Transcript

good morning everyone morning members members of public nice to see you here this morning for the planning committee meeting Tuesday the 14th of May can I ask democratic services for apologies for absence please. Chair apologies from Councillors Atkins, hello and come and Bradbury. Thank you. Councillor Goodman Bradbury is here. Thank you very much. If we can now move on to item two which is the minutes of the last meeting on pages 5 to 8. If anybody has any queries I'm looking for a proposal for those minutes. Councillor Nutty, a seconder, seconder, and Nuttall. All those in favour of the minutes correct. Any against? Abstentions? Two abstentions? Okay, thank you. Item three on the agenda declarations of interest. Any declarations by any members? Councillor Nutty. Thank you, Chair. Being the PH for leisure of regards the broadband application I have taken legal advice and I'm not restricted in taking part in this so I will continue as normal. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Nutty. Councillor Hook. Thank you, Chair. With regard to the two Alexandra Cinema applications I would like to outline an interest I have which is less than a personal interest but in order to be transparent I'll describe it. So one of the directors of the community benefit society who are the applicant is a fellow director of mine at Newton Abbot CIC and someone I've personally known for many years as a colleague. I do not however describe them as a friend in terms of these purposes here today. I have also attended meetings in formal advisory group meetings with stakeholders in the town including three of the directors of the CBS to discuss general proposals for the market hall and the Alex building but I've not played any part in formulating or advising on this plan application and therefore will remain and vote. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hook. Councillor Pailthorpe. Yes, thank you, Chair. As portfolio holder for estates and assets I declare an interest on the Alexandra Cinema because it covers both the ownership of the building and the lease of the building and I feel that that would be a prejudicial interest for mine so I will take no part in that and I will leave the Chamber. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Pailthorpe. Anyone else? No other declarations of interest? Thank you. Item four on the agenda is public participation. We have three public speakers today who I think they are all in the back of the room so I will call you forward when it is your turn to speak and we have two supporters and one objecter here. I would like to make a few announcements myself. I'd like to do a few introductions first here on the top table. Firstly to my right we have Paul Woodhead who is Head of Legal Services and the Monitoring Officers Officer. Then we have Trish Corns, Democratic Services Officer, Sim Manley, Interim Manager, Interim Manager, Business Strategic Place. Can't see who's next. We've got Darren Roberts, Interim Planning Officer and Ian Perry, Team Leader. To my left I've got the Vice Chair, Janet Bradford. To her left we've got Chris Morgan, Democratic Services Officer. A few other announcements. There are no fire along test planned as far as I'm aware so if it should sound I'll ask you all to exit the Chamber quickly but orderly and gather in the most distant car park in front of the building. Can I ask you all, committee members and everyone else, to switch off your mobile phones or at least turn silent? I remind all members on the committee that you must remain in the Chamber for the whole time that an item on the agenda is being discussed. If you do not you will not be able to vote on that item. Further to this can I ask all members wishing to speak to be as concise as possible with their remarks and try to avoid repetition and to everyone please keep your comments to planning related matters. Thank you very much. We'll now move on to the items for discussion. Item 6, Planning Applications. 6A, we have the Broad Medal Sports Centre at Tinmouth that is application 24, a bleak 00328, a bleak FUL and that is for internal refurbishment and decarbonisation proposals including areas of replacement cladding, rendered external installation and a relocated main entrance and the recommendation on this permission is granted. The planning officer for this item is Darren Roberts and the ward Councillors are Andy Henderson and Nina Jeffries. I don't think I live lumber here. Before I will go to the officers now but they have an update to make regarding one of the conditions. So before he does the presentation I'll ask either Darren or Sim to come in and explain item it's condition 4. There's an issue. Thank you, Chair. In relation to the recommendations of this application it's obviously going for a recommendation of a grant of permission. However, we will need to change the recommendation to a delegated authority to approve. The reason being if you would like to turn to page 10 there's a condition on there that says that a motion bat survey needs to be undertaken. This wasn't spotted, unfortunately under legislation and case law you can't have a bat survey being undertaken before you. The bat survey must be completed before we issue a decision. So the actual recommendation to yourselves is that the application be delegated authority to be approved subject to the bat survey being undertaken and no bats being found on site. If bats aren't found on site then we'd obviously have to bring the application back because if you do find bats you may need to put mitigation in and that mitigation may change the development proposal. So it's delegated authority to approve subject to a bat survey being undertaken and no bats being found. Is that clear enough? Thank you. Everyone with that took a bit of explaining to me but that's great so thank you very much. I'll go over to Darren Roberts who's going to do the presentation on that item. Okay, thank you, Chair. So the first item related to the Sports Centre in Tinmouth it's obviously a local authority building which is why it's been sent to the committee. I will be concentrating on the external elements which are principally the relocation of the main entrance, proposed cladding and external material changes and window alterations. This is because of the internal changes of which there are quite a few internal changes but they don't generally require planning permission. So I will be mainly talking about the external changes to this application. Next night, please. Okay, so I don't need to tell you necessarily where it is but it's obviously located to the west of Tinmouth adjacent to Morrison's. It's a building that's been there since 1980s so it obviously predates Morrison's. It's to the north of the industrial estate board meadow and there is housing to the east above the site effectively and there is an allotments to the southeast. You can just about see the location in red outline there. And the access is generally via the Newfoundland Way which also says Morrison's and it's accessed into a car park adjacent to the site. Next, please. So this shows the site and effectively there's three elements to the building. There's the main sports hall which is the largest part of the building and there are two sort of separate wings. One is a single story which is the one shown on the south of this plan which contains the changing area, an abdomen, etc. And there's a further sort of two-story building which is on the right-hand side of this which currently has the main entrance to the building. Next, please. So this area of photograph shows that it's pretty much in the centre of the area of photograph here. It's effectively a relatively large shed which is sort of in keeping with the industrial sheds to the south. It is a little bit smaller, a lot smaller than the Morrison's building which is to the west. You can probably just about make out the parking area which is adjacent to it which is separate to the Morrison's parking area and you can make out the extent of the allotments to the southeast. Next, please. So this shows the ground floor existing and proposed and, oops, I'm sorry, existing and proposed and it shows, well I try to show the relocation of the entrance. So at the moment, the entrance is on the right-hand side into the separate part of the building. It will change to an area of pretty much adjacent to the car park at the moment in the single story wing to the south, shown to the south. So a new entrance will be created which will say people from walking around to the building to get to the entrance. So I can go to the next one now, Chris. And the first floor, there are some slight changes effectively putting a new studio on part of a mezzanine on the first floor but largely it will stay the same. So next one, please. So the existing elevations, it's a very large expanse of brick, the main sports hall and you can see on the right-hand side that there are some very large windows on the second story elevation and also on the single story, it's still sort of brick in feature. If you go into the next one, Chris, most of the brick will be retained but the main changes are effectively the render element to the single story wing which is shown in white in this story. So that will change from a brick to a render. The windows on the right-hand side are much reduced because that will serve a studio which at the moment it says sort of area of upper hall. But also the entrance will change on the very bottom of those elevations. You can just about see a red area which is the new entrance location which as I say is closer to the car park. The existing entrance, if you look at the top, there is a sort of two-thirds away along, there is a black door. So that will remain as an emergency access. The reason for that is in the event of flood. The new entrance is partially within a flood zone but the flood risk assessment has said that providing an emergency access is provided and there is a refuge on the second floor and that is acceptable and various other measures which they would need to sign up to. Next one, please. So just photographs you can clue. So as you can see at the moment, this is looking from Morrison's car park. So you can see the large expansive brick which is the main sports hall building over the car park. Next, please. So this is the, you are coming from the car park of the leisure centre and the red is sort of signposting you around the corner to get to the reception but where that red sign is, that will be roughly the location of the new reception and the bike racks will be replaced but will still be in place. Next one, please. We are continuing walking around at the moment so the existing entrance is the black door roughly in the centre of that. If you look at the windows, the window areas would be much reduced with the new proposal and it will generally look a bit better. The area in the front will be rendered and therefore will change from brick to render but will stay a single story. Next one, please. And this just looks again at the window area which would be reduced. This looks looking from the industrial estate towards where the entrance is and effectively the existing footprint of the building will be exactly the same. It will not change and the solar panels which were recently put in will stay the same as well. If you go to the final picture, so this is just above the site looking sort of towards the residential area but looking down, this will not change at all. I think you can just about make out the solar panels on the other picture of the roof on this site. It just shows the site in context with boracens behind it to the right and the industrial estate to the left but this will not change as part of the proposal. So in conclusion, the external changes in the office's opinion help break up the stark appearance of the existing leisure centre. The improvements will help access to reception particularly from the existing car park. The whole project will help with the decarbonisation of the leisure centre and help with the emissions of the council. We are supporting it subject to a number of conditions, one of which is a flood risk assessment condition because there is a small park which is within the flood zone although it has not flooded in recent memory and that provides a requirement from the evacuation plan and adherence to the flood risk assessment that was submitted with the application and a need for an emergency survey to be carried out between May and August as part of the application as you heard. That is a slight change in the recommendation and that will be needed to be carried out before the application is approved. So that is the recommendation. Thank you very much. There is no public speakers on this application, objectors or supporters and I don't think I am pretty sure the ward members aren't here. So I will open it up now for a debate with the other members of anyone wishing to make any comments. Look as if there are any members wishing. If that is the case we are looking for a recommendation. Oh, can I see a speaker? Oh, Councillor McGregor, just last minute there. Councillor McGregor. Thank you, Chair. In terms of the changes to the entrance has a bird survey been done for Swallow Swifts, etc. because I am aware that in the entrance ways along the side where the new entrance is going to be or the fire exit there has been repeated regular use by Swallows of the under eaves to nest and that would disturb any birds through the mating and leying season. Darren? The preliminary ecological assessment identified a number of potential roosts, one of which was an area close to the reception and that is going to be carried out. That is part of the emergent survey that would need to be carried out to see whether there are any bats and birds that might emerge from there. If there are any birds that could be covered by an informative in terms of any nesting birds would need to be considered as part of the application and obviously not impacted by the proposal. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Darren. Any further questions from anyone? It seems to satisfy everyone here for the explanation. So we are still looking for a recommendation. Is there any recommendations? Councillor Knutley? Thank you, Chair. Obviously, along with the changes on recommendation four, I would like to approve a set out. Thank you, Councillor Knutley. Any seconder for that? Councillor Williams. So that's the last of that. So we could go to the vote, please. All those in favour for as set out with the delegated for condition four? All those in favour, raise your hands, please. Against? Councillor interjecting. Any abstentions? One abstention. So that is approved. Thank you very much. If you could turn your microphone off, Councillor Knutley. If you could turn your microphone off. Thank you. Right, we'll now go on to item six B and six C because with the committee's agreement, we will wait for Jennifer first. Jennifer Jewell, who's the planning officer, presenting this senior planning officer, thank you, Jennifer. We will get Jennifer to do a presentation which will cover both items six A and six B. That's 22 oblique 01597 oblique FUL. And the further one is 22 oblique 01598 oblique LBC. One presentation which will cover all the aspects will go to two separate votes on this, one for each separate application. And we will allow the public speaker to speak if he wishes on each separate item prior to the second application coming forward. He'll do one speak, he's telling me, so that's the answer to that. Okay, if we could firstly go to Jennifer to do a presentation, any updates there are and present. I don't think there are any updates, but if you could like to do a presentation, Jennifer, thank you. Hello, so this is the Alexandra Theatre Cinema, for which there's planning and listed building consent applications. Next slide please. Okay, so we find ourselves in the centre of Newton Abbot, we're in the designated town centre. And the application site comprises the theatre cinema part of the building only. So the red line is drawn only around the western part of the building. Actually, the whole building is listed at grade two, but we are only considering the theatre cinema part of the building. Okay, so next slide please. So this slide shows you the listed assets. So in the light pink, the largest light pink blob in the middle is the combined Alex theatre cinema and the market hall, which is listed as one heritage asset at grade two. There are other heritage assets in the town centre, which nearby, so members will be familiar with the grade two library building, which is the, it's on the west of the theatre, it's on the corner, and there's also some smaller listed buildings along Market Street, and it is considered that the proposal lies within the setting of these buildings. The other light pink buildings is considered due to the intervening distance and intervening development. Our proposal does not fall within the setting of those buildings. I also just identify that the site and the relevant constraint here is that the site is within floods in three, which places it at the highest risk of flooding. Okay, next slide please. Okay, so it's driven through the existing drawings and also the proposals. So at the moment what we have is the building in use as a cinema. It is also in use as a theatre that is restricted to up to three weeks per year. The stage is still there, all of the equipment for operating the theatre is still there. You can see on the proposal where the orchestra pit is and the seating, but the majority of the time the building is operating as a commercial cinema, and it actually has two parts to it. So it has the ground floor, which is, I suppose you could say some more, and then at the balcony level or at the first floor level there is a second cinema screen. So that provides Scott cinemas who are the commercial operator with two screens. Okay, there's also, as you can see there, symmetrical pattern to the buildings. So we've got those little projections to the north themselves. They're the single story dual pitch projections, which we'll see photographs of later, and we've got the engines of the building on the western side. Okay, next slide please, thank you. So this is what's proposed at ground floor level. So really the main change that's proposed as you can see there is the southern extension, which is this atrium style extension. So the extension will have glazing to the elevations, and it will have a slate roof, and that will have the function of providing a bar cafe space, also apparently the box office space, and that will entirely cocoon or encompass the historic fabric of the listed building. So you can see that small single story projection with the dual pitch roof will be completely enclosed by the atrium style extension. Then if you look at the actual theatre part of the building, you can see the stage is extended slightly, which would require listed building consent. The slightly more seats, the actual entrance into the theatre would change, so there wouldn't be the entrance on the northern side. You have to come here on the south. There's to be some slight changes to the toilet arrangements. On the northern side of the building externally, there would be cycle parking proposed, and there would also be two trees planted. At the moment, you'll see the photographs, and members will recall from the site visit, there's quite a nice, mature birch tree, which is exactly where the atrium southern style extension is going, so that would be replaced with two trees to the northern side. Just to cover those measurements off, because there was a question following the site visit about exactly how big the southern extension would be. So basically, if you measure from the current kind of southern limit of the listed building down to the southern limit of the atrium extension, that would be a maximum point of 7.2 metres in, especially depth or width. Then, going the opposite way, say from west to east, the maximum would be 10.9 metres, and then just if anyone's interested, the size of the corridor is two metres wide. Okay, thanks, next slide. So the other key element of this proposal alongside the southern atrium extension is the restoration of the single theatre atrium space, sorry, not atrium, auditorium space. So at the moment, as I was saying earlier, the cinema operates two screens, and they are separate. It's proposed to restore just a single screen or a single performance space. It's hoped that what was installed in the 1920s, which was this balcony feature, remains, and therefore all that will need to be done will be to remove the wall that forms the second cinema screen. And suddenly, we'll have a nice view of the stage, and we'll have the historic balcony fabric in situ. And what that will do is create greater capacity for the single theatre space. Okay, next slide, please. Okay, so we'll go through the elevation drawings. This is the existing front elevation. You can see it's almost entirely symmetrical. Obviously, we've got the fire escape, but if you try and ignore that, you can see there's two single-story dual-pitch roof extensions to the north and south, and then the large Italian eight-style tower in the middle, and the tree, of course. And next slide, please. Okay, and then the tree is lost, and it is replaced with the atrium-style southern extension, which would be glazed along the elevations with quite a thick slate roof, and it's proposed that the entrance would potentially be two entrances to the building. You could go in the atrium extension, or you could go in where the existing entrance is. Okay, next slide, please. This is the southern elevation of the site as it is at the moment, and you can see there's this quite nice classical fenestration design. There aren't actually any windows there. The windows are blocked in, but it gives relief and interest to that side of the building, and then if we go to the next slide, you can see that is entirely encapsulated. It's enclosed, you could say, by the atrium extension. So, I mean, it's important to remember that it is going to be glazed, so this drawing doesn't show the fact that you will be able to see through the windows, but the reason that we consider planning officers consider that the proposal amounts to lessen substantial harm is because we are unbalancing the building, we're losing the symmetry of the building, and we are entirely cocooning the historic fabric. You will still be able to see the historic fabric, most of it will be retained, some of it will be lost, the loss of any historic fabric. It's an irreparable resource, but once it's gone, it's gone forever, and so we do need to preserve it as much as we can. Okay, thank you very much. Yep, so we've got four internal views, and these really just help to illustrate and help you get your head around what's going on, so if you were stood on the stage, you would see this, and she has a very good vision. So you can see the stalls level, and you can see the balcony level, you can also see the extension on the left-hand side, which falls over the top of the single-story dual-pitch roof. Okay, next slide please. This is cross-section drawing looking north, so if you were stood in the new southern extension, and you had vision goggles on, you would see the stage on the right, number two tiers of seating. Okay, thanks. This is basically the same looking south, thanks, and then if you were looking towards the market hall from the entrance of the building, the existing entrance, you would see the cafe bar feature on the right, the left-hand side, the northern side of the building, staying the same with the tree planting though, and the balcony feature being stated. Okay, so photographs are provided by the applicant, and that shows the site in the summer. Basically where the tree is is where the southern extension would be going, and then if you go to the next slide, that's a slide. The picture that I took in the winter, so basically we're just going to have the southern style extension coming down. It follows the same, grazing at the same pitch of the roof, and it just extends that roof further out towards where the white van is. Because you can see there there's a pavement that will need to be changed, that will need to be brought closer towards us, and because we are influencing three, the environment agency have asked for the details of that, which could be provided by condition, equally the highways officer has asked for the details of that, so the condition would satisfy both aims. Okay, thank you. So yeah, this is the area where the southern extension would take place, so we'd lose the tree, and then we'd have a new entrance way going through into the listed building where the first arch is on the left-hand side. Okay, thanks very much. So again, this small, two single-story jewel pitch reef will be entirely enclosed by the asium style extension. Okay, so this is the loading bay, so this is also within the control of the landowner being the council. The council owns this loading bay and the Alex theatre site. The loading for the big theatre productions and smaller ones need to come from this existing loading bay. It was previously proposed under the application that was considered in March, that the new loading bay would be formed on the northern side of the building. That is no longer proposed, and it is now proposed to make use of this existing loading bay to the south. Okay, thank you very much. Then we move to the northern part of the building, where there aren't any real changes apart from the cycle parking. We were previously going to lose that area of soft landscaping, but we no longer are doing so. That's good. Okay, yeah, that's another picture. Yeah, thanks, and then you can just see it from another angle. Okay, thanks very much. So I just got a few pictures of the internal parts of the building. This is provided by the applicant, actually. You can see that's the existing stage. The orchestra pit and the seating is proposed to bring the stage out slightly. The orchestra pit will also come out slightly. Otherwise, no huge changes that you are proposed for this view. Okay, and then if you're stood on the stage, you're looking out at the ground floor level there. You can see the seating in place. What you can't see, of course, is that second cinema screen, which is entirely boxed in by the grey. It's been painted grey. I suppose you could say wall feature above the seats, and it is proposed to remove that and have a sort of circle level of them seating at that level. And it's hoped that these, the cast iron route supports are mainly in place and will be experienced through the restoration works. Okay, that's the last slide. Okay, please, could you go back to slide five? Okay, so I'll just briefly run through the recommendation. So members will probably recall that back at the march committee, there was a recommendation of refusal that was being made, but the item was deferred before we had the debate, and it was deferred due to the late submission of business case information. I reviewed the business case information, didn't feel that it provided the clear and convincing justification necessary to justify the harm to the listed building associated with the HM extension. And therefore, the applicant actually submitted further business case information, which we call the April 2023, 2024 business case. And it's my view and officer's view that that updated business case information does provide the clear and convincing justification that we need as required by the MPPF to justify the harm to the listed building. So on that basis, as well as the fact that the loading bay is no longer proposed to the north of the building, we have been able to make a recommendation of approval. This recommendation, very importantly, is subject to a planning condition, which is condition three, and essentially what that requires is that the HM extension is only built either after or concurrent with the restoration of the single theatre or tutorial. And that is because the business case, rather surprisingly to me, set out that it wasn't necessarily the applicant's intention to restore the single theatre or tutorial. And it was presented as Plan B within the business case. It is essential in planning terms that those works do go ahead sure to the atrium style extension will be built. The atrium style extension officers consider it's harmful to the building, so we couldn't just have that. We have to have the positive conservation benefit, which would be the restoration. Okay, so I think that covers all the main points now, obviously any questions? Thanks very much. Thank you very much, Jennifer. That's very comprehensive and thorough report. Thank you. Now we have a public speaker who's the supporter. I'd like to come forward, Mr Jeremy Newcomb. If you'd like to come over and press the right button, please, and you have three minutes, and I understand you are happy to just do one item of three minutes for the two applications. Chairman, Councillors and officers, thank you for the opportunity to speak in favour of the applications before you today. My name is Jeremy Newcomb. I am an architect, and I represent the Alexandra Theatre Community Benefit Society, who have been working for the last two years, both to save the Grade II listed Alexandra Theatre, and to develop proposals for its future use as a live entertainment venue and cultural hub for the benefit of Newton Abbott and the surrounding area. The proposals before you today are to reinstate the Theatre Auditorium with balcony seating for 85 and stall seating for 145, and to construct a glass-sided atrium on the south side of the building to act as a concourse area with a new public entrance, box office, bar and cafe. It is the atrium extension which has caused some concern for your officers, because it is an addition to a listed building and must be assessed on whether it causes harm and if this is justified by the benefit it provides for the future uses of the building. Our view is that the atrium is essential for the operation of the Alexandra as a cultural hub. It will provide the space where people can meet and mingle before, during and after any performance or function. It will be the front of house and an open and attractive frontage onto the new link proposed between Market Street and Market Square. Our proposed business plan shows that a significant part of the venue's net income would come from the bar and cafe, making the atrium essential for the financial operation of the venue. Of course these plans can only become reality if Scott's cinemas were to agree to joint usage or to withdraw from the operation of the cinema. If this happened and we were given the opportunity we would propose initially to retain the upstairs auditorium as a cinema and the lower auditorium could offer both films and live performances. Then subject to your agreement we would also seek funding for the reinstatement of the single auditorium and the construction of the proposed atrium to follow. The Alex would also provide then theatre, pantomine, concerts, stand-up comedy, tribute bands and other entertainment. Local dance groups, choirs and schools would be able to put on shows in a wonderful theatrical setting and the Alexandro would once again become a cultural heart for Newton Abbott. Thank you very much. Mr Newton, thank you. Right, we did have a site inspection for the Alexandre some two months ago just prior to the previous time that was coming to committee. There were 12 members of that site inspection team, a couple not here today, but I'd like to go through the remaining ones I can with their thoughts on the site inspection and I'll start with Councillor whole. Nothing to say. You were there? I was there. Nothing I want to raise. Nothing you wanted to ask. Councillor TAYLOR. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I was there. Just one of the things I would like to ask, do you want me to do it in this part or when we move on? If you just go to what you thought on the site inspection, the query said we're raised there and you can come back a later date. Okay, in terms of that, obviously I was the officer who raised the issue around the size of the auditor and the wait was not sorry in terms of the extension wait was going to come, so thank you for clearing that up. Also in relation to the loading site, I understood that the site visit we were told that was at the request of Devon County Council highways, so perhaps we can discuss that in a minute when we have further questions, but other than that, I've got nothing else. Thank you. Thank you. I will now go to Councillor Lutl. No comments? Thank you. Councillor parrot. Yeah, other than say it was really useful to see the contacts to the extension and how it would fit with the listed building and also the surroundings, so thanks to the officer for arranging it. Thank you, Councillor parrot. Councillor Williams. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I have nothing to write. I think it's a good proposal and I think it's being well presented. Thank you very much. Councillor Sanders. Thank you. I noted at the site visit the impact with the asymmetrical design which the officer explained and the glazing of the extension. My only concern then was the view that would be afforded from that very nicely designed bar and seating area because it is purely of the loading bay where the buses turn, so it wasn't really something I would wish to sit and look at if I was in there. Thank you. I'll go now to my vice chair. I'm leaving Councillor Hook to the end because you're the ward member also, so I'll come to you in a moment. Councillor Bradford. Yes, thank you, Chair. Nothing really to add except I enjoyed looking around the Alexander. I know it very well. I've been going there for 60 years. And we went and looked at it from the library and I just thought it looked like it was a really good application. Thank you. Yes, I was the last member of the site inspection team. I think the only real issue as we brought up many times is the atrium building and it's symmetry with the rest of the building. It's obvious that that's something that has an effect and it's just a question of whether that in respect of the benefit of loss of harm will be the right thing to do. But that is the concern, that only thing. So I'll say no more. I'll agree otherwise with what other people have said. I'll now come to the final member of the team and you can also speak as ward member if you wish. Councillor Hook. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, thank you for the site visit. It's obviously also a building I know very well, both inside and out. But it was useful to have the proposals explained to us. I'll make my full set of comments and rather than just stick to the site visit aspect of it. I agree with most of the conclusions of the report and therefore feel that I could support the recommendation made by the officers. I just wanted to highlight a few things from from the report and a few thoughts on the application. It's obviously slightly different being a council asset or property, something that we own. So I just wanted to highlight in the decision-making process that what we're looking at here is just the planning-related aspects of this application and proposal, just the planning terms of it. So it isn't really relevant today any feelings we have about the deliverability of this proposal. Jeremy's already explained the path that it might take and whether we feel that path is something that can be achieved in the short term isn't really relevant here today. What's relevant is the planning merits of what's before us and whether it is acceptable in planning terms. I just wanted to refer as well to the public benefits that are outlined in the report. One of them is that the applicant states that the atrium would provide an active frontage on the proposed new pedestrian link to the market square, which I think we're all familiar with that proposal that went alongside the new cinema, obviously the new cinema proposals now abandoned, but the link is then described as hypothetical. I'm not sure this quite accurately describes where the proposal is for that link at the moment. So that's in paragraph 4.36 and it's also described that there's no guarantee this route will ever be pursued. And neither of those statements I think is entirely correct. The route is currently being pursued. As most will know, this council is pursuing a pedestrian route through that into market square and intend to submit the planning application soon. I don't think that's any news to most of us either. So although strictly speaking, it's not guaranteed that that route will emerge, it's not hypothetical and it is being pursued by the council. And therefore, you could say it's likely that that public benefit will emerge, although I agree it's not guaranteed. In terms of its appearance, I happen to like it. I'm sorry, I happen to like the atrium. And I think many of us have seen many examples where you can have the modern contrasting additions, adaptations, which sit well together with a listed building potentially to ensure it's long term. I think the term is optimal viable use. Of course, this building does currently have a viable use. The question is whether there's another optimal viable use. But that doesn't need to concern us here today in terms of its deliverability. If the circumstances were right, I personally feel this is a good proposal and I personally feel the atrium would make a good addition to the listed building. So I'm happy to recommend approval. Is that it, Councillor HOOK? Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. I think I'd like to just come in there and highlight a point that Councillor HOOK has brought up and perhaps say a little bit more detail. As she rightly said, this decision is being made purely on planning merit alone. Any decision made in respect to the application must not be construed as an indication as to what, if any, decision may be made by the Council as a landowner and/or the owner of the theatre itself. I just had to make that clear and I know the applicant is aware of that. So thank you very much. Right. Now that's the board member spoken. So I hope it up to the remainder of the committee. Are there any members who wish to come back? And Councillor Taylor, you've highlighted. Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Councillor HOOK touched on that and I think it's the same issue that I'm grappling with here in terms of the business plan being raised and that there's actual a condition being put on this application around that business plan. I've never seen that before in terms of an application, although I've not been at planning, for that long only a year. So again, I thought with this planning was about the listed building and it was about the changes in those, whether or not this was a viable business plan and this has been put in as a condition and I'm a bit confused as to why that is. Also, I think it was mentioned that work must start within two years. I think that's what I heard. If I'm mistaken, did some three years. Within that time, I thought it was usually five. Am I mistaken on that? Is it always three? Usually three, is it? Obviously, in this case, this is dependent on a number of things that are outside their control of the applicant in terms of Scott's cinemas use. So, I wonder if there's a possibility to extend that or not, I don't know. But certainly the issue of this condition with the business plan is confusing me somewhat. Can I ask Jennifer, you come back on that, please? So, yeah, I've run through all the questions that have been raised. Firstly, if we go for the question about highway's comments and the loading bay, so essentially it was felt by both planning officers and the highway's officer that the loading bay was unnecessary. Given the transport statement information that was provided by the applicant, which was an estimate of how many deliveries there would be over the course of the year, it was felt that it didn't justify its own dedicated loading bay. Given there is a very large loading bay, it already in existence to the south of the site, which provides that function and equally there's some very nice soft landscaping already in place to the north. So, Devon highways didn't object to the proposal, they never actually object to it because there was no highway safety issues raised and there was no vehicle capacity issues on the local network raised. It was more just, we felt that it wasn't unnecessary change and in urban design terms, it wasn't desirable. But anyway, it doesn't matter now because the applicant has changed the proposals and the reason for refusal is for in a way. Okay, the hypothetical link, so the pedestrian link, um, could we, could we go to slide five? Is that actually, could we go to slide seventeen? Sorry, just go back up slightly. Just a little bit more. Okay, it doesn't matter. And basically, um, we know what it looks like, yeah, um, Councilor Hook, the point you raised, you only know them because you're part of the Council, whereas we as the local planning authority have to assess it on the basis of the planning information that we had before us. So, at the moment there hasn't been the planning application submitted for the new pedestrian link and there hasn't, uh, the one that was submitted for the pedestrian link was withdrawn. So, on the basis of the planning knowledge before us, there is not necessarily any indication that that will ever come forward. Obviously, we do know there is, there is a likelihood that it may do. Um, okay, so that's, that's the reason the report's written, as it is. Um, I'll go on to condition three, the phasing condition. So, the phasing condition is there because of the business plan information, but it's not, it's not directly linked to the business case information. So, there's no reference to the business case information within the condition. Basically, um, what was put forward in the description of development was two main changes to the building, the restoration firstly, the restoration of the single theatre auditorium space, and secondly, the southern extension. So, um, it's, it's not necessary for the applicant to implement all elements of a planning commission, but it is assumed that that would take place. Um, what was then set out to me in the business case information was, and this is, this is the business case that was submitted just prior to the march committee, was a very clear intention never to implement that first part of the description of the development. So, never to actually undertake the restoration of the single theatre auditorium space. Now, that is problematic in planning terms, because what you would then find is a scenario where the harmful elements of the scheme, the southern extension, could be built without the conservation heritage benefit element of the proposal, which we offer to support, which is the restoration of the single theatre auditorium space. So, the reason condition three is there is because the applicant has been very honest and has told us that they don't necessarily want to do, um, the positive bits in planning terms. They don't really like to do the harmful bit in planning terms. So, we need to secure, as part of the consent, both elements together, or simply the positive bit. Um, also, I think it's just important to point out that ultimately, the applicant does not control the site at the moment, or the land is owned by the council. We, as members of the planning authority, do not know what ultimately might take place, and having that condition there allows us the confidence that the restoration could take place without the need for the southern extension, whoever ultimately goes on to develop the building. Um, so, I think it's just security, really, for us. Yeah, Sim, if you'd like to come in, thank you, Jennifer. Yeah, as members of the planning committee, you are in assessing the application. We, um, would draw your attention to the report. When we're assessing the impact of any proposal upon a, a heritage asset, we assess it on the basis of the, we assess the significance of the heritage asset, grade two, um, listed building with specific features. And then we look at the substantiality of the harm, the amount of harm that will be proposed. And then, as a local planning authority and something you must do as well, is to assess the wider public benefit. And it becomes a balance. It says, right, there's, there is harm associated with it, which in this case is the, or the, um, atrium. The benefit is the wider public benefit in, in respect of this is actually the internal works and, um, exposing and removing that wall internally and doing those works. If you exclude one, if you exclude those works and don't deliver those works, then there isn't perceived to be any wider public benefit. And the way the office has done this is go through a very careful balance and saying there's benefit from the works, the internal works, but there's also harm from the, uh, atrium. But on balance, the, the public benefit that's brought about by the internal works, um, balances out and outweighs the harm brought about by the atrium being put in place. So it is quite a, a, a balance. Members in making that decision need to obviously make that same decision as well. Do you think that the wider public benefit of the scheme is outweighs the harm associated with proposal? The conditions there to make sure that if you were to grant permission, the wide, the, the public benefit element is delivered because if it's not delivered, then the only thing that would cause would result would be the atrium, which is considered to be the harmful element. So it is ensuring the delivery of the public benefit element of this without it. Obviously, we would then be in a position where it would be deemed to be unacceptable. So it's ensuring it's overcoming a harm which would otherwise result in the application being refused. Hopefully that's straightforward. Thank you, Tim and Jennifer. I think that's explained that very important point, which is the, the main craps of the, the item. Uh, thank you. Councillor McGregor. Thank you, Chair. Um, I'm going to go straight with a proposal to remove condition three. I think condition three is a poison pill, um, designed to make this an extremely difficult, um, project to make viable. The reason I, I, I do question the addition of condition three is the great two listed building is great two listed only for the exterior, not for the interior. There is substantial harm being committed to that building over many, many years by that loading, ugly loading bay where we have skipped sitting, et cetera, that we saw in the photograph. And I think it's really, really important that we actually assess comparative harm rather than looking at it as an individual basis. Now, as Councillor Hook quite rightly pointed out, there are many examples of old buildings that are great, grade two or grade one listed that have had work that compliments. I'll take you outside the UK and look at a building that is absolutely superb where an atrium's been added to it. The rice stag building, which is now the Bundestag in Germany, that was bombed out. The very large glass atrium and walkway that they put up there is absolutely stunningly beautiful. It is one of the most beautiful buildings, an example of that kind of work in the world. There are plenty of examples around the UK. There are examples in, in Exeter, where buildings that are adjacent to grade two and grade one listed buildings have had glass atriums appended to the building. So it's not something that we should say, in terms of Newton Abbot, Newton Abbot is unique in that we shouldn't do that simply because there is possible risk or less than substantial harm. But where we're conditioning an atrium, which is there to make a business case viable and then reducing the potential viability, I actually think we either remove the condition or we get a full report from planet offices explaining why they need to see that change. It could be, for instance, a temporary wall or a removable wall that could be put in place or removed dependent on whether it's going to be used as cinema space or as theatre space. So from my perspective, I think that condition is a poison pill and I would recommend that we remove it. Thank you. So that is a proposal, Councillor MACKER. It is. And I did hear it seconded briefly. Councillor Haul. Right, so thank you very much. Can I ask the officers perhaps if they could to come back on that? Important issue, I know. Okay, just to come back on that, so if it is proposed to remove condition three, then the officer recommendation would be required to change to a recommendation of refusal. And that would be because we would find ourselves in a scenario where the harmful extension could be built out without the public benefit, public conservation benefit of the restoration of the theatre. I think Councillor MACKER raised a couple of points I just need to come back on. So firstly, listed buildings are absolutely not listed simply for their exterior. They are listed for their interior as well. That's a really important point. Every listed building has a different significance and is listed for a different reason. And it is essential that the decision maker understands the significance of the particular listed building that they are considering before they make the decision. Other examples, global or national, can be relevant, but each listed building has to be assessed for its own heritage significance. The Reichstag obviously operates under a different regulatory regime but has a very different degree of historic significance to the Alexandra theatre. So when you are making your decision, you need to understand that the harm arises to the significance only to the Alexandra theatre. Okay, I think that's it. Yeah, okay, very good. Okay, thank you very much, Jennifer. Councillor Taylor. Thank you. In terms of the viability and the benefit, if Scott's cinema were to leave this premises, it would be empty and there would be no benefits whatsoever then in terms of the building or benefits to the residents of Newton-Abert. In terms of the internal aspects of this building being listed, I don't think there's any intention to damage this at all internally so that nothing is going to be lost until work's all done in the future. And also originally, there would have been a planning application to demolish part of the internal structure of the theatre. So my view is that this should be approved but with the removal of condition 3. Thank you. We've got to come back on one point, Councillor Taylor. Unfortunately, the situation which you said regarding Scott's, that may be the case but that is not relevant in the planning application. We have no idea as to what they may or may not do so that cannot be taken into account in this planning decision, I'm afraid. It seems to me that we're taking those things into account, that's why I'm confused that it's not just about what's happening with the building, it's all these things that may or may not happen in the future and that's what the very argument that we're having now is about what may or may not happen. And that is one of the scenarios. In respect to the Scott, I'll come back and I'll say in respect to the Scott's, we cannot take any notice of where they may be in the future. I'm sorry, that's the... Councillor Hook. