*DM&L 29
The Committee considered the applications
prepared by the Development Management Specialists and considered
also the comments of Town and Parish Councils together with other
representations received, which were listed within the presented
agenda reports and summarised below, and RESOLVED:
(a)
Application No: 2789/17/VAR Ward:
Tavistock South West
Site Address: Land adjacent to Brook Farm, Brook
Lane, Tavistock
Variation of condition 4 (approved plans) of planning consent
APP/Q1153/W/15/3131710(00233/2015) for 23no. dwellings with
associated access road, parking and external works
Speakers included: Objector – Ms Helen
McShane: Supporter – Mr Ed
Persse: Ward Member – Cllr Jess
Evans
RECOMMENDATION: That delegated authority be given to the
CoP Lead in consultation with the
Chairman of the Committee to approve the application subject to the
conditions listed below and the prior satisfactory completion of a
Section 106 Agreement Deed of Variation
However, in the
event that the Section 106 legal agreement remains unsigned six
months after this resolution, that the application is reviewed by
the CoP Lead, in consultation with the
Chairman of the Committee, and if no progress is being made
delegated authority is given to the CoP
Lead to refuse the application in the absence of an agreed s106
Agreement.
In presenting this
application, the Case Officer outlined the background in that
planning permission had been granted at appeal, and the Inspector
had included some plans but not a site location plan. The intention of the application was to remove the
condition that sought approval in line with the existing plans and
replacing with a condition that sought approval of the permission
in accordance with a Site Location Plan that would enable control
of all reserved matters to rest with the local planning authority.
The Solicitor confirmed that the applicant was entitled to submit a
section 73 application to the local planning authority.
The officers
responded to a number of detailed questions regarding this
application.
In her address to
Committee, one of the local Ward Members commented that the s73
application may have arisen at this late stage because the
developer was having difficulty in fitting the number of houses on
the site. She asked that the Committee
refuse the application and that the developer be encouraged to sit
down with residents and work with them to find a successful,
non-contentious design.
During debate,
Members were concerned at the implication of removing a condition
applied by a Planning Inspector. The
Solicitor reiterated that Members were not being asked to
re-determine the Planning Inspector decision and that they were
able to determine the application presented to them today.
It was then
PROPOSED, SECONDED and on being put to the vote
declared LOST that the application be APPROVED, for the following reasons:
Consideration of
scale as set out in drawings 1319 PL01D and PL02 is an important
and integral part of the permission for the reasons set out in para
24 and 26 of the Inspector’s decision letter.
A Member then
PROPOSED refusal of the application which was
SECONDED ...
view the full minutes text for item *DM&L.29