Skip to main content

This site uses cookies to make things simpler. Find out more about cookies

June Planning Meeting

UPLOWMAN PARISH COUNCIL: DRAFT MINUTES OF PLANNING MEETING

Held on Thursday 11th June 2020 online using Zoom starting at 7.30pm.

One member of the public present. Minutes by Mr R Hodgson, Clerk. Action points in bold.Approved on 16 July 2020

 

  1. MEMBERS PRESENT

1.1 Present: Cllrs T Milner (Chair), N Branton, R Adcock, K Baugh and A McCombe.

1.2 Cllr Milner introduced the meeting, explaining that it was for the main purpose of considering recent planning applications and there would be no other substantive business.

 

  1. APOLOGIES and PROCEDURAL MATTERS

2.1 Cllr R Norman had tendered apologies due to lack of technology.

2.2 Cllr S Floyd had tendered her resignation from UPC for personal reasons. Cllr Floyd was thanked for her years of service. The Clerk confirmed said that the notice of vacancy had been posted and that, provided no election was requested, co-option of a replacement could start on 24 June. The Chair said that anyone interested in being a councillor could get in touch for more information.

2.3 The Minutes of the previous planning meeting, held on 30 April, had been circulated. They were unanimously agreed as a true record and were signed by the Chair.

 

  1. FINANCES: UPDATE ON ANNUAL AUDIT ARRANGEMENTS (For Information)

3.1 The Clerk reported the audit arrangements had been completed and that the period for public consultation would be 15 June to 24 July. This was noted and approved by all.

 

  1. PLANNING

4.1 UPC had written to Mrs J Clifford, head of Planning at MDDC, seeking  clarification of MDDC’s policy regarding development in Uplowman and in respect of the new judgements on Class Q Fallback applications. A response had been provided by Mrs N Morgan, which had been circulated the previous week. Cllr Milner said that the response had been helpful but did not specifically state whether there had been any change on MDDC policy. Cllr Baugh felt that clarification of the term ‘sustainable’ in planning terms would be helpful. Cllr Milner said he would draft a further email to Mrs Clifford requesting these clarifications.

4.2 20/00555/FULL: Land & Buildings at Lowerman Cross: Erection of dwelling and conversion of agricultural building to carport. UPC had heard the previous day that this was approved by MDDC.

4.3 20/00675/FULL and 20/00676/LBC: Uplowman House, Demolish piggery, erect two residential units and office with Class Q fallback. A site visit had been made by Cllrs Branton, McCombe and Acock on 28th May. There was considerable discussion. Cllr Adcock was concerned that there was an untested assumption that Class Q permitted development would be granted. He feared that allowing this application would set a precedent for many similar conversions and change the character of the parish. Cllr McCombe said that the proposal was clearly a betterment of the options on the existing building, with which Cllr Branton agreed. Cllr Milner said that the important question was whether UPC felt that the site would have been granted Class Q had an application been made? Cllr Branton thought so – it had been in agricultural use prior to March 2013 and there was a structural report stating that a conversion was possible. She said that it must be made clear that support for this application did not mean support in general for new  development. Cllr McCombe said that ‘betterment’ should be considered in context. Agreeing, Cllr Baugh said that this location was isolated and would not affect any neighbours. Summarising, Cllr Milner said that there was a general view that Class Q PD could have been obtained without consultation. This application was a betterment in the view of councillors. There had been no objections raised by neighbours and there were no apparent impacts on neighbours. Class Q fallback applications would be examined on a case by case basis and allowing this one would not set any precedence. He proposed that UPC should not object to this application but that the response must make clear that it was only accepted as a Class Q fallback and that the UPC policy remained one of no new development in Uplowman. On a vote, all agreed with this proposition except Cllr Adcock, who abstained, saying that he felt a precedence would be set and that UPC must be consistent. The Clerk was asked to draft a response to MDDC covering the points in Cllr Milner’s summary.

4.4 20/00509/FULL: Greenend, demolish garage and replace with garage, store and office. Cllrs Norman and Baugh had inspected the site on 1st June. Cllr Baugh said that the garage was subject to subsidence and the proposed replacemen would be an improvement. He was concerned that washings from the proposed animal stalls were planned to go into an existing septic tank, which might not be adequate. The site was next to a watercourse into which any overflow would go. Cllr McCombe thought it was too large and felt the proposed building should be located away from the road adjacent to existing farm sheds. Cllr Milner said that the proposal was as large as the present nearby residence and was out of keeping with the area. Many people walk by and it would spoil the country views of the church. In response to Cllr Adcock, his view was that a more compact two storey building would be preferable to a larger single storey one. Cllr Milner proposed that UPC should object to the application on grounds of size and context and suggest a redesign on a smaller scale with the agricultural element moved to the far side of the field. All were in agreement and the Clerk was asked to draft a response.

4.5 20/00728/FULL: Beer Down Lodge, Change of use of land from agriculture to domestic garden. Cllr Branton commented that it was a small area and would not affect anyone. She proposed that no objection should be raised, which was agreed by all. The Clerk would inform MDDC.

4.6 19/00912/OUT: Land at Crosses Farm, Outline for erection of 8 dwellings. An appeal against MDDC’s refusal to grant the application had now been made to the Secretary of State. Cllr Milner noted that it had taken over 2 months to inform stakeholders of the appeal. He thought that everything that was needed to be said had been said. Cllr McCombe felt that UPC’s exasperation should be made aparent at this appeal against refusal of a third almost identical scheme. Cllr Branton agreed. She thought that the oft-times expressed views of the village had not changed and should be restated to reinforce the strength of feeling. The Clerk would draft a response covering these points.

 

  1. UPC Covid Response

5.1 The Clerk informed the meeting that the Response hub continued to disseminate weekly newsletters. Individuals were still keeping in contact with and shopping for vulnerable neighbours. He had participated in a conference with other hub coordinators about a week previously in which there had been a strong feeling that rates of infection would increase across the South West as tourist areas opened up. He was watching the situation and decisions on taking it forward should be made at the next full meeting of UPC.

 

Cllr Milner thanked all for their attendance and noted that the next full meeting of UPC would be on 16th July,

expected to be online.

 

The meeting closed at 9.05pm.

UPC Planning Meeting 11 June

 

Minutes of meetings held in 2020