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to come back on a few of the points that have been made. So I think I understand the point made by Councillor Taylor because obviously in the vast majority of planning applications, it's not for us to decide whether something is economically viable, that's for the applicant to decide. So like the classic example is something like a coffee shop is recommended and everybody says we don't need to know the coffee shop but that is for the applicant to prove that they can make it a viable proposition. It's not for us to decide whether we need another coffee shop. But as explained, this is not the same as that. The reason it's not the same is because it is a listed building and the business case only has a very small role as I understand it and that is just to justify the harm or so-called harm to the listed building. It's not a business case that we need to look in any detail to make a judgement as to whether it's a decent business case and it's going to result in a five in theatre. That's not the relevance of it. It's really there to enable us to justify the works to the building and we're told that it has done that and that's the only relevance of it. It's not mentioned in the conditions. We're not saying you can only do this if you can make a theatre viable. That's not relevant to us at all. So that's, I'm entirely happy with that. In terms of taking out condition three, I wouldn't support that. I mean, I do understand some of the arguments but I'm not entirely sure I agree with the concept that we're just weighing up heritage benefits because there is actually a section in the report that says that we're not in the business of just saying this harm versus that harm. We are doing something bigger than that. We are measuring public benefit which is wider and which doesn't just include the internal alterations to the theatre which are actually going to be as described a positive benefit of this. Not just no harm. What is proposed is a positive benefit to the internals of the theatre cinema. But what we're doing is measuring wider public benefits which might include things like the fact that we'll have a cultural hub and a theatre for our town. So it's not just this harm versus that harm and that's clearly explained in the report. So yeah, it's also been explained obviously that the inside is listed and this proposal does benefit the internal of the theatre. I don't think I'm not an expert on listed building matters but I don't think we're in the business of measuring comparative harm either because obviously if you look at that picture now with those video extensions which hopefully will be removed shortly. Yes, just about anything would be comparatively better but that's not in the the business we're in. We're measuring this as a proposal against the listed building and assessing it in that way not in terms of what's there now and the very good reason for not doing that is because we don't want something that's second rate or only slightly better than what's there now. We want something that's great and fantastic and going to be something we can proud of, be proud of going forwards for our town. So that's why we definitely shouldn't just look at is it better than what's there now. So I don't believe we should get rid of condition three and especially because it will lead to a recommendation of refusal and I'm happy with the proposal we have to approve this and additionally I think the applicant is also happy with the application, the description here and the approval we're recommending. So why would we want to do something that's more restrictive or less restrictive, sorry, when the applicant is willing to accept the restrictions, so the applicant is willing to accept this, why would we want to do something that is less restrictive when they're happy with it? So I feel we should keep conditions free and I recommend approval. Thank you, Councillor HOOK. So you're recommended approval. You have a seconder for that. I know we'll go to the amendment first, Councillor Williams, a second down. Any other comments or officers do you want to come back on anything that's been said there? I think we've covered everything there really. Any other comments? Oh, Councillor Sanders. Thank you. I have to say I'm... Microphone please, Councillor HOOK. Thank you, Chair. I have to find this as perhaps the most confusing planning application I've seen all year and it's not a question of the design architecturally because obviously it's been professionally planned, but I do have... And I know the business case is quoted but it's not a condition, but I just find there are a number of things that conflict. It says on page 18 that the atrium is necessary for the business viability. In the next virtually line, it says there's no intention to follow Plan B, which is the building of the atrium and making it a single theatre or auditorium. So that I find confusing. I find the interior capacity of the atrium, which by size looks like it might accommodate 30 to 40 people, but the actual interior seating is proposed to accommodate 230. So I don't understand how the atrium makes it viable in terms of sales of food and drink. I just find it extremely conflicting and that's where I'm at. Thank you, Councillor SANDERS. Jennifer, would you like to make any comment on that or not really? Nothing to add? Yeah, do you want to formulate it into a specific question? Most applications and works to listed buildings such as this, there is going to be a conflict because when you are doing anything to a listed building, it does cause and you're changing the fabric, the internal fabric or external fabric of the building, it does cause harm. The part of the process we've been looking at is how do we, once we've looked at the significance of the heritage asset and then we look at the substantiality of the harm and we consider that it will cause some harm to the building and then what we do is applying authority, which we're required to do through the MPPF, is to look at the wider public benefit that other members have been talking about and then we arrive at a balanced decision as to we're not going to say right. On one hand, the atrium will cause harm but on the other hand, it will bring some business in which will then result in the longevity of the occupation of the theatre but also the internal works which will be removing the screen inside which is the benefit. So that has a benefit to the listed building in terms of its character and setting. It's always going to be a conflict because most works to a listed building does cause some form of harm and where we've got to is after quite a long period of time of exchanges and discussions, we've got to a point where as an authority as officers we feel we can recommend and that a put forward recommendation of approval with the delivery of certain elements of it which we think are beneficial which outweigh the potential harm to the fabric of the building, both internal and external. So it is really a balancing case. There is a fair degree of conflict always within this type of development because of the harm that proposals will always cause. Does that help? I will come back to Councillor McGregor. I know I'll come back to your amendment in a minute but do you want to make a further comment? I do. Thank you, Chair. In terms of the public benefit, the Alexandra Theatre itself and the Market Hall and the loading bay area at the back of the shops and turning circle for coaches etc is at best described as almost derelict looking in a lot of cases and here's an opportunity for a public benefit to improve the overall visual aspect of that area. There are a number of other applications potentially that will be coming forward that will result in other changes that will be complemented I believe by the addition of the atrium on the external part of the building. I also believe that in terms of creating a business case, when you're putting on an atrium like that and it's going to be a cafe stroke bar or cafe bar or whatever it is you want to call it, it's never going to be the same capacity as the internals for a theatre. I mean that's an irrational attempt to try and justify a reason to look away from the business case. You can take any number of theatres and playhouses up and down the country that have bars and cafes attached to their auditoriums and I guarantee you will not find one that has the same capacity or anywhere near the capacity of the auditorium in the bar even if everybody was standing up shoulder to shoulder and squeeze in. So from that perspective I don't think the justification of the cafe bar auditorium as being too small is justified. I think it's more than big enough it improves the external appearance of a building which looks practically derelict as it stands at the moment and lots of the photographs show you the general sense of decay, lack of care on the outside of the building, plants growing out of guttering, plants growing out of the cobbles etc. So it's not something that it's particularly well cared for at the moment but here's an opportunity for a business plan that shows a massive improvement to the external look of this building and I don't think that is predicated on changes on the internals of the building. I don't think that is required. I think condition three as an insistence is actually something that's been inserted as a poison pill. I think that the public benefit of getting that atrium on removing that hideous extension between the shops and the building plus the changes proposed for the market hole building that are coming up improve that area immensely and there's a massive public benefit there. It's enormous. I mean if we can't see that then what are we doing sitting here making any decision. That area, that whole area is grey, dull and uncant and if you look at the plants, the plant area that we were told is going to be kept. The planted area that just looked like a rough wilderness where people throw cans when they've finished drinking or packets and and wrappers. So from my perspective I think we've got an opportunity here to improve the whole external aspect of that building with an actually well designed, competently designed atrium to the side of the building and I don't think that is predicated on changing the internals. Thank you. Thank you Councillor McGregor. I'd just like to reiterate a point where the officers have said the fact that we've had a lot of discussions to and throwing regarding this application and to get to a point where we recommend in approval and the applicants seem happy with that recommendation then you know that's something we've got to be minded of but I understand what you say. If there's no more comments I would go to your amendment proposal, Councillor McGregor, which was as this set out but with condition three taken out of it. So that you proposed that in Councillor Hall, you seconded it, all those in favour of condition three being removed? Against? Abstentions? So that that is defeated. So that does not stand. We had a proposal I think from Councillor Hook as set out Councillor Hook and that was seconded by Councillor Williams. So we'll go to that vote that be approved as set out. All those in favour? Unanimous. Okay, I'll just check against abstentions. So that is approved as set out. Right, we will also take a separate vote for the listed building consent if we may, which is item 22 Ablique or 1598 Ablique LBC. We have to go through the same process. I presume Councillor McGregor wanted to put forward that amendment also for the listed building. Okay, taken out. So, Councillor Hook, you are happy to your proposal stands for the listed building and Councillor Williams has seconded. All those in favour of the listed building. I think that is unanimous. I'll just, yes, Trish? Yeah, against as set out, just checking. Yeah, fine. Thank you very much. So that is also approved as set out. Thank you very much. Yes, Councillor Taylor? Can I just say, I think it would be remiss if we did not acknowledge a few people in terms of this journey. And this is truly a community-led Council on community-driven. So I would just like to thank the SDA Councillors. Sorry, I don't think that's relevant to bringing the political— Thank you. Thank you very new come, Councillor Taylor for that. And John Pike, PMR architects. That is not relevant. That is not relevant. I'd just like to thank them on record. Thank you. I'm sorry, Councillor, I do think that was uncalled for at this time. Okay, we're going to now move on to the next item. Councillor interjecting. Oh, yes. Councillor Pélthor could come back in. He's had a nice little sit-down. We had a good coffee at all this time. Councillor Pélthor. Right, we'll go on to the next item on the agenda. Oh, Councillor Williams. As has he left the premises. Right, okay. I don't know if it would be opportunity to have a two-minute council break. Would everyone be happy with a two-minute comfort break? Few nods I see, so it's okay. So we have a two-minute comfort break if that's okay. So you can sign off, Chris. Right, Councillors, if we can come back in line, please. Yep, we're ready to move on with the final item on the agenda for applications. And it is application 23, a bleak 02157, a bleak FUL. And it's a change of use of land for use as a secure dog walking field for private hire and creation of associated area for parking. The recommendation is that permission be granted. The ward Councillors for this item is Councillors Kevin Lay, Charles Nuttle and John Parrot and Gary Crawford, who's joined us on the top table, is the planning officer. So if I can ask Gary to do an update, I know there's an update, and your presentation, please. Thank you, Chair. So there was an update that went around the end of last week. Just relates to the use of the land. So the land is designated as best and most versatile land. The applicant has clarified that as part of the site is a scheduled monument, the use of the land is limited to grazing and silage only. It cannot be cultivated use for arable purposes, purposes without further scheduled monument consent. So just an update to the report. As chairs outlined, the applications for change of use of land for use as a secure dog walking field for private hire and creation of a parking area on land to south of East St. Lane. Next slide, please. So the site is roughly triangular and cheap. It's said on south of East St. Lane. It's bounded by heteros to the north and south and a small woodland to the east. Next slide, please. The site is located approximately 1.7 kilometres to southwest of East. The slide on the screen at the moment gives you an idea of the context in relation to the village of East. Next slide, please. As I mentioned briefly in the update, there is a scheduled monument on part of the site. If you can see outlined in yellow on that slide, it's the roughly circular shape. This is a Roman signal station. Next slide, please. So the physical works to this proposal involve the erection of fencing. It's proposed to erect a 1.5 metre high fence across the monument itself. There will be 1.8 metre high fences around the boundaries of the dog walking field and in addition 1.2 metre high posting rail fencing around the car parking area. Historical and already granted scheduled monument consent for the fence across the monument and in addition to the fencing, it's proposed to install reinforced mesh for the parking area. Next slide, please. This photo on the screen is taken from the entrance to the site from East Dune Lane. This is looking south. Next slide, please, please. This is looking east across the site. Next slide, please. So there's an existing access gate off the lane. The applicants advise that these will be kept open throughout the operation of the field during the day. The dog walking field itself will be hired on a half hour basis with bookings made via a management website. Once a user's booked a slot, they'll be sent a code by the applicant to access a further gate from the parking area into the dog walking field itself. Next slide, please. So this is a view looking northeast along East Dune Lane from the site entrance and next slide, please, Chris. And this is looking southwest. As you can see from the photos, it is a narrow lane. There's few passing places along the lane. Devon Highways have been consulted on this application and they've advised Jews expected traffic of no more than two vehicles an hour. They've raised no objections to prose. The recommendation is for approval, subject to condition, set out in the committee report. Thank you. Thank you, Gary. Right, we have two speakers. Firstly, we have an objector, public objector. Mr James Studholm, if you'd like to come forward, sir, thank you. And just press the right hand button when you're ready. You have three minutes. Chairman, Councillor and officers, thank you for hearing our community's representations today. The 31 individual objectors, ead parish council and the CPRE have made many important points. Firstly, we respectfully disagree with highways. This will have minimal impact on traffic locally. They raise no objection based on no reports of accidents on this road involving personal injury. But there have been several accidents on the incident lane in the last five years. I have the wrecked knowledge of two and one, a collision between Tom Rich and Josh May on the 2nd of May, 2023 at 1pm, resulted in one vehicle being written off. The lane has two long straight sections where people drive fast and a deceptive bend in the middle where accidents happen. The highways inspections took place in the winter. In the summer, the thorny banks grow out narrowing the lane considerably. Walkers, runners, cyclists and horse riders from Eden, Dunshiddock already struggled to get out of the way of cars and agricultural vehicles. There is only one parking place on a section of more than a mile. This means people must often reverse up to .6 of a mile in this narrow lane. This lane is also the designated diversion route to Exeter for traffic from the B3212 when the Dunshford to Exeter road is closed at Longdon as it has been at least four times in the last year. We believe that even a small number of extra cars up to 24 a day in high season will produce a disproportionate impact. In 2010, the TDC-CAC appraisal noted that Eid Village was already blighted by traffic. Need. The Eid neighbourhood plan stipulates in Edo 4 that such a plan should meet a local need and be easily accessible. We submit that there is no need or call from the local community for such a remote private leisure facility. Eid has its own recently purchased orchard and community fields to walk dogs in. The cleantel will come from afar and by car. The report acknowledges that the development is unsustainable for non-motorists. There are other dog-walking areas which are easier and safer to get to with excellent parking facilities at Holden Forest and along the X. There is a new dog park at Ridgetop Alfington less than three miles away. An existing specialist facility is at Sheridan Bishop, Bramford-Speak, Rockbeard and Thorbiton. Environment. This is an unspoiled agricultural field in an area of great landscape value. It supports a range of important species, some endangered such as Skylark, Cell Buntings and brown hairs. Farmers either side of the site and local ornithologists have raised disturbance concerns. We would push back on the officer's view that no ecological or agricultural survey is required. A six-foot dog-proof fence impenetrable to all other fauna, the noise of barking dogs and additional traffic in the lane will all contribute to a reduction in biodiversity on the site. Employment. Section EC3 of the current local plan requires generation of employment for a change of use from agriculture. The owners say they will attend the site twice daily. That is not generating local employment. Their narrow journey will only put more pressure on a narrow lane. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Mr Turton. Very well timed there. Thank you. Now we have a public speaker/supporter, Mr Christopher Wilkinson. Your microphone is already on, so when you've got three minutes when you're ready. Good morning, Chair, members. I'm Chris Wilkerton of Avalon Planning and Heritage, speaking on behalf of the applicant in support of this proposal. The officer report before you is both thorough and clear. In all honesty, there's little I need to add to that. The principal development is wholly supported by both local and national policy and is in line with the Council's countryside policy. The erection of post and wire fencing around the perimeter of the field and creation of a permeable parking area will have negligible impact on the character and appearance of the open countryside and area of great landscape value. The fence could anyway be erected on the permitted development rights and therefore not require planning permission. For the avoidance of doubt, the schedule of monument consent has been granted by the Secretary of State for the erection of the fencing where it crosses the schedule monument. Historic England and the Council's Archaeology Department have also been quoted and raised no objections on heritage grounds. Public benefits will also arise through the provision of heritage information on the booking website and a display board on site, both of which can be secured by condition. In terms of operational arrangements, the dog walking facility is to be hired by half an hour. By the half an hour with bookings made in advance of arrival via a management website whereby the user will then be sent to code to access the gates. The use of the facility were limited to one user at any one time with a maximum of four dogs. Customers will be responsible for removing their own dog waste and this requirement will be strictly enforced with fields checked on a daily basis. General upkeep and maintenance of the field will also be undertaken throughout the year by the applicant. No changes to the proposed existing field access varies which is considerable for the very low level of vehicle movements to be generated in association with the proposed use. This would be at a maximum one vehicle arriving on site and one vehicle leaving the site per half an hour in line with the booking system proposed. County highways have offered no objection and the concern that the proposals would not result in an unacceptable highway safety which would warrant a refusal of this application. We see the parish council and a number of local residents have opposed the scheme. The concerns expressed are noted but the officer report is very clear that the adverse impacts alleged in the objections will not arise and there are no justifiable planning reasons for opposing the application. Moreover there are no concerns for any of your professional technical consultees and the report explains how the application is fully compliant with relevant policy. In these circumstances we ask you to please support the recommendation of the planning officer and grant permission subject to the proposed conditions. Thank you. Thank you Mr Wilkins if you'd like to try to turn that out if you can that's lovely thank you very much. Right I'll now go to the ward members and we have two here present. Councillor Nuttall. Councillor Parrot. Thank you Chair. I think you've heard clearly from Mr Stunheim the strength of feeling in the area about this application. It is a very rural location as can be seen from the plan and it is accessed by an extremely narrow lane. The parish council have objected very strongly to it on three grounds traffic congestion environmental concerns and agricultural concerns and in addition you know I don't think we should overlook but there are 31 objectives to this which you know for a rural location is quite a substantive number. I have concerns around the change of use and it is very much something which would change what is currently an agricultural field into a commercial type operation and I'm really concerned if we accept this application. It sets a precedent for other farmer and to be used for other similar commercial purposes. I accept only looking at this one application but I don't know what there would be to stop any other farmer in any other location saying yeah that's a good field for this type of operation. So I think you know that this application I believe should be refused. I don't believe that it is an acceptable use of this agricultural land and I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Councillor Parrant. Now the other ward member is Councillor Kevin Lake and I've got a written communication from him in respect to this so I'm reading this on his behalf. Councillors I object to this application on behalf of EAD. An EAD parish council I know also strongly objects. I lay my reasons to follow and ask committee support to refuse this application and he lists his applications in number order. Number one, access along one track lane with no passing places in unison with an entrance exit which is wholly unsuitable, danger inherent to walkers, cyclists, etc. Two, lack of sufficient parking. Three, security of sight. Four, adjacent to nearby livestock. Five, potential contamination by usage of land run off into nearby water courses. Six, GLV, Great Landsport Lake values site and inevitable disturbance to wildlife. Seven, site of historic monument inherent possible damage. Eight, insufficient demand locally in the business case. Facility therefore likely to cause extra traffic movements from surrounding areas, extra including through a congested village to access the lane to the proposed site. Nine, therefore I suggest this is a bad site in all reflection whether access issues, parking, local need or proximity to livestock and wildlife. I end by asking the committee to reflect on local concerns and refuse this application. Councillor NUTLE. Just to go on a record chair that I agree with my other fellow ward Councillors that we should object, we should reject this proposal. Thank you. I didn't come back to you straight away because I thought you'd defer to Councillor Parrot. Thank you very much. Are there any other comments? So perhaps Gary, if you'd like, is there any comments on what has been said so far? Are there any specific questions? I don't think there were really. In that case, I'll go to Councillor Taylor. Thank you. There's just a few questions from me, please. Well, there's one comment. First of all, there was a dog walking field. I've got the details here, but it was actually refused at Madecom, and that was kind of between an industrial estate and a dog kennels, and I don't know what grounds you refuse that, but there was one that refused there I recall. But also in terms of this, is this a change of use to business use? That's my first question. If it is a change to business use, then what other benefits does having that change bring with this application, i.e. other businesses or buildings, etc. Those two, the next one is that it appears in the application, it talks about walking dogs, is that that kind of sounds in the application that its dogs on leads rather than dogs running around free range around the field. I'm not sure if that's the case. I think that's it. Thank you. I'll pass over to the officers in a minute. I'll just mention in one aspect another application's refusal or allowance is not relevant to this. We're looking at this application on itself, but I'll allow the officers to answer the other points. Okay, thank you, Councillor Taylor. You mentioned the Madecom road, I'm not where that one myself. I need to look that one up to see what the reasons were, so thanks for raising that one. Regardless of the use of the field, we have a change of use, so it's like a cultural field, it would be for dog walking area, so it would be a sewer generous use, so if you use on its own, that doesn't mean it can then be used to have a commercial business with purely fee for dog walking, that's it. In terms of physical works, building, etc., doing physical iterations, other fences, which are shown on the slides, and the installation of the reinforced mesh for the parking area, so there's no building to propose. The third issue would be required to direct buildings on the field. In terms of how would the dogs be excised, it could be on leads, they could be allowed to run for the idea of the fences to secure area for the dogs to run around, or to be bought, wherever up to the individual home is, what they do, but they could be running around and walk to leads. Cancer Bradford? Thank you. I'm a doggy person, and I know that a lot of the dog parts are needed, they're desperately needed, because this government brought in the Excel bully ban, and not any of that, some dogs, whichever their breed is, are much better walked on their own. They're either being walked as a solo dog or with dogs that they know, and I don't believe that anybody who would pay to walk their dog is going to be an irresponsible dog walker, so I don't think there would be anything that would happen to livestock and the other reasons put forward. I'm still listening to the debate, haven't made my mind up yet, but I do think these places are desperately needed. There are just some dogs that can't be walked or should be bought on their own in a field or with dogs that they already know. Thank you. Thank you, Cancer Bradford, I think that was just your comments, thank you, I don't think it was any questions as such. No, Cancer McGregor? Thank you, Chair. A few things, I think one of the major concerns I have is that we are talking about a very narrow lane with a 60 mile an hour speed limit as noted by DCC highways. Around the EED area, there's going to be significant increases in the number of properties by development, which is likely to put a potentially increased strain on that lane anyway, even without this particular application. I'm all for dog walking areas, I think it's a good idea, I think it removes the need for some people to say that we should shut children away and play parks so that people can have the rest of the park to walk their dog. But in this case, I think when I'm looking at the application and look at the comments from DCC highways, I see that there's an automatic miss assumption in their numbers. Because if you're doing half an hour slots, and it's only one person that started to use it, that's four vehicles per hour movements up and down that lane. And that actual word that is really important that's missing from the comments that are put in by DCC is additional for vehicle movements per hour. So one vehicle in every half hour is four vehicle movements per hour in that lane. And if one's coming in when the other's leaving, there's no passing spaces, so you've then got the potential for the lane being blocked anyway, because it's a very narrow lane. So from my perspective, there are flaws within the presentation of the report, and I don't think that we should be passing this, but that's my opinion. Thank you, Chair. Gary, come back there. Yeah, just to clarify, since the Councilor Gregor's comments, the consultation response from the hires officer says that at full class they're only have to be two vehicles an hour rather than two vehicle movements. So yeah, it's two vehicles. I get your point that those two vehicles would go there and the back. Yeah, but the hires officer said the two vehicles an hour be created at full capacity as a result of the proposed use. Councillor Hook. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I'm hearing the comments and, you know, having some sympathy, but looking at it, you know, with the planning hat on and the local plan, I'm struggling, I guess, to see which policies the objections are going to be linked to. So just to picture what I think it would look like, so it would be a field with a fence that's not necessarily where the hedges are, but might be an area that's internal within that field. That's what I'm thinking, with two car park spaces max, somewhere in the corner by the gate, is what I'm imagining it would be with just one or two people there and one or two dogs running around within this fenced area. That's what I'm sort of picturing and no buildings. I mean, my experience of the few of these areas that have started appearing, which I agree, absolutely, they're in demand and I don't disagree, they're in demand for very good reasons, they seem to eventually get a building, but I know we can't consider that here now because that's not what's proposed, but you can see that potentially there might be some sort of building or cover that ultimately might emerge, but we haven't been told that's the case. So I imagine if it's raining the person sits in their car maybe. So that's what I picture it looks like, but when I look at Policy S22 in the local plan about development in the countryside, as rightly pointed out, that does cover leisure uses. So that would conform with that policy, you can develop in the countryside for a leisure or tourism use. So the access issues, again, I perfectly understand what's described, but Devon County highways haven't objected. So I guess what I'd like to hear is the people that are suggesting refusal, that they explain a bit more about what the reasons for refusal are and which local plan policies those are going to be related to, because although I have sympathy, I can't see a planning reason for refusing this application. Thank you. Any comment, Gary, on that? Pretty self-explanatory, really? No, I've got no comments to make. I'll go to Councillor Perksher next. If you don't mind, Councillor Taylor, if you spoke once, I'll come back to you in a minute. That's all right. Councillor Perksher. Thank you, Chair. Declare, I am a dog lover and I do board for the guide dog, so I'm used to very well-behaved, well-socialized dogs. I'm very conscious because of COVID that there are an awful lot of people out there who took dogs during COVID, which aren't socialized and have not really met other dogs in any serious way, and therefore walking them around open public spaces can be traumatic or for people, and therefore places like this are frankly very essential for dogs to get the exercise they need in a secure environment, possibly away from other dogs, if it's only one or two dogs. They can exercise free rein and get the exercise they need and also potentially begin to socialize if they meet other dogs in coming and going. I appreciate it's out of the way, and it's probably out of the way because if it was in a more urban area, we would have loads of objections from neighbours and people around saying all those dogs barking, all those dogs running around. So I'm with Councillor HOOK on this one. I think it's a very essential service that is needed. I appreciate the lane is narrow, but we live in Devon, there's a lot of narrow lanes. There isn't a huge amount of traffic movement, and I would not object to this proposal, Chair. Councillor TAYLOR. Yes, thank you. It was only just in response to something that Councillor Bradford said around dangerous dogs. So I'm presuming that because this is a private field, the requirements for dangerous dogs actually won't be complied with in that field. Is that correct? They won't need to comply with any of the questions. The only thing we can consider in relation to this is the planning legislation, dangerous dogs access outside the planning legislation, so they would be subject to any other regime for the control of dogs. So that would be for the operator's site and the owners of the dogs. From our perspective, we can't take that into consideration because it has nothing to do with planning. Councillor NUTLY. Yes, thank you, Chair. Quite interested in 3.15, where it saves it to regard the waste that customers are going to be responsible for moving their own dog waste, and this will be strictly enforced with the field check on the daily basis. I think the applicant is going to be kept very busy on this because, I mean, how is that going to be monitored? Is he going to be there all the time? How is he going to enforce it? It just seems bizarre to me. I mean, I couldn't support something like this, I'm afraid. I think there was a little question there. Councillor interjecting. Yeah, I think I understand the question you're asking is, realistically, is it going to be kept clean, tired, is the way to be picked up? As I mentioned in the slideshow beginning, the access gates of the lane and the kept open throughout the day for users to come and go, so I understand the applicant will be open them up in the morning and then closing up at night, so when they go back to close the gates, they'll be checking the field to make sure that the dog mess has been picked up. If it hasn't, then the applicants will be picking up themselves, and it's in their interest to keep it clean and tidy for people who are going to use the field. Also in the plan statement, it did say if customers don't adhere to the crime to pick up the mess, the applicant has the option of banning them from using it if they're not keeping to the rules, so that's the inflation we've been given, if that's that matter. If it's a brief one, Councillor MURPH, Gregor, I'll allow you to come back. Yeah, so it's on another consultee comment, Chair, but thank you for the opportunity. One of the points that was made by the ejector was on the basis of cell buntings and another bird life within the field. I assume other creatures, creatures, etc., that would be in the area within the ecology of the field as it stands at the moment. The cell buntings, I know, are a protected species. We've discussed them many times in many applications over the five years I've been a Councillor, and they do like undisturbed open grassland as one of their feeding areas, which is what this is. I find it a little bit strange that the Councillor's biodiversity officer was verbally consulted and decided that no assessment was required, no more detailed assessment was required when the applicant states, sorry, the objector states quite clearly that there are cell buntings in the area. So it does strike me as a little bit strange that we've got an area that has been unused in terms of agricultural development beyond silage production, which is once a year or twice a year cut. And now we're talking about a change where there would be disturbance for birds on a daily basis every day within the hours of opening. So it does strike me as a little bit strange that we're not taking account of that and our biodiversity officer thinks that no assessment was required other than making sure that the offence stays within the hedge road. Thank you, Councillor MURPHY. Gary, would you comment on that? Yeah, most of you give that question a category. I've just checked on our internal mapping system, and we've got layers that detail where cell buntings, breeding territories are, and wintering zones, and neither of those zones are covered by this field. So I'm assuming the biodiversity officers were, they've been cancelled for many years. They probably wear the silbuntings, tend to be found and say, on our mapping system, it's not identified as this site is either a breeding zone, a breeding territory or a winter zone for silbuntings. Thank you. I know Councillor Parett, you had reasons for refusal. I'll come back to you in a minute if I may, because Councillor HAW hasn't spoken, so I'll aim to come in next. Thank you. I was mainly wanting to pick up on Councillor Herx Point is that we've heard a lot of reasons why, but my understanding was we can't argue, and I do look for clarification, we can't argue that DCC highways are wrong, can we? If they're recommending no objection, but we then, can we argue that we do think there's an issue? As a local, as a group of members to making a decision, the final decision rests with yourself, the problem that we have is that the County Council's highway engineers are trained engineers, they will assess the impact of any proposal upon the road. And it's a very objective test that they go through, they look at the traffic generation, they look at the traffic data and they consider all those factors in reaching their final decision, and they believe that there is capacity within that highway, that it's safe for the safe and free flow of traffic. And obviously, if we were as officers, as members, if you were minded to refuse that and it was appealed, then we would then have to try and secure advice or support our appeal from a third party highway engineer to actually fight our to support our case, which would may be quite difficult. So generally, if the highway engineer is actually supporting the actual proposal and has done it on the basis of the assessment, then it is actually, it's an objective test and it then becomes quite problematic for us to try and sustain the appeal. It is something, it's a good point to raise and it is something that you would be minded, needs to be considered, if you were minded to recommend on highway grounds, there's a reason for refusal if you were so minded. Thank you, Sam. I think I've lost count the number of times that argument has been asked in committee over the years, it's a difficult one, you know, when we feel highways situation is different than actually highways officers say, so and it is difficult to prove. So I'll go to Councillor SANDERS now. Thank you. Just a small question, I just wonder if we have details of the A-cridge to give it some sort of perspective. We are delaying, I know, from memories 1.7, yeah, once, no, no, it's not right. Sorry, excuse, I had that figure in my mind. Have we any idea? In the planning statement, it says the site area of 2.1 hectares, 5.1 acres. Thank you very much officers. I'll now come back to you, Councillor Perks, because I know you were advocating refusal and proposing that, which was seconded, I think, by Councillor NUTTLE, I believe. So, did you like to come back with your reasons or further comments? Yeah, thank you, Chair. It's very interesting debate. I'm a dog owner as well and in principle, I'm very supportive of dog walking sites. But they've got to be in the right location, and I genuinely don't believe that this site is the right location for such a facility. For me, I think one is the access, and I accept everything that's been said about DEVINI waste and understand that. But this is a very narrow lane. As Councillor McGregor pointed out, there is a lot of development all the way around that part of the South West extra boundaries, which is going to generate more traffic. And this will add to it, and I think, you know, very valid comment that, again, Councillor McGregor made about the number of movements. But for me, it is a loss or change of use of good quality agricultural land, and it is quoted in the report as being good quality agricultural land, and we're changing it for a commercial purpose. I accept, you know, the, you know, we talk about leisure, but this is a commercial operation. This is going to be a paid site. So, I, you know, whilst I'm sympathetic to dog owners and having a facility, I still believe this isn't the right location for it, and I would therefore continue to recommend that we refuse this application. I'll come back to you and say, could you perhaps itemise the reasons why you're, you know, voting for refusal? We need some sort of motion as to what? Because some of the things you've mentioned have been adversely commented on, isn't it? Okay. And I'll get the officers to answer your proposal. I mean, my main concern is the impact on the environment and the loss of agricultural land to a commercial purpose, and also traffic congestion. Okay, that's your three reasons. Are you happy to second that, Councillor? No, a second, so not all. Officers, could you comment on that as whether it's a viable proposition? I've just come back on the, Councillor HOWARD's come on through the land and the loss of the agricultural land. As I mentioned at the start of my presentation in the update, the committee report does identify the site. It's being classified as grade two agricultural land according to Natural England, which means it's included on the best and most versatile. Have the application site is not completely versatile because its use is limited to grazing signage, which owns the presence of the scheduled monument, then therefore can't be cultivated and used to animal purposes without further scheduled monument consent, and also set out in the officer report. Both the erection offences and the reinforced mesh are reversible, so the site could easily go back to being used as agricultural land again. So that's the recommendation you want to put forward, Councillor HOWARD. And you agree with that, Councillor NADAM? Yes, and supported by the 31 letters of objection and the very strong views of the parish council. Right, click. Sim. Thank you, Chair. I think you certainly would struggle as a reason for refusal. The number of objectives is not a valid planning reason. It has to be based upon a reason based in policy. In terms of the impact upon the environment, if we were to try and put forward a recommendation for refusal, we'd need to understand what the adverse impact is. If you would possibly expand a little bit upon the impact it is, we have to have a reason to sustain a pail and we have to have that reason in a policy context. So your sense having an impact upon the environment, I'm not being too specific or just need to understand why you think is adversely impacting. Do you want me to respond? I mean, basically, I think it was very clearly set out in some of the comments that were made by the parish council and taking the environmental impact. The proposed site lies within an area of great landscape valley and is home to diverse wildlife, including ground nesting birds. The development threatens to disturb this sensitive ecosystem, leading to potential habitat destruction, a disturbance of nesting birds, an increased risk of disease transmission from dog eczema especially with the escalating risk of flooding in the area. So I think it is this change of use that is the main concern and having dogs running around a field is different to having grazing land with sheep and the like. So that's mainly from an environment point of view that's split through talking about. Are you happy as the second accounts of that one? Thank you very much. Do you want to make any comments about that one? No. All I would say is obviously when we're giving advice we have a fiduciary duty to tell you where there's a potential difficulty if we were to go to a pail intern and try to sustain it. Obviously you're talking about the environment impact upon the wildlife. Members need to be aware obviously that our wildlife, our biodiversity officer, doesn't think that it will have any adverse impact to the point that has an actual survey because it is an agricultural field at the moment. So when you are obviously considering that you need to be aware that obviously our own expert isn't supporting that position, but I have to explain that to you. But it's four members here to make that decision. This is why you're here, and so it's for you to decide. So it's just I have to provide that advice. You don't have to fill that. Thank you, Tim. We'll go to the photo at that in a moment, but Cranston and Greg are going to do a quick comment, please. Just a quick one. Yeah, just a quick one. Gary, thanks, hopefully detailed the land as grade two agricultural land, I believe, which under land research associates is very good quality agricultural land with minor limitations, which affect crop yield, cultivations and/or harvesting. Now, you know, one of the points that's been made really is the fact that we are losing agricultural land and significant amounts of agricultural land across the district. But for this particular one, we've got two over two hectares of land that we're going to lose from agricultural use, whether it's just silage production or not. There's a crop to be had from that, and it is good quality agricultural land with a south-facing aspect, which makes it good for drying silage. Thank you, Chair. Anything to add there, Gary, you're saying nothing? I think I'm much more to add other than, as I said earlier, the proposed works are reversible, so it could be easily turned back into agricultural land if the applicant chose to, if it was to be approved, the enterprise didn't work out, so it's not lost forever. Yeah, I thought we'd already answered that. If it's going to be quick, Councillor Taylor, and then I'm going to go to the vote, and this is the last comment, before I go to that amendment vote. Yeah, I was going to propose a vote for this. I didn't know one. If one had been proposed, I'd have missed that one. Yeah, I'll go to the amendment first, but if you're proposing, as said out, are you? Yes, I'm going to propose as said out. As seconded by Councillor HAW. Yeah, and just one quick one, just to say that it would have been really great with those Councillors who are now so concerned about the biodiversity, felt the same about NA3, but thank you. I'm sorry, I'm going to make a comment. I don't think it helps this committee or this Council to keep coming back and make comments which are not relevant to this application. This is a planning application, but to bring other items into it, it's just not relevant. Thank you for that guidance, Chair. Right, we have an amendment vote proposed from Councillor PARET, which is on environmental benefits. I don't know if you want me to read it through again. It was seconded by Councillor NUTTLE, and that is all those in favour of refusal on the basis of Councillor PARET's proposal. Can I have a show of hands, please, with your four refusal against that motion? Abstentions? Two abstentions. Right, I'll go to the main proposal now, which is Council retainers, which is proposal for acceptance as set out, seconded by Councillor ALL those in favour. Against? Four abstentions? Two. That is carried, so that application is approved. Thank you very much. That's the applications dealt with. We'll now go on to the next item on the agenda, which is the appeal decisions, and if you'd like to note the appeal decisions, they were all dismissed apart from one where an appeal was allowed. Danbury and Torbrian, I don't think we need to go into that at all if there's any comments. No, it's fine. Okay, I'll move on now to item eight, major decision summary. There are no. Thank you very much, Councillors. That's the end of this meeting. Thank you very much. [BLANK_AUDIO]