Whitestone Road sign

Whitestone Parish Council

Minutes of Council Meeting held at Whitestone Parish Hall at 7.30pm on Thursday 11th April 2024 to be ratified on Thursday 9th May 2024

Attendance:- Chair – Councillor L Fairley
Councillors Cllrs T Baird, M Belt, V Bryant, A Evans, M Frankum
District Councillor K Lake
Mr Philip Stott
Mrs P Vaughan – Clerk to the Council

Marian Dyer, Tanya Miles, Helen Miles, Greg Palfrey, Edith Neild, Pam and Dave Lee, Andy Rose, Guy Fielding, Matt Harris, Martin Fairley

Apologies Cllr C Galton. Cllr C Lang, District Councillor Parrott

  1. Cllr Fairley opened the meeting and the minutes of the Council meeting held on 14th March 2024 having been circulated were taken as read and signed by the Chair
  1. Co-option of a new Councillor

An application having been received from Mr Philip Stott to become a member of the Council he subsequently signed the necessary declaration of acceptance of office and then joined the meeting.

  1. DCC/4101/2018 Lower Hare Farm Article 27 and EA Application – both as GRS Stone Supplies.

Cllr Fairley read from a report submitted by Mr Guy Fielding dated 10th April 2024 as follows:-

On the 6th March 2024 DCC granted approval to commence the scheme specified in DCC/4101/2018 as follows: “The Devon county Council hereby grants approval to carry out the development described in the applications for determination of conditions received on 16 February 2022, 14 July 2022 and 11 October 2023”. (See DCC-4101-2018 planning ARTICLE 27 LETTER (DETERMINATION OF CONDITIONS AND LETTER) dcc-4101-2018 PDF ON THE dcc Planning website at https://planning.devon.gov.uk/PlanDisp.aspx? AppNo=DC/4101/2018).

As we reported to the Parish Council at your previous meeting in March we believe that Devon County Council have acted unlawfully in issuing this approval. The plans now approved are not “in strict accordance” with the schemes and conditions described in application DCC/4101/2018 and are in fact a major revision of that scheme, as laid out in a later, but abandoned and unconsented application DCC/4293/2022.

We have contacted DCC to make this point and to ask them to withdraw their Section 27 approval of the scheme. We received a reply on 3rd April from Jamie Holland, DCC’s Deputy Director of Planning telling us that their approval was quite legal and citing the requirement in the national Planning Policy Framework that requires local planning authorities to approach decisions on proposed development in “a positive and creative way”. The DCC seem to have entered wholeheartedly into the spirit of the NPPF and determined that “7 phases” has the same meaning as “3 phases”, that working from West to East is exactly the same as working from North to South, that “inert soils” are exactly the same as “engineering fill” also known as quarrying, mining, demolition and construction waste, that a gradient of “1 in 5” is exactly the same as a gradient of “1 in 10”, etc, etc.

We replied to Hulland on 8th April pointing out that DCC Planners had themselves determined, in late 2021 or early 2022, that the revisions to the original approval that GRS were wanting to make could not be accommodated by even the most “positive and creative” planning regime. It was decided at that point (presumably by GRS in consultation with DCC’s planners) that in order to get approval for these revisions GRS would have to take the time, and the trouble, and effort, expense, and risk of submitting a Section 73 application.

We received their reply to this on Tuesday 9th April saying that they stood by their decision. As noted previously, the DCC Planners are at this stage effectively judge, jury, prosecutors and police with respect to this matter. We believe that this is a clear case of maladministration or worse, in which the officers of the Council appear to be subverting the express intentions and decisions of elected Councillors as expressed in their approval of planning application DCC/4101/2018. In so doing they are demonstrating their contempt for the views and wishes of this community, and their complete lack of concern for all of us who live in Whitestone.

