Agenda item

Public speaker, objector – Objected on the grounds of: no affordable housing; overlooking and loss of privacy to residents; overbearing; lack of amenity space; inappropriate design, including large windows and balconies, out of keeping with the surrounding area of Victorian and Edwardian properties; highway safety, no footpath, and access is on a blind bend and narrow section of Buckeridge Road; and increased risk of surface water flooding.

Public speaker, supporter – The current access to the back land site is a narrow unmade road, the current use is a 30 space car park; there is no objection from the County Highway Engineer; it is an effective use of the site with quality development. Boundary treatment, house orientation and window positions are such to minimise effect on neighbours; the size and spacing around the dwellings are similar to surrounding properties, and a modern design rather than mimicking the existing surrounding style.

The Planning Officer confirmed that affordable housing was not required on site because it would be provided at an off-site location.

The Legal Adviser commented that the current application and 18/01383/FUL should be considered as separate applications on their individual merits.

Comments from Councillors included: the tarmacking of the site will cause flooding; highway safety, the access is on a narrow part of the road with no footpath and a blind bend; loss of privacy; overbearing; the design is not is keeping and could be improved; affordable housing should be provided on site; not an effective use of the site; doesn’t meet the housing needs of Teignmouth; and out of keeping with the street scene.

It was proposed by Councillor Orme and seconded by councillor Fusco that that consideration be deferred for a site inspection.

An amendment was proposed by Councillor Colclough and seconded by Councillor Prowse that permission be refused on the grounds of highway safety, design, overbearing, out of keeping, and detrimental to amenities of neighbours.

The Business Manager advised that highway safety could not be substantiated as a reason for refusal. Highway proposal were acceptable and there was no objection from the County Highway Engineer. Refusal on highway grounds would be unreasonable and the council would risk having costs awarded against it as was the case with two other recent appeals. Surface water drainage would not be made worse as a result of the development, therefore flooding could not be a supported as a reason for refusal. There is no connectivity between the current site and that of application 18/01383/FUL, and they are to be dealt with separately. The plot sizes reflect the existing character of the area and therefore the proposal cannot reasonably be regarded as overbearing.

The proposer of the amendment for refusal, Councillor Colclough referred to her revised reasons for refusal as inappropriate design out of keeping with the surrounding area, no provision for affordable housing and not best use of the site. This was supported by the seconder, Councillor Prowse.

A vote was taken on this amendment and it was,

Resolved

Permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.  Inappropriate design out of keeping with the surrounding area.

2.  No provision for affordable housing and not best use of the site.

 (16 for and 2 against)

The refusal of the application was contrary to the report of the Business Manager. The Committee considered the application unacceptable for reasons set out above.