Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record and authorise the Chairman to sign the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 26 October 2016;

DM.39/16       

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 26 October 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.40/16       

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

Cllr J M Hodgson declared a personal interest in application 1623/16/FUL:  Construction of a new three storey private residence on a brownfield site currently occupied by three garages on a site on the outskirts of Totnes – Garages 1-3 adjacent to 1A Christina Park, Totnes by virtue of knowing one of the objectors.  She remained in the meeting for the duration of this item and took part in the debate and vote thereon.

DM.41/16       

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

Members are requested to raise any queries they may have with the respective case officer before the meeting;

DM.42/16       

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:

1333/16/FUL               Lantern Lodge Hotel, Hope Cove

Parish:  South Huish

Planning Permission for demolition of the Lantern Lodge Hotel and

construction of 5 dwellings

Case Officer Update:             N/A

Speakers included:       Supporter – Mr Mark Evans:  Parish Council – Cllr Jo Hocking:  Ward Members – Cllr Pearce (statement read out) and Cllr Wright

Recommendation:        Conditional Approval subject to completion of s106 legal agreement

During discussion on this item a number of Members expressed their concern over the loss of a tourism asset in a prime position, and the impact that this would have on the local economy.  Members had found the site inspection helpful.  Whilst appreciating that the hotel needed investment, the independence of the submitted viability assessment was called into question.  There was also concern that the proposed housing would not be affordable for local people and the proposal was described as opportunism at the expense of the local community.  Members felt that all options for the site had not yet been explored and they could not support the proposal.  Members also felt strongly that an affordable housing contribution should be made.  In line with the Written Ministerial Statement, the Council recognised the guidance for planning obligations set out in the PPG.  However. Members expressed the opinion that the site presented exceptional circumstances to the extent that Affordable Housing contributions should be sought in line with the adopted SPD.

Committee Decision:  Refusal

Reasons:

1.      The application proposes the loss of a valued tourist facility in a prime location without any explanation of why an alternative solution cannot be found to maintain a business providing tourist services and some local employment.  The loss of such a facility would be harmful to the purposes of the AONB designation and is contrary to policies DP12, DP14 of the South Hams Development Policies DPD and the National Planning Policy Framework

2.      Wording regarding the lack of financial contribution towards affordable housing provision to be delegated to the COP Lead Development Management in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of Development Management Committee

[Post Meeting Note:  In line with the debate, the second reason for refusal is confirmed as follows:

The proposed development does not provide affordable housing provision in an area with an exceptional and demonstrable local need. No justification has been provided by way of submission of a suitable viability study that indicates that such provision would compromise the overall viability of the development. As such the proposed development is consideredcontrary to South Hams Core Strategy Policy CS6 and the provisions of the South Hams Affordable Housing SPD].

1879/16/HHO              Kynance, Higher Broad Park, Dartmouth

                                    Parish:  Dartmouth

Householder application for proposed extension to ground floor, remodelling and raising of roof height

Case Officer Update:  ...  view the full minutes text for item DM.42/16

DM.43/16       

2347/16/TPO              46 Barton Brake, land of Leyford Close, Wembury

                                    Parish:  Wembury

Request to fell T2 - Sycamore

Case Officer Update: N/A

Speakers included:       Parish Council – Cllr Packer:  Ward Member – Cllr Brown (statement read out) and Cllr Cane

Recommendation:      Conditional Approval

Committee Decision:  Refusal

In discussing this application the Members noted the potential impact on the AONB and the detrimental impact on biodiversity.

DM.44/16       

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

DM.45/16       

The COP Lead Development Management introduced the latest set of performance indicators related to the Development Management service.  During the discussion on this item, the Solicitor advised that an up to date list of current s106 Agreements would be circulated for Members information.

It was then:

RESOLVED

That the latest set of performance indicators be noted.

DM.46/16       

Members were presented with a report that presented a review of the current Site Inspection Protocol, as suggested in the Action Plan that had arisen from the Planning Peer Review. 

In discussing the report, Members appreciated that the intention was to improve the efficiency of decision making by speeding up the process.  By ‘front loading’ the site inspection process, it should prevent presented applications from being deferred to the next Committee date, other than in the most exceptional circumstances.

It was then:

RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to Council: