Agenda and minutes

DM.32/16       

In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman introduced the meeting and invited nominations to the position of Vice-Chairman for the duration of this meeting.

It was then:

RESOLVED

That Cllr T R Holway be appointed Vice-Chairman for the duration of this meeting.

To approve as a correct record and authorise the Chairman to sign the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 28 September 2016

DM.33/16       

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 28 September 2016 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Members are invited to declare any personal or disclosable pecuniary interests, including the nature and extent of such interests they may have in any items to be considered at this meeting;

DM.34/16       

Members and officers were invited to declare any interests in the items of business to be considered and the following were made:

Cllr J A Pearce declared a personal interest in application 2498/16/HHO:  Householder application for first floor extension (resubmission of 55/2207/15/F) – 16 Meadcombe Road, Thurlestone by virtue of paying an annual sum to the Mead Association.  In stressing that she was not a member of the Association, she remained in the meeting for the duration of this item and took part in the debate and vote thereon;

Cllr R J Foss declared a personal interest in application 2498/16/HHO:  Householder application for first floor extension (resubmission of 55/2207/15/F) – 16 Meadcombe Road, Thurlestone by virtue of knowing one of the objectors and remained in the meeting for the duration of this item and took part in the debate and vote thereon;

Cllr R J Vint declared a personal interest in application 1319/16/FUL:  New dwelling within grounds of existing dwelling – Jackmans Barn, 5 Follaton Farm Barns, Totnes by virtue of knowing one of the objectors and remained in the meeting for the duration of this item and took part in the debate and vote thereon.

The Chairman to advise the Committee on any requests received from members of the public to address the meeting;

DM.35/16       

The Chairman announced that a list of members of the public who had registered their wish to speak at the meeting had been circulated.

DM.36/16       

The Committee considered the details of the planning applications prepared by the Planning Case Officers as presented in the agenda papers, and considered also the comments of Town and Parish Councils together with other representations received, which were listed within the presented agenda reports, and RESOLVED that:

2498/16/HHO             16 Meadcombe Road, Thurlestone

Parish: Thurlestone

Householder application for first floor extension (resubmission of 55/2207/15/F)

Case Officer Update: N/A

Speakers included:     Objector – Mr Kendrick;

                                       Supporter – Mr Gardner;

                                       Parish Council rep – Cllr Goddard; and

 Local Ward Members – Cllrs Pearce and Wright

Recommendation:  Conditional Approval

Committee Decision:  Refusal

During the debate, a number of Members highlighted the merits of the site inspection and, in particular, the ability to gauge the potential impact on No. 18 Meadcombe Road (the neighbouring property to the west of the application site).  The majority of Members felt that the reasons that were cited for the previous refusal decision on this site (that had subsequently been endorsed on appeal) had not been sufficiently overcome to warrant this application being conditionally approved.  In particular, the proposals were considered to be overbearing and dominant to No. 18 and were therefore contrary to policy DP3.

Reasons for Refusal:

The proposals would have an overbearing and dominant impact on the rear garden of No. 18 Meadcombe Road and were therefore contrary to DP3.  In addition, the proposals would still have a substantial and adverse impact on the street scene that would be untypical of the Mead Estate.

1319/16/FUL               Jackmans Barn, 5 Follaton Farm Barns, Totnes, TQ9 5NA

                                     Parish:  Totnes

New dwelling within grounds of existing dwelling

Case Officer Update: N/A

Speakers included:     Supporter – Mr Jones;

Local Ward Members – Cllrs Green and Vint; and

DCC Highways Officer – Mr Jackson

Recommendation:  Refusal

Committee Decision:  Conditional Approval

Conditions:

1.            Standard time limit;

2.            Accord with plans;

3.            Unsuspected contamination;

4.            Removal of Permitted Development rights;

5.            Ecology; and

6.            Sensitive light mitigation (ecology).

During the debate, a number of Members made the point that there was a real need for safety improvements for pedestrians to be made along Plymouth Road and a Member specifically requested that the Totnes Transport Forum be tasked with focusing on a long-term solution for this issue.  That being said, it was recognised that there were a number of properties in this area and the impact of one additional dwelling was therefore considered to have a minimal effect on road safety.  Some Members also made reference to the distance of the application site from the town centre and that, in reality, the majority of residents would drive and not walk into the town.  Finally, some Members also highlighted the innovative and sustainable nature of the design and that the Conservation Officer had raised no objections to this proposal.

Reasons for Conditional Approval:

The Committee felt that there was sufficient pedestrian access (albeit informal) into Totnes town centre.

Members recognised that there had been no serious or fatal accidents at this junction in the last three  ...  view the full minutes text for item DM.36/16

DM.37/16       

Members noted the list of appeals as outlined in the presented agenda report and the Senior Specialist (Development Management) responded to questions and provided more detail where requested.

DM.38/16       

The Specialist Manager introduced the latest set of performance indicators related to the Development Management service.

In the ensuing debate, reference was made to:-

(a)    additional performance indicators.  Members requested that future reports include additional performance information relating to the number of planning applications to be determined and specifically the current caseload for each officer;

(b)    agreed time extensions.  Members repeated their continued concerns at the disappointing levels of performance for those planning applications that had not been subject to an agreed extension.  In response, it was noted that these concerns were shared and acknowledged by officers;

(c)    performance measures.  Members were of the view that, in future reports, it would be beneficial to illustrate certain indicators with actual numbers as opposed to percentage figures.  In acknowledging that this reporting process was still in its infancy, a Member also requested that related indicators (e.g. Major applications determined in time that were including and excluding extensions) should be superimposed onto one graph;

(d)    planning enforcement.  The Committee was advised that the Council would expect between 100 and150 enforcement cases to be live and active at any given time.  Some Members made a specific urgent request for officers to address a specific enforcement case relating to a wall on Ashburton Road.  In response, the Specialist Manager gave a commitment that he would progress this matter and ensure that the concerned Members were kept updated in this respect.

It was then:

RESOLVED

That the latest set of performance indicators be noted.