Minutes:
The Planning Officer presented the item to the Committee.
Public Speaker, Objector – Spoke on:
· Town Council objects to the proposal
· Opposition from all neighbours
· Lack of public transport from site
· Road that the site sits on is unsuitable
· The site would be better suited for permanent residential use
· No management or travel plan
Public Speaker, Supporter – Spoke on:
· Site owner for 34 years
· TDC Planning advice supported holiday lets
· No objection from DCC highways officer, who stated that the site would result in a traffic decrease
· No data to show holiday units would be disruptive
· Management scheme on site plus natural screening to protect against noise
· Dartmoor National Park have claimed they will not be impacted by this application
Comments from Councillors during debate included:
· Concerns regarding the noise made by construction vehicles that can operate per conditions between sunrise and sunset
· The conservatory on site could be reused
· Teignbridge as a planning authority must strike a balance between tourism provision and local housing provision.
· Why are the lets the size that they are and could they be easily converted into dwellings?
· Does Teignbridge have enough accommodation for elderly residents?
· Do we have figures for the number of lets required?
· Lack of evidence of need, for example no business plan submitted
· How close is this application to Dartmoor National Park?
· What was the timeline for the decision to change use?
· Concerns around loss of jobs
· Objection from Town Council
· The current site is not in use so jobs will not be lost
· Could the application be turned into residential use?
· The application is contrary to the Neighbourhood Development Plan
· The 6 proposed units must be considered as a single site and not as individual lets
· Will the owner retain the business as a holiday letting agency?
· Lack of sufficient choice of retirement homes in the area
· How was the decision made to consider residential use non-viable?
· The location would be good for development but not the proposed use.
In response to Members’ comments, Officers clarified the following:
· A condition regarding construction hours would be reasonable
· The existing construction hours exist to protect bats and other wildlife
· The balance between local housing provision and tourism is determined per area or ward, for Bovey Tracey this is not a concern
· The sizes of the lets is not a policy consideration
· The LPA cannot demand a change of use
· The test of housing provision for elderly resident would have to be undertaken by the relevant Town or Parish council.
· Mulberry House was able to take in residents when Tracey House closed
· The care home could not continue as it was not viable in the current market
· A timeframe was provided regarding decision to change use
· It would not be a minor policy amendment to recommend change of use to residential use and would not be in the Committee remit
· The neighborhood plan has the same weight as other plans
· Business rates cannot be a planning consideration
· Evidence as set out in the business place can be provided if decision would be deferred for it
It was proposed by Councillor J Taylor and seconded by Councillor Bradford that permission be refused due to the application being contrary to Policy WE12 in the Local Plan
A vote was taken. The result was 6 in favour, 0 against, and 4 abstentions.
Resolved
That permission be refused due to the application being contrary to Policy WE12 of the Local Plan.
Note:
The decision to refuse this application was contrary to Officer recommendation. Members considered that there was insufficient evidence to support the loss of facility required to satisfy policy WE12, which outweighed any benefits of the application.
Supporting documents: