Venue: Buckland Athletic Football Club, Kingskerswell Rd, Newton Abbot, TQ12 5JU. View directions
No. | Item |
---|---|
To confirm the minutes of the last meeting. Minutes: It was proposed by Councillor Dewhirst and seconded by Councillor Nutley that the minutes of the previous meeting be agreed as a correct record, with an amendment that Cllr Dewhirst had declared an interest in application 21/00572/FUL, and signed by the Chair.
A vote was taken.
Resolved
That the minutes of the previous meeting be agreed as a correct record with an amendment that Cllr Dewhirst has declared an interest in application 21/00572/FUL and signed by the Chair. |
|
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 Clarance declared an interest in application 20/00961/MAJ due to his relationship with the applicant. He did not speak or vote on this application and left the meeting.
Councillor Nutley declared an interest in application 20/00961/MAJ due to his role as Executive Member for Sport, Recreation and Culture. He spoke and voted on this application.
|
|
20/00961/MAJ - Riverside Boatyard, Teignmouth PDF 3 MB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application with a presentation and highlighted the reasons for refusal.
Public Speaker, Objector – Spoke on: · Only one building is commercial use · Lack of affordable housing · Contrary to local development plan, · Lack of need in housing plan, · Harm to heritage assets · Viability concerns · Inadequate design · No overriding public benefits · Duty to pay regards to protecting listed buildings · Adverse impacts on heritage from applicant report · Ringmore is a protected site · Houses at Ringmore will lose view · No justification of heritage assets harm · Impact on landscape · Buildings will dominate landscape · Contrary to national policies,
Public Speaker, Supporter – Spoke on: · Applicants are Teignmouth locals · 100 employees · Demand for improved facilities · Support for businesses and visitors · Protection from harm using sea wall · Lack of office facilities in Teignmouth · Residential element to aid with costs · Company works in other coastal towns
Public Speaker, Supporter: Spoke on · Increased tourism · Sea wall provides flooding protection · New housing for Teignmouth · 64 letters of support · Leisure marine support · Fishery conservation authority support, · Boatyard users support · Crown estate support · S106 agreement can be reached · Willing to make contribution to green space and various other fees, 550,000 in CIL and 10,000 per annum in tax · Some reasons for refusal can be overcome with conditions.
Comments from Councillors included: · Area is already a mix of residential and industrial use · Keeps wealth within Teignmouth · Definite vision and values behind project · Applicant has similar successful operations · No other sites for this application · Public support for application · Removing contamination · Provision of jobs · Maintaining of infrastructure · Economic issues give weight to application · Benefits for local college · The site was used as accommodation before · Improved cycle path · Town regeneration · Precedent of building on undeveloped coastline · Is the whole bridge a listed asset? · Concern about sea wall boundary and size · Concerns about traffic and highway safety due to collisions and possible fatality · Possibly not the correct site for an office building · Design of main building is too tall · Residential unit design is positive · Boatyard use would improve · Site is unattractive and development would improve this · Concerts about criminal behaviour being monitored · Applicant is a local · Bishopsteignton Parish Council views the application as overdevelopment · Similar employment sites in area · Other sites have been outside the development limit · No entitlement to a view · Building is imposing but would hide view of unattractive buildings behind · Concerns about access to the site · Possible loss of coastline and heritage assets · Affordable workshop space · Conflict with local plan policy · Overcoming technical issues wouldn’t solve all reasons for refusal · Concerns about viability · No affordable housing · Overdevelopment · Plans in the 1980s were even larger than this application
In response the Senior Planning Officer clarified that: · The bridge in question is a listed asset · The application wont impact delivery of the Teign estuary trail · The similar employment site was further upriver. It was also smaller in scale and adjacent to other office buildings. · Listed building each have their own individual considerations · The building will be bright at night.
It was ... view the full minutes text for item 16a |
|
Major Decisions Summary PDF 43 KB Minutes: The Committee noted the Major Decisions Summary Sheet. |
|
Appeal Decisions - to note appeal decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate. PDF 56 KB Minutes: The Committee noted the appeal decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate |