Agenda and draft minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 11 June.

It was proposed by Councillor D Cox and seconded by Councillor Sanders that the minutes of the previous meeting were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

A vote was taken – the results were 9 for, 0 against, and 3 abstentions

Resolved

That the minutes of the previous meeting were 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.

Cllr Palethorpe declared an interest in item 6b as he _ . He spoke as the ward member then left the meeting for the remainder of the item and did not vote.

The Chair raised an issue that had occurred during the site inspection wherein a member of public has erroneously attended the visit. This member of public was not invited to the visit and did not make their position known. The Site Inspection team were asked to disregard any comments this person might have made.

Following these comments, Cllr J Taylor claimed to the Committee that the Chair had tried to direct Officers to disregard the member of public’s attendance following discovery of their identity. In response the Chair claimed that this had not occurred and that no attempt had been made to hide this information.

It was proposed by Cllr J Taylor and seconded by Cllr Macgregor that a vote of no confidence in the Chair be held. The result was 2 in favour, 9 against, and 2 abstentions and so the vote of no confidence was lost.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee.

Public Speaker, Objector – Spoke on:

·       Need for choice in pubs

·       Historic use of building

·        Community benefit scheme

·       Two offers to purchase the building

Public Speaker, Supporter – Spoke on

·       Pub not profitable

·       High energy bills

·       Low return business

·       Support for application from highways officer

·       Low footfall

Comments from Councillors during debate included:

·       Lack of parking on site

·       Concerns for pedestrian safety

·       Use of the car park as a turning point in the road

·       Road is used by agricultural vehicles

·       The proposed footpath should be available for public use

·       Loss of local facilities

·       Need for well designed public and private spaces

·       Policy P-12 community benefit

·       1947 Planning Law

·       Neighbouring pub isn’t highly used

·       No sufficient offer from the community

·       Are parking issues a reason for refusal?

In response to Councillors’ comments, the Officers clarified the following:

·       Parking is considered acceptable by the Highways Officer

·       The 1990 Town and Planning Act is the current legislation

·       The ACV doesn’t require the applicant to sell

·       Teignbridge doesn’t have control over parking standards

·       There is no agreement with the applicant to allow public use of the proposed footpath

·       The number of parking spots would be a reason for refusal

It was proposed by Councillor Macgregor and seconded by Councillor Hall that permission be granted as set out in the report.

A vote was taken – the result was 13 for and 1 against

Resolved

Permission be granted subject to conditions addressing the following

matters, the precise number and form of which shall be delegated to the Head of Development Management:

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 Senior Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee.

Public Speaker, Objector – Spoke on:

·       Unauthorised hedge works

·       Issues with flooding properties

·       Retrospective consent

·       Clay sub soil

·       Lack of consultation with local residents

·       Lack of provided evidence

Public Speaker, Supporter – Spoke on

·       Properties are constructed

·       Previous consultant had advised them incorrectly

·       Ecology concerns had been addressed

·       Failure of the land drainage system caused the flooding

Comments from Councillors during debate included:

·       Retrospective application

·       Applicant had ignored officers advice in past

·       Impact on biodiversity and ecology

·       Contractors not involved with planning application

·       Not a small developer

·       Concerns about planning breach

·       There should be sanctions against serious breaches

·       Soil can be moved again using farming vehicles

·       Clay pipe cannot drain whole field

·       Did Teignbridge witness the pipe replacement

·       Opposed by Parish Council

·       Drainage concerns including following rainfall

·       Lack of trees to absorb water

·       Lack of biodiversity net gain

·       Clay subsoil should be covered with topsoil

In response to Councillors’ comments, the Officers made the following points:

·       Run off from heavy machinery

·       Mitigation using seeded topsoil

·       Biodiversity officer was satisfied that ecology survey not needed

·       No illegal action taken but can report to environmental agency

·       Removing dirt would cause harm

·       No visual impact

·       The drainage pipe is similar to use of ditch

The Committee asked that it be minuted specifically that they disapproved of the applicant moving the soil to the site unauthorised and that they did not consider approval of this application as their support for this practice.

It was proposed by Cllr C Parker and seconded by Cllr Bullivant that permission be granted as set out in the report and the amended condition in the update sheet.

A vote was taken – the result was 3 for 3 against and 7 abstentions. The Chair then used his casting vote in favour of the application.

RESOLVED

That permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.     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.

2.     Within one month from the date of this decision, the details of the grass and wildflower seed mix which shall be sown on the area of the site that has been raised shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The grass and wildflower seed mix shall then be sown in the first sowing season following the approval of the sowing mix.

REASON: In the interests of biodiversity protection and enhancement, and in the interests of flood control

3.     All works on the site shall only be undertaken in daylight, to avoid impacts of artificial lighting on wildlife.

REASON: In the interests of biodiversity protection

The Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee.

Public Speaker, Supporter – Spoke on

·       Similar methodology to other sites

·       Acceptable in new Local Plan

·       Ecology and heritage considered

·       No objections from statutory officers

·       Applicant is a resident of Denbury

Comments from Councillors during debate included:

·       Not enough detail provided

·       Large dwellings

·       S-22 policy failure

·       Contrary to TPA

·       Lack of parking

·       Concerns about public transport availability

·       Conservation area

·       Concerns about visibility of turning area

·       Concerns about bats

·       Architect is supportive

·       Impact on conservation area

·       Narrow access road

·       What is the weight of the local plan

·       Outside settlement limit

·       Lane used by horse rider

·       Site of application can be congested

In response to Councillors’ comments, the Officers commented on the following:

·       NPPF allows weight to be given to emerging local plan

·       Hedges are under different owner

·       South Hams SAC

·       Condition in place to deal with lighting impact

·       Retention of hedge in conditions

·       Highways happy with access, reserved matters for parking

·       Non-significant weight given to emerging LP

·       No objections to extension to settlement limit

·       No harm (substantial/less than substantial)

·       Any appeal concerns are not relevant to the discussion on this application

It was proposed by Councillor Macgregor and seconded by Councillor J Taylor that decision be deferred to a Members’ site inspection to ascertain the impact on the conservation area and the effect on traffic of the turning area

A vote was taken – the result was 7 for 2 against and 2 abstentions

Resolved

That decision be deferred pending a Members’ site inspection.

There were no appeal decisions received in the last month.

The Committee noted the appeals decision made by the Planning Inspectorate – on this occasion there had been none.

The Committee noted the Major Decisions Summary Sheet.

Representatives of SWW in attendance 

The Representative from South West Water gave a presentation to the Planning Committee. It covered the following points

·       Support to development growth

·       Capacity of pumping stations

·       Environmental protections

·       Future plans and developments

·       Strategic priorities

·       Water resources

·       Contributions to planning applications consideration

·       Standard requirements

Comments from Councillors included:

·       What are SWW’s exact betterment/improvement proposals?

·       Are higher rainfalls factored in?

·       Concerns around sewage and surface run off – what is the plan to address water runoff?

·       EA statement that all sites will be at capacity by 2035

·       How many homes are hooked into systems?

·       Lack of investment and concrete plan

·       Impact of climate change

·       Major uphill application in Teignmouth

·       How do you ensure sewage systems are ready to deal with new developments?

·       Blockage of natural flow of water

·       Could SWW be more proactive in speaking to organisations and developers to avoid design flaws

·       What can TDC do to assist in water consumption cutback and avoiding flooding?

·       Are we continuing to consider future applications impact

In response to Members’ comments the Representatives from SWW and the EA raised the following:

·       The Councillors’ questions from the Overview and Scrutiny meeting would receive follow up by email

·       Buckland site still has capacity – 122,000 total with currently 96,000 hooked up to it

·       The EA representative was from the flood risk side not water treatment

·       Model of existing developments – assess network and look at applications plus local plan

·       Push to reduce water consumption

·       SWW is not land drainage authority

·       EA role in sustainable construction including writing to government advising on building regulations

·       Council can support water efficiency measures, and rainwater harvesting.

·       September workshop with Richard Rainbow regarding CSOs

·       Climate change standards and allowances in old applications cant be changed

·       Consideration of volume for large applications

·       Critical drainage considers rainfall and volume

The Chair of Planning Committee left the meeting during this item. The Vice-Chair took over in his place.