the planning department without being discussed at a meeting.
Finally Cllr Watt asked if the parish Council is notified of the reasons for planning refusals and the Clerk explained that there are normally details of the reasons attached to the refusal notification.
12. Close of Meeting: 8.30pm |