But I’m afraid that there’s more. In late March GRS submitted an application to the Environment Agency for the Environmental Permit that they require in order to operate the site as a waste tip. This application is entirely based on the later, revised but unconsented scheme described in application DCC/4293/2022. (Incidentally this provides clear evidence that GRS are using the DCC’s immensely imaginative interpretation of the NPPF as a way of gaining consent for their revised scheme and have no intention of implementing the original approved scheme). Before beginning the process of considering this application and initiating the required Public Consultation the EA are supposed to check that the application is valid, that is, it contains all of the information to allow people, and the EA to make a proper decision regarding the issuing, or not, of a Permit.

The EA application requires the submission of a Stability Risk Assessment. Given that the proposal is to dump 750,000 tonnes of soil on the sloping side of a steep valley above a major trunk road (A30) this would seem to be an absolutely vital part of the application. The application submitted by HGRS does indeed include a “bespoke Stability Risk Assessment”. Unfortunately this is for a quite different site, “located immediately to the east of Robin Hood airport, 10kms to the south east of Doncaster town centre…” Clearly the EA should have identified the anomalous nature of this section of the application, and the application should not have been opened for Public Consultation. However, for whatever reason, this was not done and the Public Consultation is now underway and is due to end on April 22nd 2024.

We have written to the Environment Agency to draw their attention to this problem, and to request that they immediately suspend the Public Consultation and their consideration of the application. At this point in time we have not received any response from them.

What happens/could happen next

1: People in Whitestone and the Parish Council could complain to Devon County Council

3: Local councillors could be asked to intervene.

4: The local MP, Mel Stride, could be asked to intervene.

5: Other councillors with DCC (and TDC) could be asked to intervene.

6: Local and national media could be alerted and their coverage used to pur pressure on DCC to change their decision. 

And/or

2: A Judicial Review could be sought in order to have the DCC’s decision overturned.

OR: we do nothing, and for the next 10, 15 or even 20 years our environment will be contaminated by this eye-sore of a waste tip that had been unlawfully imposed upon us by unelected County Council officers and unscrupulous developers.

Cllr Fairley then opened the meeting to the public who were in attendance and discussion ensued from the floor including comments/information from Andy Rose, Matthew Harris and statements from Tanya Miles, and further information from Guy Fielding regarding the financial implications of a Judicial Review as it would be necessary to take legal advice.

Following the debate the Parish Council voted that a Judicial Review should be sought and Guy Fielding would take this matter forward.

Members of the public then vacated the meeting and the Council proceeded with the agenda.

  1. REPORTS FROM COUNTY COUNCILLOR / DISTRICT COUNCILLOR

County Councillor Connett gave an update on the Devon County Council actions and District Councillor Lake reported that he had had a response from Stagecoach regarding buses through the village and as relayed to the March meeting he had received responses regarding the footpaths which he had reported.

  1. PLANNING - Applications can be viewed on line by going into the public access system at Teignbridge Planning following the directions giving the application reference. The following applications having been received from Teignbridge District Council with a request for comments were examined and responses were sent which can be viewed on Teignbridge District Council Planning site.

27.1  24/00436/HOU Removal of existing garage and stores, replace with larger garage and store block at Ashwood, Longdown.

Whitestone Parish Council have discussed and considered this application 24/00436/HOU for the removal of the existing garage and stores and replacing them with a larger garage and store block. The applicant has provided a consultation response regarding the lack of need for a bat survey for the building but there is a need for careful demolition as per the communication from the Teignbridge District Council Biodiversity Officer. The proposed building is slightly larger than the present garage but it is still in proportion for the site and dwelling present. It should sit well with the house and probably enhance the site. It does not affect any other property.

Whitestone Parish Council has no objection to this application and if Teignbridge District Council are minded to approve this application, we would like to see the following conditions applied:

  1. To help maintain the locally rich biodiverse environment and counter any disturbance caused by the new building we would encourage incorporating bat boxes and bird/nest boxes into the structure where appropriate.
  2. Light pollution should be avoided with careful use of internal and external lighting.
  3. The building project and materials used should be made as sustainable as possible.

27.2  24/00427/FUL Construction of agricultural building at Cricket Field Barn

Whitestone Parish Council has considered this application for a new agricultural building, for machinery and fodder, following the transfer of land back to the applicant and the end of a long-term lease. A previous recent application, 24/00183/AGR was refused. There is some concern about this application. It does seem to suggest that there is going to be a greater expansion of the current agricultural contracting business, referred to as an agricultural ‘enterprise’. While we would normally support farming related applications, we feel we must question where this ‘enterprise’ is going. Currently Cricket Field Barn is not a proper working farm. The land is contracted out for crops. Contractors harvest the crops and they are immediately taken away, nothing is currently stored at Cricket Field Barn Farm. This site was known by the name of Williams Field in the past and one barn has already utilised the Class Q status to convert into a house, 17/02507/NPA, presumably claiming that the barn was no longer needed for agriculture. If another barn is now needed to store machinery and fodder in, will this result in an increase in the ‘enterprise’ that the community cannot support? Policy EC3 (b) Rural Employment supports diversification of a farm, provided that (f) the scale is appropriate to the accessibility of the site.

A major concern is the current state of the lanes and highways in the area. Twiscombe Lane is itself unsurfaced and in very poor state of repair, exacerbated by heavy vehicles using the track. The road from Heath Cross to Crediton is becoming more and more damaged by heavy traffic, including tractors, and the section by Copperwalls is in terrible disrepair and will only be made worse with more heavy vehicles. The lane is very narrow here and has Devon banks on either side. Vehicles using the lane are frequently too large and an increase in traffic will be detrimental to the road system locally. Although as pointed out in the application, the site does not technically lie in a flood risk zone, the surface water is a real problem with a continuous flow of rain water washing stone onto the road. This leads to considerable flooding on the bend before Twiscombe Lane. Alongside this site runs the footpath 22 and the terrain in recent years has become very water logged and churned up due to large agricultural machinery driving over it. It is a very popular footpath for walkers that leads into the woods and on to Newton St. Cyres. To access it, walkers need to walk in the lane. WPC feels unable to support this application, due to the impact it would have on already damaged roads and lanes. However, if TDC is minded to approve the application we would like the following conditions to be applied:

  1. Place stringent guidelines on this application to keep it within the context of a proper working farm and not allow it to become a commercial company.
  2. No significant increase in noise pollution
  3. Light pollution should be minimised to protect the rural nature of this location and dark skies area.
  4. The barn is to be a temporary structure, and when no longer needed for the purposes laid out in the application the structure is removed.
  5. Measures be introduced to divert surface water and prevent loose stone from washing into the lane. That should help stop the damage to the road and reduce/slow the amount of surface water flooding on the bend before Twiscombe Lane.

27.3  24/00370/FUL Provision of an agricultural livestock building at Cross Park Farm, Heath Cross

Whitestone Parish Council have discussed and considered application 24/00370/FUL for provision of an agricultural livestock building at Cross Park Farm. This application should be viewed in conjunction with application 24/00364/FUL for a temporary agricultural worker’s dwelling at the same address as they are both part of a proposed new agricultural enterprise. The information in the applications is relevant to both, and where reference is made to Drawing 200/01 in the application for the agricultural building (24/00370/FUL) which is not attached to the documents list, an equivalent document can be found in the other application 24/00364/FUL.

Aspects of the Parish Council’s response to application 24/00364/FUL can also be raised in this response:

The planning application history at this site has been quite chequered over the years with numerous refusals, appeals, retrospective applications and visits from the Enforcement Team. The applicant has a Crane Hire business at this address and had planning permission (19/01872/FUL) for a large office associated with this business. Despite this application being granted permission in 2019, we still have not seen all the conditions fully implemented particularly those relating to the approved Landscape and planting scheme. If this condition 2 had been fully carried out it would have included native species in its hedgerows and tree planting on “low turf faced hedge bank” (refer to approved drawings 672/01, 672/02 and 672/03 19/01872/FUL) which would have now been quite established. The Site and Location plan for this latest application 24/00364/FUL does not show existing landscaping sowe would conclude that it is because it has never been implemented and the route outlined for vehicles to travel from the highway to the proposed location for the temporary agricultural workers dwelling (and the proposed agricultural livestock building) does not require any trees or hedging to be removed as there aren’t any to remove. The position of the proposed livestock building can only be deduced from Drawing 200/01 in application 24/00364/FUL as explained above, which means access to the building is via the common entrance to the whole site which includes access to the crane business and proposed agricultural worker’s dwelling. Thus, concerns should be raised as to the number of large vehicles using this route, as well as the potential biosecurity risks from the numbers of vehicles. This is further compromised by the suspected HGV MOT work also carried out on the site.

Although the position of the building has been carefully considered to be the best available it does not mean it is an ideal situation. Combining the agricultural work with the heavy vehicle/crane business is not ideal and it would further increase the visibility of the site from properties to the south of the site and expand the area covered by large industrial/agricultural buildings.

The size of the agricultural building and the numbers of calves being raised at any one time does suggest that a large volume of food, both hay/silage and milk powder, as well as bedding material would be needed to be stored on and moved to the premises. This would either increase vehicle numbers, moving smaller volumes at any one time, or storage issues with larger volumes which could lead to storage difficulties and further buildings or storage areas being needed. Light pollution would also be a concern and careful consideration is needed to reduce effect on local biodiversity. Other than the practical issues with the size and site of the enterprise, the viability of the concern has not been clearly established and a more detailed business plan is needed to show its sustainability.

Whitestone Parish Council object to this planning application. If Teignbridge District Council are minded to approve this application, we would like to see the following conditions applied:

  1. Very strict rules regarding lighting both internally and externally to protect the biodiversity of the area and for these rules to apply to all areas on this site. This would help minimise the effect of light pollution on the dwellings down the valley in Heath Lane.
  2. Additional planting of trees, shrubs and hedging (as referred to in the application statement) to hide the building. This needs to be in conjunction with the implementation of the as yet unfulfilled previous planting and landscaping provisions made in past granted permissions.
  3. If the viability proves unsuccessful after 3 years the building is either removed or can only be used for agricultural livestock enterprises.

27.4  24/00364/FUL Provision of a temporary agricultural workers dwelling at Cross Park Farm

Whitestone Parish Council have discussed and considered this new application 24/00364/FUL for a temporary agricultural workers dwelling at the above address. The planning application history at this site has been quite chequered over the years with numerous refusals, appeals, retrospective applications and visits from the Enforcement Team. The applicant has a Crane Hire business at this address and had planning permission (19/01872/FUL) for a large office associated with this business. Despite this application being granted permission in 2019, we still have not seen all the conditions fully implemented particularly those relating to the approved Landscape and planting scheme. If this condition 2 had been fully carried out it would have included native species in its hedgerows and tree planting on “low turf faced hedge bank” (refer to approved drawings 672/01, 672/02 and 672/03 19/01872/FUL) which would have now been quite established. The Site and Location plan for this latest application 24/00364/FUL does not show existing landscaping so we would conclude that it is because it has never been implemented and the route outlined for vehicles to travel from the highway to the proposed location for the temporary agricultural workers dwelling does not require any trees or hedging to be removed as there aren’t any to remove.

The applicant has tried for residency on the site twice before (22/00694/NPA and 20/02318/FUL) which were both refused permission. The “Agricultural Dwellinghouse Appraisal” submitted outlines the nature of this new venture and argues the case for why someone needs to be on site fulltime. 8.4.4 in this document makes reference to security being a justification for residency and the applicant has in the past tried to justify his other applications due to the risk of theft and damage. The site at Cross Park Farm does already have extensive CCTV and a substantial solid metal gate at the entrance. Calf rearing and similar agricultural activity is present in other areas of the parish but they do not include temporary agricultural worker’s dwellings and in some cases the owners live some distance from their site. We would also question how suitable and safe Cross Park Farm is for agricultural activity given that large vehicles related to the crane business are coming in and out and that MOTs for HGVs we believe are to be carried out at the site also. Councillors are not aware that the land has been used for grazing over the years as mentioned in the application. As no business plan has been submitted, we seek the advice from Teignbridge District Council to determine as to whether this is indeed an economically viable business and whether it warrants a temporary agricultural worker’s dwelling to ensure its success.

Whitestone Parish Council object to this planning application. If Teignbridge District Council are minded to approve this application, we would like to see the following conditions applied:

  1. Very strict rules regarding lighting both internally and externally to protect the biodiversityof the area and for these rules to apply to all areas on this site. This would help minimise the effect of light pollution on the dwellings down the valley in Heath Lane.
  2. That the agricultural workers dwelling is indeed temporary.
  3. There is much controversy regarding hours of operation at this site so we would like to see restrictions and clear rules when activity related to this agricultural business is allowed. This would be a good opportunity to establish hours of operation for all areas at Cross Park Farm to help minimise noise pollution for those residents living in Heath Lane and neighbouring properties.

Grant of Conditional Planning Permission

27.5 24/00024/FUL Construction of field shelter at Upper Kingswood Farm, Longdown

27.6 24/00007/FUL 36 ground mounted solar panels at Trillow House, Halsfordwood Lane

27.7 24/00130/FUL Extension to existing agricultural building and replacement of existing roof with new pitched roof at West Rowhorne Farm, Nadderwater.

Application Withdrawn

27.8 24/000006/FUL Storage building (retrospective) at Heath Lane Yard, Heath Lane.

  1. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION

28.1 CCTV for carpark and play area

Cllr Belt reported that the Parish Hall Committee are arranging for LED lights to be installed around the Hall. It was decided that the need for cameras to be installed by the Parish Council would be discussed at a later date

28.2 Bus Stop area

A quotation of £1,114.08 has now been received from Fine Memorials for the installation of a stone memorial engraved with the names of fallen parishioners in the wars and this was proposed and seconded for acceptance. It was arranged that Councillors Belt and Frankum should attend at the bus stop area to discuss arrangements for the planting in the area and the siting of the memorial.

28.3 Councillor Training

Information has been received from the Training Officer for DALC regarding training for new Councillors and the Clerk was instructed to respond asking for possible dates for an evening session towards the end of May.

28.4 Annual Parish Meeting

This will take place at 7.30pm on Thursday 25th April 2024 and parishioners have been invited to attend and give reports on the events which have taken place over the past year.

  1. MATTERS RAISED BY THE CHAIRMAN

Cllr Fairley reported on the fact that this will be the last meeting of Mrs Vicky Bryant who is resigning from the Council and she wished to give whole hearted thanks to her for her time whilst serving as a Councillor.

  1. FINANCE

Income

30.1 1 School Houses rental to 2nd May £950.00 - £114.00 (includes £19.00 VAT) = £836.00.

30.2 2 School Houses rental to 1st February £2500.00 - £90.00 Insurance and £300.00 (which includes £50.00 VAT) = £2110.00.

Expenditure

The following expenditure was proposed and seconded for payment. All in favour and the cheques were signed by Councillors Fairley and Baird..

30.3 Mr L Blades (Lengthsman/Grass cutting) £381.50

30.4 Devon Association of Local Councils £298.08 (includes £39.08 VAT)

  1. REPORTS

Cllr Belt reported concerns regarding the field known as Willow Copse and the change of use of Crosspark Farm regarding MOT work being carried out. Cllr Belt also noted that there were weeds outside No 2 School Houses which needed removing.

The meeting closed at 9.20pm.