Agenda item

It was reported that the Council’s Design and Heritage Team Leader has withdrawn the objection set out in the report circulated with the agenda, in relation to the associated application 17/02275/FUL, because her previously stated concerns had been overcome by the additional information submitted since the last Committee meeting.

Public speaker, Objector – objections in relation to applications 17/02118/MAJ and 17/02275/FUL as follows: highway safety - means of access using the existing drive to Indio House has inadequate visibility, Newton Road does not have spare width for the provision of this, and the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users will be put at risk; an acceptable alternative access off St John’s Close is available; traffic survey methodology questionable as it was undertaken for a too limited a time; the existing drive is too narrow and cannot be widened to an acceptable width without unacceptable loss of trees.

Public speaker, Objector – objections in relation to applications 17/02118/MAJ and 17/02275/FUL as follows: highway safety – the validity of the traffic survey in relation to vehicle speeds is questionable when it was undertaken in wet conditions for a limited time; the access and drive is too narrow having been constructed in 1907; egressing vehicles will need to be halfway across Newton Road to gain sufficient visibility of the road; access from St John’s Close is preferable; and ecological concern relating to disturbance to

Greater Horseshoe Bats.

Public Speaker, supporter – counteracted objections in relation to applications 17/02118/MAJ and 17/02275/FUL as follows: the methodology of the traffic survey was within guidelines; the access and drive is to an acceptable standard to serve the development and works which may otherwise be detrimental to trees and heritage assets are not required; the earlier concerns of Natural England have been withdrawn because the gateway listed structures and protected trees will not be affected; 30% affordable housing and 5% custom build will be provided; in addition to ecological enhancements.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that an alternative access route is not being proposed, and the Committee should focus on the current application for 30 dwellings, using the proposed drive. The access proposals are acceptable to Devon County Council Highways, including the visibility splays. 

Comments raised by Councillors included: both the proposed access and St John’s Close are unsuitable accesses; traffic survey should have been undertaken for a longer time period than an hour; and loss of privacy and overlooking to existing neighbours.

In response to comments above the Principal Planning Officer and the Legal Adviser emphasised that refusing the application on highway and heritage grounds would not be sufficiently robust reasons because there is no evidence to support refusal on these grounds that can be provided by the relevant officers at appeal. 

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

Resolved

Permission refused for the following reasons:

1.            The access drive does not conform to Devon County Council Highways requirements for a shared use residential road accessing over 25 homes, and it has not been demonstrated that it would be possible to bring it up to this standard without having a detrimental effect on the setting of and approach to Indio House, a Grade II Listed Building.  The access drive is proposed to be unlit, with no pavements, no edge strips, no kerb stones, and has no structures or legal means for satisfactorily controlling parking along it.  The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies S1 (Sustainable Development criteria), S2 (Quality Development) and EN5 (Heritage Assets) of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); and,

2.            The exit from the private drive onto Newton Road does not conform to the visibility requirements set out in the Manual for Streets and as such is considered unsafe. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy S1 (Sustainable Development Criteria) of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 and the NPPF.

(13 votes for and 2 against)

Note: The refusal of this application is contrary to the report of the Business Manager. The committee considered the application unacceptable for reasons set out above.