Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 18 December 2018.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 18 December, 2018 were greed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. (16 votes for, 0 against and 1 abstention).

The Chairman welcomed public speakers to the meeting. He also reminded

Members of the Committee that they should not vote on an application if they are not present at the meeting to hear the entire debate on the application.

Councillor Fusco declared an Appendix A, paragraph 14 interest in application 18/02335/FUL as the applicant. He left the meeting room while the application was dealt with.

Councillor Cox declared an Appendix B, paragraph 12 interest in application 18/02335/FUL as a Teignmouth Town Councillor. Councillor Cox spoke on the application. The applicant is also a Teignmouth Town Councillor.

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.

It was proposed by Councillor Dennis, seconded by Councillor Nutley 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 plan.

3. Restriction of use to B1 (office) removing permitted changes to other use classes.   (17 votes for and 0 against) 

Councillor Fusco declared an Appendix A, paragraph 14 interest in the application as the applicant. He left the meeting room while the application was dealt with.

Councillor Cox declared an Appendix B, paragraph 12 interest in the application as a Teignmouth Town Councillor, and spoke on the application. The applicant is also a Teignmouth Town Councillor.

It was noted that the proposal would make use of a void space under the dwelling.

It was proposed by Councillor Bullivant, seconded by Councillor Rollason and

Resolved

Permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year limit for commencement.

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

(16 votes for and 0 against)

The Business Manager referred to condition 3 of the report circulated with the agenda that the change of use to D2 would be a personal use condition only, reverting to B1/B8 Use Class on cessation.

Public speaker, supporter – The proposal would provide a boxing gym, massage and counselling facility and support the local community; Morrison supermarket has offered the use of its car park for additional parking if required; users of the facility would also be encouraged to jog, walk or cycle to the site as part of their personal fitness programme; and 10 employment opportunities would initially be provided, increasing to 20 after 6 months.

Comments from Councillors included: the proposal accords with the Council’s community development programme; it would help to reduce local anti-social behaviour; and provide local job creation.

It was proposed by Councillor Clarance, seconded by Councillor Bullivant and

Resolved

Permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year time limit for the commencement of development;

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

3. Personal use condition / reverting to B1/ B8 class on cessation;

4. The building shall not be used for retail use.

(17 votes for and 0 against)

Public speaker, objector – resided at the neighbouring property. Objected for the following reasons: the extension and dormer windows would be out of keeping with the street scene; the extension would be to the boundary resulting in overbearing, loss of light; loss of a bungalow in an area where bungalows are in demand and there is a shortage of bungalows.

Public speaker, supporter – permission has already been granted for a two storey side extension and raising of the roof to form additional accommodation and dormers. The proposal seeks permission for a slight increase in the raising of the roof to meet building regulations, and the single storey extension. Several bungalows have had roof loft conversions and dormers.  The dwelling is the only one in the vicinity with a garage due to neighbouring garages being converted to provide additional living accommodation in the limited size bungalows. The proposal would have a minimal effect on the neighbour.

Comments raised by Members included:  bungalows are in high demand and should be retained to meet the increased demand from the growing elderly population; the Local Plan and Chudleigh Neighbourhood Plan recognise the forecasted increased elderly population; single storey accommodation is a priority but are not being developed; it would alter the street scene; on the edge of the conservation area; and the site is prominent.

The Business Manager confirmed that there was an extant planning permission for a two storey side extension and raising of the roof to form additional accommodation and dormers. The additional development sought is acceptable and consists of raising the roof ridge 40cm from 5.7 to 6.1 metres and a flat roof single storey extension.

The Solicitor advised Members of the requirement to make consistent decisions. There was already an extant planning permission. Refusal of the application would not be consistent, and could risk public funds with costs being awarded to the Council at an appeal if the Committee is seen to be making an unreasonable decision.

The Business Manager added that the main effect for the neighbours would be the gable end of the garage, which already has planning permission.

It was proposed by Councillor Keeling, seconded by Councillor Parker that the application be refused on the grounds of: detrimental to the amenities of neighbours and the street scene; and overdevelopment.  This was lost by 8 votes for and 9 against.

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

Resolved

Consideration of the application deferred pending a Member site inspection.

(10 votes for, 5 against and 1 abstention)

Public speaker, objector – Objected on the following grounds: design out of keeping, and unsympathetic with surrounding dwellings; detrimental impact on the amenities of surrounding neighbours; water run off; ground stability concerns due to the topography of the site; overlooking to neighbouring properties; and disruption to several residents during construction.                                       

Comments raised by Councillors included: concern about the stability of the retaining wall and ground; the road has been resurfaced at the expense of the residents and are rightly concerned about damage from construction traffic; consideration should be deferred for a site inspection to consider all issues raised.

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

Resolved

Consideration deferred pending a Member site inspection.

(16 votes for and 1 against)

Public Speaker, Objector – Requested that a further condition be added with regards to road safety, and in particular, the visibility at the New Road and Woodway Road junction. As a care home there was a mere 4 to 5 staff cars regularly using the site. Visitors were few and usually on a Sunday. The proposal would create 22 vehicles. Visitors would park on the road exacerbating the lack of visibility at the junction, where there are often ‘near miss’ accidents with vehicles turning right out of Woodway Road onto New Road. Double yellow lines should be added to Woodway Road on both sides of the road for a distance of 40 metres and the boundary wall of the site along New Road set back by 2 metres.

Public Speaker, supporter – The number of units has been reduced from 16 on the original plans to the current 10 to deliver a quality development; the current building is not worthy of preserving and the scale and mass is considered acceptable; large scale buildings surround the site; the proposal will add character to the area; it would be set further away from the neighbour to the south than the existing; there would be no overshadowing or overlooking; and the units are spacious enough to accommodate ‘life time’ adaptable units. 

In response to highway safety comments from the objector, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the exiting Road is wide enough to accommodate on street parking, and the existing wall is low and acceptable and has been accessed by the Highway Engineer.

Comments from Members included: there would be no additional impact on the neighbours; the contribution for affordable housing is very low; lack of onsite parking for visitors; design not suitable and out of keeping;

In response to affordable housing contribution comments, Members were advised that the amount was justified in this case due to high development costs. In relation to parking for visitors, the road is wide enough for on street parking. In addition the build for life unit would be accessible and adaptable. The recommended affordable housing contribution is in accordance with policy requirement of the Local Plan.

It was proposed by Councillor Mayne and seconded by Councillor Jones that the application be approved as set out in the report circulated with the agenda. An amendment was proposed by councillor J Hook and seconded by Councillor Rollason that the Section 106 agreement be amended to request £86,431 affordable housing contribution. The amendment was carried by 13 votes for and 4 against.

Resolved

Subject to: the completion of a Section 106 agreement for an Affordable Housing contribution of £86,431, and a Habitat Regulations contribution of £8,000,

Permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year time limit for commencement of development;

2. In accordance with approved plans;

3. Construction Management Plan to be agreed prior to development commencing;

4. Results of percolation test in accordance with BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design to be agreed prior to development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4f

The Chairman referred to the views of the Ward Member who was unable to attend the meeting, of support for the serving of an Untidy Land Notice.

The Senior Enforcement Officer updated Members on the possible sale of the land, and possible costs of the works.

It was considered that further information was required before a decision could be made. It was proposed by Councillor Colclough, seconded by Councillor Parker and

Resolved

Consideration be deferred until the next meeting of the Committee on 19 February, 2019 for further information on the cost of the works and an update on the sale of the site.

(15 votes for and 2 against)

To note appeal decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate.

The Committee noted appeal decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate.