Agenda and minutes

Venue: Virtual Meeting - Virtual Meeting. View directions

Contact: Comsec  Email: comsec@teignbridge.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

18.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 220 KB

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 October were signed as a correct record by the Chair.

19.

Declarations of Interest.

If Councillors have any questions relating to predetermination or interests in items on this Agenda, please contact the Monitoring Officer in advance of the meeting.

Minutes:

Councillor MacGregor declared an interest in application 20/01764/FUL due to an objector having made a complaint against them. He chose not to vote on this application.

19a

20/01259/HOU - 15 Wilton Way pdf icon PDF 338 KB

Minutes:

The Planning Officer introduced the application through a PowerPoint.

 

In response to a question from a Councillor, the Planning Officer responded that it had been proposed to use the existing drainage system to accommodate for surface water.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Colclough and seconded by Councillor Parker that permission be granted as set out in the agenda report.

 

A roll call was taken

 

For

 

Councillors Bradford, Bullivant, Clarance, Colclough, H Cox, Goodman-Bradbury, Hayes, Haines, J Hook, Jeffery, MacGregor, Nuttall, Nutley, Patch, and Parker.

 

Total: 15

 

Against

 

None

 

Resolved

 

That permission be granted as set out in agenda report, with the following conditions:

 

1. Standard time limit for commencement (3 years)

2. Strict accordance with the approved plans

19b

20/01764/FUL - 19 Great Park pdf icon PDF 323 KB

Minutes:

Councillor MacGregor declared an interest in application 20/01764/FUL due to an objector having made a complaint against them. He chose not to vote on this application.

 

The Planning Officer introduced the application through a PowerPoint.

 

Public Speaker, Objector – Spoke on:

·         Objections from neighbours and Parish Council.

·         Overlooking/Loss of Privacy

·         The 30 Newton Road hedge used to protect privacy is not part of the application and could be cut down

·         Contrary to the Teignbridge Planning Design Guide

·         Contrary to Policies S2 and WE8

 

Public Speaker, Supporter – Spoke on:

·         Proposal in application is similar to nearby properties

·         Balcony is modestly sized

·         Other rooms on property afford greater overlooking

·         Little impact on amenities

 

 

It was proposed by Councillor Haines and seconded by Councillor Bullivant that permission be granted as set out in the agenda report.

 

A roll call was taken.

 

For

 

Councillors Bradford, Bullivant, Clarance, Colclough, H Cox, Goodman-Bradbury, Haines, J Hook, Jeffery, and Patch.

 

Total: 10

 

Against

 

Councillors Hayes, Nutley, and Parker

 

Total: 3

 

Abstained

 

Councillor Nuttall

 

Total: 1

 

Resolved

 

That permission be granted as set out in the agenda report, subject to the following conditions:

 

1. Standard time limit for commencement (3 years)

2. Strict accordance with the approved plans

 

19c

20/01597/HOU Ranworth, Teignmouth pdf icon PDF 472 KB

Minutes:

The Planning Officer introduced the application through a PowerPoint.

 

Public Speaker, Objector – Spoke on:

·         This application constitutes overlooking/overbearing

·         Loss of privacy and outlook for residents

·         Objections from the town council

·         This application breaches policies S1 and WE8

 

Public Speaker, Supporter – Spoke on:

·         Limited living space inside existing property

·         Increase of ridge height is only 1 meter

·         Materials used in construction match the original bungalow

·         The design of the block wall to the drive way will improve

·         Views of the garden of no.27 is blocked by the hedge

 

The Planning Officer advised the members that the document emailed to members by the objectors was an artist’s impression, and thus may not be considered wholly accurate.

 

Comments from Councillors include

·         Loss of privacy

·         The presentation was very informative and provides good information on the application

·         Objection of town council

·         Unpopular with residents

·         Overlooking and overbearing

·         What is the cupboard that is mentioned in the report?

·         Is there a right to a view?

·         Has the footprint changed?

 

In response, the Planning Officer informed the committee that

·         The cupboard mentioned is a built in cloakroom with a window

·         There was a minor increase in footprint to fill in the courtyard area

·         There is not a right to a view in this case

 

 

It was proposed by Councillor Haines and seconded by Councillor Parker that decision be deferred pending a members’ site inspection.

 

A roll call was taken.

 

For

 

Councillors Bradford, Bullivant, Clarance, Colclough, H Cox, Goodman-Bradbury, Hayes, Haines, J Hook, Jeffery, MacGregor, Nuttall, Nutley, Patch, and Parker.

 

Total: 15

 

Against

 

None

 

Resolved

 

That decision be deferred pending a Member’s Site Inspection.

19d

20/00352/FUL - The Smithy pdf icon PDF 292 KB

Minutes:

The Committee took a short break before this application.

 

The Planning Officer introduced the application through a PowerPoint.

 

Comments from Councillors include:

·         Character of Dainton should be preserved

·         Concerns about increased traffic

·         New proposals are preferable to earlier application

·         Add a condition to protect nearby roman ruins

·         The landscaping scheme and hedgerow management should be agreed before the placement of the pods.

 

In response the Planning Officer and Business Manager informed the Committee that:

·         A written scheme of investigation could be added as a condition

·         There would be no permanent development on site, only drainage

·         This is a change of use of land

·         Short lead in time in order to prepare site for tourism season next year.

·         Three month landscaping scheme is to ensure compliance

 

It was proposed by Councillor Colclough and seconded by Councillor Parker that permission be granted as set out in the agenda report.

 

A roll call was taken

 

For

 

Councillors Bradford, Bullivant, Clarance, Colclough, H Cox, Goodman-Bradbury, Hayes, Haines, J Hook, Jeffery, MacGregor, Nuttall, Nutley, Patch, and Parker.

 

Total: 15

 

Against

 

None

 

Resolved

 

That permission be granted as set out as in agenda report, with the following conditions:

 

1. Standard time limit for commencement (3 years)

2. Strict accordance with the approved plans

3. Details of external lighting to be submitted prior to installation

4. Landscaping scheme to be implemented within 3 months of the date when the pods have been sited

5. Details of long term hedge management to be submitted prior to implementation of the landscaping scheme

6. Holiday occupancy condition

7. Hereby approved pods to be sited as per the landscape/ site plan

8. No hot tubs to be installed

9. Written scheme of investigation regarding archaeology to be submitted prior to commencement.

20.

Appeal Decisions - to note appeal decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate. pdf icon PDF 123 KB

Minutes:

The Committee noted the decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate.