Agenda and minutes

to approve as a correct record and authorise the Chairman to sign the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 29 July 2015

DM.21/15       

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 29 July 2015 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Brought forward at the discretion of the Chairman;

DM.22/15       

The Chairman advised that application 27/1159/15/F Change of use of redundant barn to 2no dwellings, erection of garages,  additional access and associated alterations Proposed development site at SX 624 562, Woodland Barn, Woodland Farm, Ivybridge, PL21 9HG had been deferred prior to the start of this meeting.

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.23/15       

Members and officers were invited to declare any interests in the items of business to be considered but none were made.

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

DM.24/15       

The Chairman proceeded to announce that the following members of the public had registered their wish to speak at the meeting:-

·         05/1229/15/F:  Objector – Mr Norman Botton:  Supporter – Mr Dan Lethbridge:  Parish Council Representative – Cllr Bryan Carson:  Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and erection of 2 No. replacement dwellings to include creation of new access (Resubmission of planning application 05/2922/14/F) – Seafront, Marine Drive, Bigbury on Sea.

To see Letters of Representation and further supplementary information relating to any of the Applications on the agenda, please select the following link and enter the relevant Planning Reference number: http://apps.southhams.gov.uk/PlanningSearchMVC/

DM.25/15       

The Planning Case Officers submitted details of the planning applications as presented in the agenda papers. 

During discussion of the planning applications, the following motions (which were in contradiction to the planning officer recommendation in the published agenda report), were PROPOSED and SECONDED and on being put to the vote were either CARRIED or LOST:-

a)      In respect of application 05/1229/15/F:  Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and erection of 2 No replacement dwellings to include creation of new access (Resubmission of planning application 05/2922/14/F) – Seafront, Marine Drive, Bigbury on Sea, Kingsbridge, the Case Officer introduced the application and advised Members of an update in relation to a correction and amendment to the condition relating to the erection of a glazed screen which would now state that details were to be agreed in writing prior to commencement. He also advised that the description of the application as presented was incorrect, and should in fact refer to ‘Resubmission of planning APPLICATION 05/2922/14/F (rather than planning APPROVAL).

The Case Officer continued his presentation with plans, elevations and photographs, and then took Members through the main issues of the application.  He then concluded by advising that the application was recommended for conditional approval.

The Parish Council representative advised Members that there were a number of concerns locally with the application including the size of the proposal, the design, particularly in respect of the flat roof, and the disappointment that the architect did not listen to the views of local people.  He concluded with an example of a development in a similar location where the views of local people had been taken into account and the outcome was a development that was deemed acceptable.

The Local Ward Member echoed these concerns and reminded Members of the considerable local feeling against the application.

During discussion, the Members noted the importance of the site, particularly in relation to Burgh Island and felt that the application would be a disaster in terms of views from Burgh Island.  The proposal was considered to be out of scale and was not of high quality design.  Also, Members were of the view that it did not meet a number of development policies.

It was then PROPOSED and SECONDED and on being put to the vote declared CARRIED:-

‘That the application be refused’

Reasons:

The proposal, by reason of its design, scale, mass and appearance would result in an incongruous development which would cause significant harm to the visual character and appearance of the area, which is within the South Devon AONB, including views from Burgh Island and the beach. The proposal would be contrary to Policies DP1 and DP2 of the Local Plan and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

DM.26/15       

The Lead Planning Officer updated Members on the detail of the listed appeals. 

to consider a report that seeks a recommendation on the attendance and participation of town and parish council representatives at Development Management Committee

DM.27/15       

Following a twelve month trial, the Committee received a report that sought views on whether to formally revise the public participation scheme to enable town and parish council representatives to speak on relevant applications at Development Management Committee.

The Chairman asked Members for their views and the majority of Members stated that they wished to continue the current practice of allowing town and parish council representatives to speak at Development Management Committee meetings.

In response to a suggestion that town and parish council representatives should be allowed to participate either at one of the Development Management Committee, or at site inspections, but not both, the majority of Members again agreed with this view.  However, Members did state that if the town and parish council representatives attended site inspections, one of those representatives should be able to ask questions of clarity of, and make specific points to, the Chairman. 

Members then discussed the time allowed for registered speakers.  It was not felt appropriate that town and parish council representatives should be restricted to a shorter time than registered objectors or supporters.  However, to ensure applications were presented in a timely manner, it was suggested that, in the case of linked applications being presented to the Committee, that only one time slot be applied for each of the registered speakers.  For example, an application that also included a linked Listed Building application had in the past been allowed double time as a time slot was applied to each application number.  In future, it was recommended that only one time slot should be permitted.

It was then: