Minutes of a meeting of the WEST DEVON DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT & LICENSING COMMITTEE held on TUESDAY the8th day of November 2022 at 10.00am in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILWORTHY PARK
Present: Cllr J Yelland – Chairman
Cllr T Pearce – Vice Chairman
Cllr N Heyworth Cllr B Ratcliffe
Cllr T Leech Cllr M Renders
Cllr C Mott Cllr T Southcott
Cllr D Moyse Cllr J Spettigue
Head of Development Management (JH)
Planning Officer (NG)
Monitoring Officer (DF)
Democratic Services Officer (KH)
*DM&L.21 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
No apologies were received
*DM&L.22 DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Members and officers were invited to declareany interests in the items of business to be considered during the course of this meeting. Cllr Yelland declared an interest in application 2844/22/FUL as she was related to the applicant and left the room when this item was discussed and voted on. In the interest of transparency she stated that she had received correspondence from both a supporter and an objector in regard to application 2603/22/FUL and had been forwarded to the Planning Officer in line with the Code of Conduct.
As the applicant of application 2603/22/FUL was West Devon Borough Council the Monitoring Officer granted the Committee Members a dispensation so as to allow them to look at this application.
*DM&L.23 URGENT BUSINESS
There was no urgent business brought forward to this meeting.
*DM&L.24 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
The minutes from the Licensing Sub-Committee from 23 August had a typo and a word was missed from one of the objectors’ statements. The amended version was signed as a true copy.
*DM&L.25 PLANNING, LISTED BUILDING, TREE PRESERVATION ORDER AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS
The Committee proceeded to consider the report that had been prepared by the relevant Development Management Specialists on each of the following Applications and considered also the comments of the Town and Parish Councils together with other representations received, which were listed within the presented agenda report and summarised below:
(a) Application No: 2844/22/FUL Ward: Okehampton
South
Site Address: 2, Crediton Road, Okehampton
Development: Alterations to roof structure & associated works
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
Conditions:
1. Standard time limit
2. Adhere to plans
3. Adhere to ecology Report
4. Installation of bat and bird box on completion of development
5. Details of fibre cement slates to be submitted and agreed in writing with LPA
6. Details of proposed Upvc windows to be submitted and agreed in writing by LPA
The Planning Officer took members through the report and stated
That the key issues were:
· Visual impact on the setting of the conversation area (site within CA buffer-zone)
· The site is not Listed nor within the setting of a Listed Building
· Neighbour Amenity
· Design & Materials
· Environmental Hazards
· Ecology
Since the publishing of the officer’s report the agent had submitted
details of the colour and type of roofing tile and these were
acceptable and in keeping with the conservation area, therefore
condition 5 in the report was no longer required. In debate Members
commented on the positives of bringing the building back into use.
Committee Decision: Conditional Approval
Conditions:
1. Standard time limit
2. Adherence to plans
3. Adherence to Ecology Report
4. Installation of bat and bird box on completion of development
5. Details of proposed Upvc windows to be submitted and agreed
in writing by LPA
(b) Application No: 2603/22/FUL Ward: Tavistock North
Site Address: West Devon Borough Council
Development: Erection of 3 flagpoles 8 meters high to replace
Single 8 meter high flagpole
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
Conditions:
1. Time
2. Accordance with plans
3. Carbon reduction implementations
Speakers
Objector: Hilary Moule
Supporter: Chris Brooks
The Planning Officer made a correction to the report stating that
reference was made to a Neighbourhood Plan for Tavistock when
in fact there was no adopted Neighbourhood Plan. There were also
additional representation received. The new points raised were
summarised as follows:
· Concerns remain that this represents a waste of taxpayers money.
· The proposal is not considered to meet aims regarding carbon reduction (particularly the use of fibreglass).
· Loss of the foliage mentioned by officers and residents that
screens the proposal has died back over the past 6 months however the site is still described as not visible from the road or nearest houses.
· A number of Councillors were contacted about concerns and did not respond.
· The report concludes the impact on residents would not be significant but this is refuted by the objector who believes the noise impact from apparatus associated with the flagpole will be ‘considerable’ for the nearest residents.
During questions the Planning Officer stated the cost of the
flagpoles was not a material planning reason.
The objector stated she lived 20 meters from the proposed site
for the flagpoles. She noted the wildlife report was missing from the
officers report. There are two species of owl and bats in the vicinity
and this could have an effect on them.
She stated the amenity loss would be significant to her with noise
and disturbance.
She mention there was two flagpoles in town and a redundant one
on the corner of Quant Park and asked why more were needed.
The existing flagpole is currently buffered by trees, however the
site of the proposed ones has no significant trees. The production
of fibreglass is toxic and environmentally unfriendly. The 12
representations to oppose the application sited the abuse of
taxpayers money. No Officer or Councillor had questioned the
finances used to prepare this let along the implementation.
The supporter explained the community and civic role of the
council. The Union flag is important to have flying outside the
council offices. He stated that when the flag was lowered to show
solidarity with Ukraine the authority received strong representation
asking why the Union flag was not flying. He explained to Members
the strict rules of flying flags and that if two flags were
to be flown together you would be showing supremacy to the
flag on the top. Having three flagpoles would mean the council
could represent its communities and make statements where
appropriate. There were constraints as where to site the flagpoles.
A rubber weight would be used at the top of the flagpole to stop
the noise from the halyard. The existing flagpole would be removed.
A Member asked why it was not brought before the Hub Committee,
in the past Members are normally consulted. The Monitoring Officer
said is was right for the Member to raise the question but is was a
matter to be dealt with elsewhere and outside of the Development
Management Committee. The supporter explained the choice of
fibreglass poles was due to them being lighter and more slender
than a wooden flagpole, giving an easier installation. He explained
the constraints on site meant the proposed position was the best
compromise.
The Head of Development Management confirmed there was a
report completed on the trees and the impact of the development
and in the report no concerns were raised on the impact on wildlife.
In debate Members raised concerns over sound pollution. The
Head of Development Management confirmed noise was a planning
consideration under DEV1 of the Joint Local Plan. The Monitoring
Officer explained to Members that whilst noise nuisance was a
matter of planning judgement there had to be evidence to back it up.
The cost of ongoing maintenance of three flagpoles was raised. A
Member raised concerns of the siting of the flagpoles. The
position of the proposed flagpoles on the end of the turning bay
of the car park where commercial vehicles turn was less than one
meter from the kerbstone where vehicles can turn. The Member
felt this was a major health and safety concern should a vehicle hit
one of the flagpoles and it was to shatter with the possibility of
pedestrians walking along the footpath behind being hit by
fibreglass.
Committee Decision: Refusal
The proposal will have harmful effects and an unacceptable impact on the amenity of local residents by reason of noise disturbance and pollution arising from the apparatus associated with the flying of flags from the proposed flagpoles contrary to Policies DEV1 and DEV 2 (1) of the Joint Local Plan.
*DM&L.26 PLANNING APPEALS UPDATE
The Head of Development Management, relayed to Members that application 1355/19/FUL, 10 Ford Street, Tavistock was upheld and consent was granted for 6 flats but costs were refused. The inspector had deemed the Committee had acted in a correct way.
The S106 on Application 0723/21/FUL for 44 residential dwellings and outline planning for commercial land at Plymouth Road, Tavistock had been delayed due to the landowner having passed away.
*DM&L.27 UPDATE ON UNDETERMINED MAJOR APPLICATIONS
The Monitoring Officer explained to Members that once the S106 is signed in regard to Application 3652/20/FUL land at Plymouth Road, Tavistock, there would be a briefing to Members of the DM&L Committee and Ward Members. The Head of Development Management informed Members that there was a meeting with the applicant that day in regard to application 4004/21/FUL Former Hazeldon Preparatory School, Tavistock. The application would still be recommended for refusal.
(The Meeting terminated at 11.45 am)
______________________
Chairman