Agenda and draft minutes

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

It was proposed by Councillor C Parker and seconded by Councillor Cox that the minutes of the previous meeting be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

A vote was taken.

Resolved

That the minutes of the previous meeting be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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.

Councillor Macgregor declared an interest in item 6b due to his friendship with the applicant. He spoke on this item but did not vote.

Councillor Buscombe declared an interest in item 6c due to his role as Executive Member for Teignbridge 100. He did not speak or vote on this item and left the room during its consideration.

The Chair announced that items 6e and 6f had been withdrawn due to a late representation from GWP Consultants that had been sent out to Committee members on Saturday. Officers therefore were not aware of it until the Monday and required additional time to read and consider the information.

The Chair also announced that item 7a had been withdrawn due to further information received that needed further investigation.

The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee.

Public Speaker, Supporter - Spoke on:

·       No objections from any consultee officers

·       Result of self build policy from Local Plan

·       Helps promote sustainable local economy

·       Neighbouring plot has begun construction

·       Inspired by characteristics in Teignbridge design guide and Chudleigh conservation area.

Comments from Councillors included:

·       Tall building on top of a hill

·       Is there an explanation of conditions

·       Are conditions reasonable and affordable

·       Who will enforce bat protection

·       How long will it take for hedge to grow

In response Officers clarified:

·       Mix of build forms that would be in the town

·       Page 16 includes explanation of condition

·       Other sites cannot be commented on

·       Condition 3 includes a fence on the eastern boundary to protect bats

·       Hedge will be in place early

·       Members of public can report concerns to be enforced

A member asked a questions regarding the CIL liability on self-build plots. The Interim Head of Development advised that the calculations were carried out and an exemption process would need to be completed.

It was proposed by Cllr Cox and seconded by Cllr Hook that permission be granted as set out in the agenda report.

A vote was taken. The result was 11 for, 0 against, and 2 abstentions.

Resolved

That permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.     The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.     The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the application form and the following approved plans/documents:

REASON: In order to ensure compliance with the approved drawings

3.     No development above damp-proof course (dpc) level shall take place until details including exact location, extent, height, design, and materials of a temporary fencealong the eastern boundary of the site, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the first occupation of the hereby approved dwelling, the fence shall then be erected in accordance with the approved  details and shall thereafter be maintained and retained until the hedge required by Condition 7 of this permission is established and maintained at a height of at least 2.5m.

REASON: To ensure that light spill from the development does not adversely impact the integrity of the South Hams SAC designated for legally protected greater horseshoe bat species during the period it takes for the eastern boundary hedge to be established.

4.     No development above damp-proof course (dpc) level shall take place until details of the materials to be used on all external surfaces of the building  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

The Planning Officer introduced the application to the Committee.

Public Speaker, Supporter -Spoke on:

·       Families born locally

·       Static caravans

·       No objections

·        

Comments from Councillors included:

·       Retrospective application from a Councillor

·       How long have we had the land supply for Gypsy and Traveller Sites

Officers responded that the supply had been since April 1 2024.

It was proposed by Councillor Bullivant and seconded by Councillor Hall that the application be approved as set out in the report.

A vote was taken – the results were 14 for and 0 against.

Resolved

That permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.     The works hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the application form and the following approved plans/documents:

REASON: In order to ensure compliance with the approved drawings.

2.     No external lighting shall be installed on, or in association with the caravan pitches hereby approved, except for low-intensity, PIR motion-activated lights on a short timer (maximum 2 minutes), sensitive to large objects only (to avoid triggering by bats or other wildlife). Any lights should be mounted at a height no greater than 1.9m from ground level, directed/cowled downwards and away from hedges and trees. The lights should produce only narrow spectrum, low-intensity light output, UV-free, with a warm colour-temperature (2,700K or less) and a wavelength of 550nm or more.

REASON: For protection of legally protected light-sensitive bats.

3.     The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and travellers as defined in paragraph 1 of Annex 1 of DLUHC Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, December 2023.

REASON: Permission for residential occupation of the site is only granted by reason of the special circumstances of gypsies/travellers.

4.     The site shall accommodate no more than six gypsy and traveller pitches at any time. Any static caravan unit stationed on the site at any time must meet the definition of a caravan as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968. There shall be no more than six touring caravans parked/stored on the site, which shall all be associated with the six hereby permitted pitches.

REASON: In order to ensure compliance with the terms of the permission.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application to the Committee.

Comments from Councillors during debate included:

·       Concerns about parking

·       NHS building parking and proximity

·       Concerns about loss of tree at entrance and possibility of TPO

·       Site would be in flood zone 2

·       Concerns about overlooking

·       Concerns about the design including the colour

·       Loss of light

·       Site is brown field and in town centre

·       Sustainable

·       Site is a visual improvement

·       100 percent affordable homes

·       Helps residents looking to downsize, in turn freeing up larger homes

·       Concerns about traffic

·       Balcony may overlook

·       Involvement of highways

·       Need to ensure building stays clean

·       Importance of site notices/notifying neighbours

·       Condition for sustainable travel plan

·       Ward member would be involved in overview of development

In response, Officers clarified the following:

·       Bottom of site in flood zone 3, the proposed building is in zone 2. Cannot say what the history of flooding is on site.

·       Neighbouring business have their own allocated parking

·       Tree is retained in scheme

·       Precise cladding colours will be determined by the supplier

·       Cannot condition any traffic impact on cricketfield or traffic

·       Building is angled to prevent impact on neighbours

·       Conditions would be discharged by officers

·       Conditions can be added regarding colour

·       Applicant didn’t include planning officer in discussions with highways officer at Devon County

·       Site notices went out locally

·       Drop in sessions for the community to give feedback

·       Wil meet with ward member during site development

It was proposed Cllr Hook by and seconded by Cllr Hall that permission be granted as set out in the report and update sheet, plus a condition requiring submission of a sustainable travel plan.

A vote was taken. The results were 12 for, 1 against, and 1 abstention.

Resolved

That permission be granted subject to the following conditions.

1.     The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiry of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.     The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the application form and the following approved plans/documents

The Planning Officer introduced the item to the Committee.

Public Speaker, Objector – Spoke on:

·       Speculative development

·       Concerns around growth of village

·       No local need for these types of dwellings

·       No public good to alleviate any harm

·       Impact on pedestrians

·       Number of objections from village

Public Speaker, Supporter – Spoke on:

·       Land already in local plan

·       Boundary changes are in draft local plan

·       Ecological assessment carried out

·       Impact considered acceptable

·       No objections from statutory consultees

Comments from Councillors during debate included:

·       Concerns of Parish Council

·       The wall that will be affected is in the conservation area

·       Proposed entrance would be unattractive

·       Limited impact

·       Church can only be seen from the road outside the properties

·       Concerns about access to public transport

·       Condition 7 deals with road impact

·       Harm to heritage assets

·       No vehicles seen when visiting site

·       Plenty of space on site for 3 dwellings

·       Narrow lane

·       Low quality tree to be removed

·       Application considered premature

·       NPPF paragraph 82 requires housing to support locals

·       Dwellings too large

·       Support in village for more moderate applications

·       Site is in countryside

·       Doesn’t meet policies S21 and S22

·       Application could use preexisting access

·       Other local sites would better fit this development

·       Removing stone from the wall would count as harm to a heritage asset

·       Families may wish to use local school

·       No objection to Saturday building work

·       Maximum additional capacity allowed is 5 percent

·       More moderately sized dwelling would attract younger locals to stay in the village

·       Planning officers consider policies are met

In response officers clarified the following:

·       Not a speculative development

·       Church tower can only just be seen from site

·       No material harm to church

·       Benefit would be provided through contributing towards solving housing crisis

·       Need to improve Denbury Conservation Area

·       High end dwellings

·       Policy GP3 supports application

·       Reuse of natural stone

·       Minimised vehicle movements

·       Applicants aren’t required to provide fully detailed application

·       Wall is not listed

·       Officers have given their professional opinion regarding the relation between the application and policies

It was proposed by Councillor Hook and seconded by Councillor J Taylor that permission be refused due to the application not complying with policies S21, S22, GP3, and EN17.

A vote was taken. The result was 10 in favour, 3 against, and 1 abstention. Cllr Macgregor chose not to vote on this item.

Resolved

That permission be refused due to the application not complying with policies S21, S22, GP3, and EN17.

Note: The decision to refuse this application was contrary to officer recommendation.

Members considered that the application provided less than substantial harm to the wall which is in the conservation area, lack of public benefit, parking issues, and a lack of need for the type of dwelling and housing numbers as considered in the Local Plan.

The item was withdrawn by Officers before the start of the meeting.

The item was withdrawn by Officers before the start of the meeting.

The item was withdrawn by Officers before the start of the meeting.

The Committee noted the appeals decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate.

The Committee noted the Major Decisions Summary sheet.