Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting.

It was proposed by Councillor Nutley and seconded by Councillor H Cox that the minutes be approved as a correct record.

A vote was taken – see attached.

Resolved

That the minutes be approved as a correct record.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application to the committee.

Public Speaker, Supporter – Spoke on:

·         History of successful developments in Devon

·         Well thought out drainage

·         Rights over private road access

·         Vehicle control on private road

·         10 million in job investment

·         Work would begin on the site in 2022

Comments from Councillors include:

·         Lack of need

·         Private road can’t be sufficiently controlled

·         Impact on wildlife

·         How much distance is between buildings?

·         Good site for industrial development

·         Weight restriction on road

·         Private road provides better site entrance

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that the dwellings are further than 50 meters apart, a travel ban coordinator will be included, and signage would be on DCC land.

It was proposed by Councillor Clarance and seconded by Councillor Kerswell that permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

A vote was taken – see attached.

Resolved

Permission be granted subject to the following criteria:

Conditions covering the following matters and any additional conditions as a result of the above consultation responses, the precise wording, form and number of which to be delegated to the Business Manager – Strategic Place.

Full Application and Outline Application Conditions:

1.    Completion of 278 agreement prior to the commencement of development to secure off site highways works and their implementation

2.    Submission of a phasing plan

3.    Submission of Construction Ecological Management Plan prior to the commencement of development. CEMP to include provision of protective fencing around retained trees and other habitats, no night working or if absolutely necessary, no lighting of the identified Greater Horseshoe Bats flyways and for pollution prevention measures to be employed

4.    Submission of a Construction Management Plan to include (but not limited to) hours of construction and noise impact report for construction activities

5.    Submission of a detailed drainage design based upon the approved Flood Risk Assessment, detailed proposals for the management of surface water and silt runoff from the site during construction, proposal for the adoption and maintenance of the permanent surface water drainage system and a detailed assessment of the condition and capacity of the downstream culvert

6.    Submission of details of access, parking facilities, commercial vehicle

loading/unloading area, visibility splays, turning area, parking space and access drainage, as well as drawing 0398-01-PHL104 Rev A (Site Access Forward Visibility Plan) be maintained in perpetuity on the side of the bend

7.    Submission of Waste Audit Statement

8.    Submission of Travel Plan

9.    Submission of details of employment estate roads, footways, footpaths, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, road maintenance/vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, access, car parking and street furniture

10. Submission of a repeat survey for the presence of badgers on the site and surrounding suitable habitat, with associated mitigation/compensation measures

11. Submission of an Ecological Monitoring Strategy including Light Monitoring

12. Implementation of archeological programme of works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation to be submitted

13. Development in accordance with Greater Horseshoe Bats  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66a

The Business Manager presented the application to the committee.

Public Speaker, Supporter – Spoke on:

·         Personal circumstances related to the application

·         Low environmental impact of application

·         Use of solar panelling

·         No complaints from neighbours

Comments from Councillors included

·         1000 families on housing waiting list already

·         Applicant would like to be able to stay in Teignmouth

·         Other temporary accommodation wouldn’t work

·         What conditions could be considered for approval?

·         Enforcement period should be increased to 18 months

·         Objection from Parish Council

·         Dwelling was built 18 months ago, before permission was received

·         Structure is not a proper dwelling

·         Retrospective permission shouldn’t be encouraged

The Business Manager informed the committee that the dwelling fails multiple safety checks, and that the CIL generated from this application would add up to £8000. She also informed the committee on the appeal and compliance periods.

It was proposed by Councillor Goodman-Bradbury and seconded by Councillor Nutley that permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report, and

Resolved

That permission be refused for the following reasons

:

1.    The proposals set out a scheme for the retention of a building and for its continued use as a dwelling house. The site lies within the open countryside beyond and removed from any defined settlement as set out in the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013 – 2033. In the absence of any overriding planning justification it is considered that the proposals fail to accord with policies S1A, S1 and S22 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013 – 2033, and the guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance.

2.    The site lies within a designated Landscape Connectivity Zone associated with Greater Horseshoe Bats from the South Hams SAC. In the absence of any supporting Ecological Survey work it has not been demonstrated that the proposals would not have a detrimental impact on Greater Horse Shoe Bats and/or other biodiversity within this location nor has an appropriate scheme of mitigation and net gain been set out. As such the proposals are contrary to policies S1, S22, EN8 and EN11 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013 – 2033 and the guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance.

3.    The application site lies within the open countryside in an Area of Great Landscape Value. The proposals see the domestication of an arear of woodland / scrubland, through the introduction of access tracks, parking areas, a building and associated domestic paraphernalia surrounding the building to the detriment of the character and appearance of this area. The proposals do not accord with policies S1, S2 and EN2A of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013 – 2033 which aims to conserve and enhance the qualities of such designated areas nor the guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance.

4.    Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that surface and foul water generated from the site is handled appropriately and without detriment to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66b

The committee noted the update sheet, and that there had been no major variation decisions made during November 2021.

The Committee noted appeal decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate.