Venue: Council Chamber, Forde House, Brunel Road, Newton Abbot, TQ12 4XX. View directions
No. | Item |
---|---|
To confirm the minutes of the last meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: It was proposed by Councillor Nutley and seconded by Councillor Nuttall that the minutes of the previous meeting be agreed as a correct record.
A vote was taken – see attached.
Resolved
That the minutes of the previous meeting be agreed as a correct record.
|
|
20/02181/FUL The Retreat, 49 Old Exeter Street, Chudleigh PDF 1 MB Additional documents: Minutes: The Business Manager presented the application to the Committee.
Public Speaker, Supporter – Spoke on: · Dwelling will be on separate land, away from the walled structure. · Self-sustaining home. · Follows conservation guidelines · No plans to make changes to driveway · Minimal light pollution · Support from Town Council
Comments from Councillors included · Application is in line with town council’s policies · Application is in line with local plan · Similar large dwelling nearby · Archaeological works could be done on site · No visual impact or overlooking reasons for refusal however it could be refused on heritage grounds · Impact on heritage does not appear substantial · Shared driveway is positive but concerns about future construction on site · CIL charges are public interest · Concerns about splitting site · Condition for air source heat pumps · Condition for bat and bird boxes
In response to comments from Councillors, the Business Manager informed the Committee of the following · Even if the harm is not substantial, the NPPF says there must be a clear public benefit, which 1 dwelling would not be · Concerns about splitting up the site · Members need to confirm the decision they want to make and the reasons for going against advice
It was proposed by Councillor Nutley and seconded by Councillor MacGregor that permission be granted subject to the conditions listed below that were agreed by members of the committee. Members accepted that there was harm but disagreed with the officer recommendation to refuse planning permission.
A vote was taken – see attached.
Resolved
Permission be granted for the following reasons: 1. Development to commence within 3 years. 2. Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. 3. Archaeological works to be undertaken pre-commencement 4. Compliance with policies EN3 and S7 5. Swift and bat boxes to be placed on site
Note The granting of planning permission was against officer recommendation. The committee considered the application agreeable due to the limited visual impact as well as the perceived low level of harm to heritage assets. |
|
21/01397/HOU 1 Barn Park, Ilsington PDF 615 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Business Manager presented the application to the Committee.
It was proposed by Councillor Patch and seconded by Councillor MacGregor that permission be granted.
A vote was taken – see attached.
Resolved
Permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Development to commence within 3 years. 2. Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings.
|
|
21/01472/FUL 59 Cockhaven Road, Bishopsteignton PDF 1019 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Business Manager presented the application to the Committee.
Public Speaker, Objector – Spoke on: · Proposals do not highlight full extent of development · Loss at appeal previously · Loss of privacy · Unsafe access · Lack of drainage solution
Public Speaker, Supporter – Spoke on: · Well proportioned and well designed dwelling · Contributes to village · Family history in village · Modern house
Comments from Councillors include: · Multiple near misses on road · Narrow pavement · Poor water drainage · Concerns about light pollution · Height increase · No planning reasons for refusal · Swoop/swift boxes could be included · Local plan would grant more ecological powers · Nearby road has different rulings in regards to highways
In response to comments from Councillors, the Business Manager responded that: · Access to site is acceptable · Ecology report support application and includes swoop/swift boxes · Height increase is spread out over the dwelling. · Foul drainage is not a reason for concern
Councillor MacGregor proposed refusal. This was not seconded.
It was proposed by Councillor Haines and seconded by Councillor Colcough that permission be granted as set out in the report with an additional condition relating to habitats and a new S106 agreement.
A vote was taken – see attached.
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. Access and parking to be provided in accordance with the approved plans prior to first occupation 4. Prior to works going beyond the DPC samples of all external materials and finishes shall be submitted for approval 5. Recommendations set out in the Ecological Report to be incorporated 6. Restricted Permitted Development Rights 7. Provision of EV charging point 8. Works to be carried out in accordance with the protection measures set out in the Arboricultural Report |
|
21/01788/HOU 3 Southdowns Road, Dawlish PDF 756 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Business Manager presented the application to the Committee.
Public Speaker, Objector – Spoke on: · Loss of light · Loss of privacy/overlooking · Dwelling is too large/overbearing
Public Speaker, Supporter – Spoke on: · Loss of light and heat is unfounded · Hedges used to provide privacy · Upper floor would look onto neighbouring roofs not windows
Comments from Councillors include · Town Council objects on overlooking concerns, against policy WE-8 · Site inspection would be beneficial to investigate overlooking
It was proposed by Patch and seconded by MacGregor that decision be deferred pending a members’ site inspection.
A vote was taken – see attached.
Resolved
That decision be deferred pending a members’ site inspection. |
|
20/02390/LBC Pedestrian Crossing. Newton Abbot PDF 997 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Business Manager presented the application to the Committee.
The chair read out a statement received from the objector. It raised the following points: · Heritage asset · Overdevelopment on site · Could be possible to avoid removing heritage asset · Nearby development has closed through route.
Comments from Councillors include: · 20MPH provides increased pedestrian safety · There may be a way around removing the heritage asset · Permission should be approved in order to prevent further accidents and protect pedestrians. · Only 3 objections received · Complaints received about existing layout and safety concerns
It was proposed by Councillor Nutley and seconded by Councillor J Hook that permission be granted subject to conditions in the report.
A vote was taken – see attached.
Resolved
Permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Standard time limit. 2. Works shall proceed in accordance with approved plans. 3. Prior to the removal of the gate pier, details of the future use of the gate pier and the details of any new retaining structures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
|
|
Appeal Decisions - to note appeal decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate. PDF 213 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee noted the appeals made by the Planning Inspectorate. |