Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting on 29 August 2018.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 29 August 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. (13 votes for, 1 against and 2 abstentions).

Councillor Prowse advised that the Panning Enforcement Review Group had met that morning. Officers were working towards the introduction of the new procedure in a couple of months’ time for dealing with enforcement issues for major developments over 50 dwellings.

The Chairman to advise the Committee on any requests received from members of the public to address the Committee.

The Chairman reminded Members that they should not vote on an application

if they are not present at the meeting to hear the entire debate on the

application. The Chairman also welcomed public speakers to the meeting.

Councillors declared interests as detailed below:

Councillor Keeling - Application 18/00856/FUL - Appendix A, Paragraph 14 interest. Councillor Keeling left the meeting while the application was dealt with.

To consider applications for planning permission as set out below.

The Committee considered the reports of the Business Manager – Strategic

Place, together with comments of public speakers, additional information

reported by the officers and information detailed in the late representations

updates document previously circulated.

Public Speaker, Supporter – The facility would provide an educational environment for 0-5 year olds while parents have refreshment; it would be wheelchair friendly, run a plastic free and greener living ethos; no fried and only healthy foods; minimal pollution and noise; and only weekly deliveries.

The Ward Member advised that the Town Council had expressed concern about potential food odours and increase traffic.

It was proposed by Councillor Prowse, seconded by Councillor Parker and

Resolved

Permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard three year time limit for commencement.

2. Works to proceed in accordance with the approved drawings and documents.

3. Hours of operation to be restricted to 8.30 to 17.30 Tuesday - Sunday as applied for.

4. Bin store shown on drawing TDC1 shall be provided prior to first use and retained thereafter to ensure that adequate refuse/recycling storage facilities are provided to serve the development.

(17 votes for and 0 against).

Public Speaker, Supporter – The external wall art work would be subtle to make its appearance for pleasing than the look of a former public convenience building, and attract clients to the facility.

The Ward Councillor advised that the Town Council was not in favour of the application because no other building in the vicinity was decorated in a similar way.

Comments from Members included that the proposed artwork was innovative and would improve the appearance of the building.

The Business Manager added that the proposal was a good use of the building, it was not in a Conservation Area, or a Listed Building.

It was proposed by Councillor Prowse, seconded by Councillor J Hook and

Resolved

Advertisement consent be granted subject to the standard conditions governing the display of advertisements.

(17 votes for and 1 against)

The Chairman reported on a representation from the Ward Member that the revisions appear to satisfy the concerns of the Parish Council and residents, and therefore he was happy with the officer recommendation as set out in the report circulated with the agenda.

It was proposed by Councillor J Hook, seconded by Councillor Parker and

Resolved

Permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year time limit for commencement.

2. Development to be carried out in accordance with approved plans (received 7 September 2018).

(18 votes for and 0 against)

The Business Manager advised that four similar proposals had been refused and two appeals had been dismissed, for reasons of harm to the street scene which outweighed the benefits of off-street parking.

Public Speaker, Supporter – The continuity of the brick wall had been broken with an off street parking area and, further along, a garage; the lack of on street parking was a problem causing congestion; materials would be in keeping with the street scene; one side of the road has double yellow lines; and the other side of the road is restricted for parking due to drive way entrances.

Comments from Councillors included: detrimental to the appearance of the street scene; sympathy with the lack of parking; this is a main feeder road to the Lovell estate; the on-street parking should be swopped to the other side of the road where there are no drive ways to enable more on street parking.

The Business Manager advised that the Lovell estate was developed prior to 2017 when the last similar proposal was submitted and refused. Nothing had changed since this time to justify the approval of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor Fusco, seconded by Councillor Parker and

Resolved 

Permission be refused for the following reason:

The proposed parking area, excavation work, retaining walls, planting walls, hand rail and the removal of the existing roadside wall would not be in keeping with or sympathetic to the character of the street and consequently would detract from the visual qualities of the area, contrary to Policies S1A (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development), S1 (Sustainable Development), S2 (Quality Development) and WE8 (Domestic Extensions, Ancillary Domestic Curtilage Buildings and Boundary Treatments) of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 and to the advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework July 2018 and the National Planning Practice Guidance.   (11 votes for, 6 against and 1 abstention)

Councillor Keeling declared an Appendix A, Paragraph 14 interest and left the meeting while the application was dealt with.

The Chairman reported on a note from the Ward Member objecting to the application. The Ward Members reasons for objecting were as detailed in the report circulated with the agenda as her reasons for calling the application to Committee, and the detrimental effect on the wider views of the area.  

Public Speaker, Objector – Objected on the grounds of being detrimental to the amenities of immediate neighbouring properties; overbearing; overlooking directly towards bedroom windows and loss of privacy; obscure glazed windows but which open for emergency exit so they would still result in loss of privacy and overlooking; visual intrusion of  the street scene and wider views; and contrary to Policy.

Public Speaker, Supporter – This is a large plot and the increase in height is a mere 1.5 meters; the neighbouring property Haldon View is a large detached dwelling with pitched roof double garage, visible form the village; the other immediate neighbouring property Pidsley Ball is set above Overdale; there would be minimal impact in terms of light, overlooking and loss of privacy; and the proposal would increase privacy to Haldon View.

It was proposed by Councillor Mayne, seconded by Councillor Jones and

Resolved

Permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year time limit for commencement.

2. Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

3. Details of external materials to be submitted for approval.

(17 votes for and 0 against)

To note appeal decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate.

The Committee noted appeal decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate on appeals against refusal of planning permission.