Agenda item

20/00961/MAJ - Riverside Boatyard, Teignmouth


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 proposed by Councillor Dewhirst and seconded by Councillor J Hook that permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report.


A vote was taken – see attached




That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.     Principle of Development

2.     Design and associated landscape impact

3.     Design and associated heritage impact

4.     HRA payment

5.     Ecological harm

6.     Amenity of future occupiers

7.     Green infrastructure

Supporting documents: