Minutes of a meeting of the WEST DEVON DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT & LICENSING COMMITTEE held on TUESDAY the27th day of February 2024 at 10.00am in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILWORTHY PARK
Present Cllr R Cheadle – Chairman
Cllr T Southcott – Vice-Chairman
Cllr A Cunningham Cllr J Moody
Cllr M Ewings Cllr C Mott
Cllr P Kimber Cllr S Wakeham
Head of Development Management (JH)
Senior Planning Officer (BH)
Principal Planning Officer (PW)
Assistant Director – Planning (AW)
Senior Democratic Services Officer (KH)
Principal Highways Development Management Officer (PT)
*DM&L.43 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Cllr T Leech, Cllr S Guthrie and U Mann. It was noted that Cllr M Ewings substituted for Cllr U Mann.
*DM&L.44 DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interests.
*DM&L.45 URGENT BUSINESS
There was no urgent business brought forward to this meeting.
*DM&L.46 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
The Minutes from the Development Management and Licencing Committee meeting held on 12 December 2023 were agreed as a true and correct record. The minutes from the Licensing Sub Committee meeting held on 6 February 2024 were agreed as a true and correct record.
*DM&L.47 PLANNING, LISTED BUILDING, TREE PRESERVATION ORDER AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS
The Committee proceeded to consider the reports and presentations that had been prepared by the relevant Planning Officer on the following applications and also considered the comments of the Parish Councils together with other representations received, which were listed within the presented agenda report and summarised below:
(a) Application No. 2215/22/FUL Ward: Bere Ferrers
Site Address: Land North of B3257, Bere Alston, Yelverton
Development: Readvertisement (revised plans & documents)
Erection of community convenience retail store (Co-op)
access, vehicle parking & landscaping.
The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation to the
Members. He had clarification that the proposed opening times
were 7am to10pm, not 6am to 11pm as stated in the report.
An amended lighting plan had been supplied showing the impact
of hedging to the site boundaries. This indicated that light would
not spill into Highfield’s garden and impact upon residential
amenity in this way. The reason for refusal was thus amended to
delete the reference to light impact.
He referred to SPT6(3) in the Joint local Plan (JLP) which sets out
that:
For the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area:
i. The town centres of the Main Towns – primarily main food/convenience shopping and other retail and services as appropriate to the role of the centre.
ii. Retail and community centres of the smaller towns and larger villages – primarily to top-up food shopping and local services
Reference was also made to DEV16(3) which sets out that any proposal which would have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of an existing centre would not be permitted.
.
Policy Dev16 (in the JLP) states that any development outside the
settlement area that has a significant adverse impact on the
investment and vitality on and investment in an existing centre
would not be acceptable.
Any permission granted would be for a convenience store and not
specific to a Co-op store. The council’s retail consultant stated that
no evidence has been shown that there is sufficient local
expenditure to support both a larger Co-op store and the
remaining stores in the centre. The proposed store was
significantly smaller than those in the nearby town of Tavistock
and that questioned whether shoppers would change their
shopping patterns and no longer rely on shopping outside the
catchment should the application be approved.
Recommendation: Refusal
Key issues for Committee consideration:
Principle of development/sustainability, Retail considerations:
sequential test and retail impact, impact upon natural
environment, highways/access, sustainable location,
neighbour amenity, impact upon historic environment, land
contamination, biodiversity, drainage, low carbon
development, crime and anti-social behaviour
The Principal Planner said in his view the edge of the settlement
boundary would be the houses to the west of the proposed site. A
Member questioned if policy SPT1 and SPT2 could be met on this
application by virtue of business growth and enabling a
sustainable local community with a mix of local services along with
a vibrant mixed-use centre. The Principal Planner responded by
stating his concern was on the overall impact of the proposal on
the centre of the village and the more specific retail shops in the
centre such as the butchers.
Another Member commented that development was taking place
in Bere Alston primarily for younger people and the allocated sites
on the opposite side on the B3257 and they could walk
to the store or call in on their way to work and asked if the bus
route was altered would it make it a more viable site. The Planning
Officer indicated that the site was further away from the houses on
the western side of the village and the concerns of the retail
consultant was that the site on the eastern edge of the village
would draw trade from the centre of the village, to the centres’
detriment and potentially increase car use. The Head of
Development Management pointed out that although the two
residential development sites mentioned were allocated in the
Neighbourhood Plan they had yet to be approved. Therefore,
Members needed to focus of the application before them.
The Principal Planner stated if Members were minded to grant
Permission, then delivery times and opening times could be
conditioned.
Speakers included the agent, Parish Councillor and Ward
Member
The applicant stated that he had lived in the area and was
passionate about what was best for the village. The proposal
would
significantly reduce the need to travel to the nearest store located
in Tavistock and would enhance the sustainability of Bere Alston.
The current Co-op store was not fit for purpose and delivery lorries
block the main street. The proposed site immediately abuts the
current settlement boundary and cannot be seen from anywhere
without seeing the existing adjacent buildings. He stated the
Council’s retail consultant based in Glamorgan had clearly not
been to Bere Alston.
In response to a question from the committee he stated staff would
catch the bus or walk to work at the proposed site. He commented
on the poor disabled access at the current store in the village.
The Parish Councillor stated the proposal was well supported
when it was presented at the Parish Council meeting.
He said there was a regular bus service currently passing the site
and that Stagecoach had confirmed that buses could drive into
the site.
He said the proposal from Devon Highways to move the 30
mph speed limit to Quarry Corner was welcomed. He voiced
concern for the visibility of the pedestrian crossing, especially at
night.
The Principal Planning Officer in reply to a Member questions
confirmed the retail study for the council was a desk top study.
The Ward Member said the proposal would give people job
opportunities. It is a growing village and adequate services need
to be in place. She stated an average family would save an
average of £5.64 per week with not travelling to Tavistock to do
their weekly shop.
It would ease congestion and promote walking. The new bus
stop that would be put in would help people visiting family and
friends at the other end of the village. A hand delivered survey of
the village revealed 66% wanted the new Co-op.
In debate a Member commented that Highways would look for a
sum of £5k for investigation of the moving of the speed limit further
out along the B3257, however this was subject to the approval of
the County Councils democratic process. Therefore, there was no
guarantee should the application be approved, that the speed limit
would be moved. The Principal Planning Officer stated the
current footway was in line with guidance for the current speed
limit.
The Highways Officer said should the 30mph speed limit be
extended it would come with street lighting along the road.
However, the store would have overspill of lighting should the
speed limit not be moved.
A member said they were balancing policy whilst being mindful
that the Bere peninsula was an isolated area. Another Member
said that when voting the committee needed to reflect on how
there could be potential damage to the core of the village if the life
of the village is drawn away. The Head of Planning reminded the
Committee it was a balanced decision that wouldn’t be easy and to
bear in mind the JLP policies that were relevant. If smaller shops
in the village were to close because of the creation of a store on
the proposed site then that would be contrary to planning policies.
After the debate, Members were asked to vote on the Planning
Officer’s recommendation.
The vote went against the recommendation of refusal and the
Head of Planning asked the Committee to make another proposal.
A Member made the recommendation to approve the application
subject to a suitable LVIA Assessment. The Head of Planning
stated that an LVIA had already been submitted, which was why
there was a reason for refusal based on the impact of the
development proposal on the National Landscape (Tamar Valley
AONB)
The Head of Planning made a recommendation to the
Committee that they defer the decision as there would need to be
consideration of a S106 agreement which could look to secure
obligations on the use and goods in relation to the proposed store
and to secure restrictions on the use of the existing store within the
centre of the village. In addition, the conditions needed further
consideration and discussion with the applicant.
There may be more carbon reductions measures that
could be put forward. A Member asked that consideration was
also given to the National Landscape and to the lighting. Another
Member suggested native, semi-mature specimens for
landscaping.
The Assistant Director for Planning suggested that the application
is brought back to Committee as a refusal but with measures in
place that were appropriate should the application be approved.
Committee Decision: Deferred – the
application to be brought back to committee as a refusal but
with conditions in place should the Committee wish to
approve.
(b) Application No. 3349/23/FUL Ward : Bere Ferrers
Site Address: Five Acres, Woolacombe Road, Bere Alston
Development: Demolition of two agricultural outbuildings &
erection of new dwelling
Recommendation: Refusal
Key issues: Location, principle of development, housing
need, design, scale and massing, drainage, highways,
biodiversity, low carbon
The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation to the
Committee. The poor pedestrian connectivity to the village centre
was seen as an issue. As was the current over provision of
3-bedroom property in Bere Alston.
The applicant had not submitted enough evidence to comply with
planning policy DEV32 with regard to low carbon. A Member
asked why an application with insufficient detail was brought to
Committee. The Senior Planner responded by saying it is difficult
to invalidate an application if the applicant has submitted the
required information. It could be seen as partly determining the
application at the validation stage. As the application was being
recommended for refusal for other reasons, it would not have been
fair to the applicant to seek further information on carbon
measures, when the outcome would have been a recommendation
for refusal.
The application was called in by a Ward Member for
issues of scale and siting. The application did go through
pre application planning advice and unfortunately the applicant
was misdirected to apply a policy that wasn’t relevant to this
application.
Speakers included the agent, Parish Councillor and Ward
Member
The agent stated that the applicants lived on the site in a
two-bedroomed bungalow with their father and two children
In pre-application it was stated that it may be plausible to propose
a modest single dwelling in or part of the same footprint as the
existing agricultural buildings and to use the existing access onto
the road. One of the reasons for refusal was that the site was not
well connected to the village, although in the Neighbourhood Plan
the proposed site was adjacent to and opposite two allocated
sites at Woolacombe Road providing for a proposed 20 and 30
dwellings.
The Parish Councillor outlined the proposed development sites in
the Neighbourhood Plan on a slide so that the Committee could
see how close they were to the application site. He stated
that Woolacombe Road was one of the quietest roads in the
village. He stated that recently there were 60 applications for the
two 3-bedroom properties advertised in the village, which
outlined the need for 3-bedroom properties.
The Ward Member stated the application would be for an
infill between two bungalows. It would be on a brown field site.
The Senior Planning Officer stated the proposal was for an
independent 3-bedroom open market dwelling. When considering
policy DEV8 the Senior Planner Officer stated smaller properties
are required.
Committee Decision: Refusal
*DM&L.48 PLANNING APPEALS UPDATE
The Head of Planning took Members through the appeal on Collaven Manor, Sourton for an oak framed gym and annex outbuilding within the setting of a Listed Building. It was refused for being a harm on the setting of a Listed Building. The appeal was dismissed.
A householder application for the Old Rectory at Bratton Clovelly for a garage and loft to a 2-storey assisted dwelling went to appeal due to non-determination. The Officer wrote a report which recommended refusal. The appeal was dismissed. The Old Mill site, Okehampton, had an application to demolish some derelict buildings on the site. The chimney is listed and the buildings were within the curtilage of the listed chimney. Within the application the buildings were described as A,B,C & D. The inspector concluded a spilt decision. The Inspector allowed for demolition of building D but not for buildings A,B & C. He felt that building D was in a bad structural state.
*DM&L.49 UPDATE ON UNDETERMINED MAJOR APPLICATIONS
The Chairman stated that the application on Hazledon was due to come to that Committee meeting, however the applicant wanted to provide more information so asked for more time.
(The Meeting ended at 12.50pm)
______________________
Chairman