Agenda item

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/

 

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:

 

a)     3193/18/ARM     Land to the rear of Green Park Way, Chillington

Parish:  Stokenham

Readvertisement (Further Revised Plans Received) Reserved Matters application for the development of 64no. dwellings (including market, affordable and retirement housing), landscaping and associated works following grant of Outline consent 0771/16/OPA

 

Case Officer Update:            

Parish consultation response update:  

•      Amendments reduce but do not eliminate issues of overlooking and overbearing impact on neighbours;

•      More landscaping details are needed and this should be included now not condition;

•      Overlooking problems are caused by building up of land – do not accept this is to manage road gradients but is to accommodate drainage tanks;

•      Drainage scheme is defective;

•      Not acceptable for drainage to be dealt with by condition; and

•      The Council maintains its objection to the scheme.

 

Further letters of representation from approx. 12 residents – new issues raised:

§  Objection from DCC Flood Risk reported as additional information required should be ‘objection’;

§  Better not to determine this application until drainage agreed;

§  Proposed conditions regarding landscaping, layout, planting, surfaces and finishes all relate to type and layout of drainage and cannot be agreed until drainage scheme is final;

§  Condition 2 does not include drawing numbers – so new drawings could be approved;

§  Wrong to condition things like landscaping, boundary treatments, material etc as proposed in the conditions;

§  Building heights of apartments behind 29 GPW remain overbearing and should be bungalows;

§  Heights of plots 50 & 51 remain too high behind 53 GPW – should be houses not apartments – or at least roof hipped as per Plot 46.  More screening required to provide privacy – controls on external lighting required.  Concerned new neighbours should not invoke high hedge complaints about their boundary;

§  47 Green Park Way – want land removed from plot 43 and tree planting provided instead – overlooking still an issue;

§  Want restrictions to prevent internal changes to houses to having living accommodation upstairs and no changes to windows/doors etc.   Plots 50 and 51 should be hipped;

§  Why is tank H2 showed sitting above natural ground level?

§  Officer report now mentions 64 houses again not 63;

§  Can condition 6 apply to all house on southern boundary?

§  Drainage does not enhance biodiversity;

§  Ramped access are at 1:10 – exceed recommended gradients for DDA compliance;

§  Steep gardens would not be safe;

§  First 100m of the access road is at 1:10.2 gradient – exceeding recommended max of 1:12 (80m); and

§  Scheme does not respect local distinctiveness.

 

Speakers included:     Objector – Ms Alyson Cadd-Harlington:  Supporter – Mr Louis Hamston:  Parish Council – Cllr Piers Spence; Ward Member – Cllr Brazil

 

Recommendation:    Conditional Approval       

           

As part of the presentation of her report, the Case Officer accepted that the matter of drainage was a key concern, and that currently there was an outstanding objection from DCC in light of insufficient information so far being presented.  She clarified however that at the outline planning application stage, drainage was set out as a pre-commencement condition, not part of a future Reserved Matters application, so the fact that the drainage scheme was not agreed was not a reason to refuse the application.  The applicant would have to submit the details of a scheme to DCC as the statutory authority, whose officers would have the technical expertise to consider that information. 

 

The Ward Member’s view was that the application was being pushed through before it was ready to be determined, and he did not feel it was quite at the stage for approval.  Whilst he did not want to propose refusal, his view was that deferral of the decision would be the most appropriate way forward at this time. 

 

This echoed the comments of the Parish Council representative who had noted that drainage, landscaping and boundary treatments were all important matters ‘to be decided’ at a later date.

 

The Case Officer responded that whilst some conditions stated ‘details to be submitted and agreed’, this referred to minor specific details as she was broadly in agreement with the information that had been submitted.  If Members wished to defer the application, there would need to be clarity on the reasons for doing so and whether they related just to drainage or other planning matters. 

 

A Member then moved deferral of the application on the grounds of a lack of clarity on drainage details.  Another Member noted that layout was to be determined but it was not possible to determine layout without detail of siting of drainage elements such as the tank.  The solicitor advised that the detail of the drainage scheme had been received and the outstanding information related to the percolation tests rather than the siting of drainage elements.  If the Flood Authority concluded that the scheme was acceptable, then the layout would not change.  Therefore Members were in a position to determine whether they were satisfied with the layout of the Reserved Matters application.  If the drainage scheme was not acceptable and a new scheme needed to be designed this would result in a different application, including a different layout.

 

The Flood Authority was under a duty when determining the pre-commencement condition to be satisfied that the scheme was satisfactory and addressed the concerns raised.

 

The case law was clear, the scheme did not need to be presented to the public, and that fact did not make this a ‘behind closed doors’ decision.  A deferral on the basis of insufficient information on drainage could be challenged and appealed on the basis of non-determination.

The Chairman sought clarity on the reasons for deferral.  Members confirmed that drainage and landscaping were the two issues causing significant concern, although they hoped that the applicant, in listening to the debate, may consider other points raised such as opportunities for water recycling.

 

Committee Decision:     Deferral for further details to be submitted relating to landscaping and drainage

 

 

b)     3620/18/FUL      Stokeley Barton Farm, Stokenham

Parish:  Stokenham

Change of use to woodland to allow Tree Tents for the purpose of rural tourism

 

Case Officer Update:      None

 

Speakers included:          Supporter – Mrs Katy Brooking:  Ward Member – Cllr Brazil

 

Recommendation:         Refusal

           

During discussion, Members stated how helpful the site inspection had been in assessing this application.  The officer report referenced the detrimental visual impact of the proposal, but the Ward Member considered that the siting of the proposal within thick foliage would overcome concerns. 

 

Other Members commented that the AONB should be explored and a proposal such as this would help, in terms of visual impact it did not compare with the sight of a caravan park that was in close proximity.  One Member raised concerns that the proposal was invading a wildlife area.  Members put forward a number of possible conditions should the application be approved.  In response, the Head of DM Practice advised that, if approved, the conditions attached to this application should be confirmed by officers, in consultation with the Vice Chairman of the DM Committee and the local Ward Member.

 

 

Committee Decision:     Conditional Approval, with the Head of DM Practice being given delegated authority, in consultation with the Vice Chairman of the Committee and the local Ward Member, to approve the final wording of the conditions.

 

 

 

c)     4061/18/FUL      Wash Barn, Buckfastleigh

Parish:  Staverton

Erection of single storey building to provide employee welfare and catering facilities

 

Case Officer Update:      None

 

Speakers included:          Supporter – Mr Guy Singh-Watson:  Ward Member – Cllr Hodgson

 

Recommendation:         Conditional Approval

           

Committee Decision:    Conditional Approval

 

 

Conditions: 

1.      Time limit

2.      Approved Plans

3.      Ecology/Wildlife report

4.      Landscaping

5.      Arboricultural Method Statement

6.      Tree Protection

7.      Canteen Use

8.      Surface Water Drainage

9.      Foul

10.   Daytime construction only

11.   External lighting

 

 

 

d)     0573/19/PIP       Wilma, Woodcourt Road, Harbertonford

Parish:  Harberton

 

Application for permission in principle for one new dwelling

 

Case Officer Update:      None   

 

Speakers included:         Supporter – Mr Liam Nally

 

Recommendation:         Refusal

           

Committee Decision:    Refusal

 

 

e)     1505/19/FUL      Development site at SX 740394, Gould Road,                                                     Salcombe

Parish:  Salcombe

 

Erection of new industrial units and associated parking

 

Case Officer Update:      The following changes have been made to the conditions attached to the officer’s report:

 

Condition 7: removed Prior to Commencement.

Condition 9: replace Prior to Commencement with Prior To Installation.

Condition 10: replace Prior to Commencement with Prior To Installation.

Condition 11: Remove. (permeable surface)

Condition 12: Remove & retain condition 18.

Condition 14: Revise.

Condition 17 Remove.

 

The Environment Agency (EA) withdrew its objection and that letter was published on the Council website dated: 12 July 2019. The body of the representation dated 12 July did not differ to that featured in the officer’s report published on the council’s website.

 

A new condition was to be added to this permission which concerns the Recycling Bins and reads:

 

Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved a suitable scheme and schedule of timings shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority which concerns the re-siting of the existing recycling bins currently located within the application site.

                       

Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the area.      

 

Speakers included:         Supporter – Mr Ray Tyner:  Town Council – Cllr Mike Fice; Ward Members – Cllrs Long and Pearce

 

Recommendation:         Conditional Approval

           

Committee Decision:    Conditional Approval

 

Conditions:

1.      Time

2.      Accords with plans

3.      Hard/Soft landscaping

4.      Materials to be agreed

5.      Parking to be provided prior to occupation and retained

6.      Unexpected land contamination

7.      Vegetation removal

8.      B1 (b) light industrial use, B2 general industrial and B8 storage or distribution uses only

9.      Oil Interceptor

10.   Drainage to be implemented and maintained

11.   Permeable pavement

12.   Construction Management Plan

13.   Chemical storage

14.   LEMP

15.   Approved Drainage details

16.   Foul drainage

17.   Car Parking and Vehicular access

18.   Construction Management Plan (Highways)

19.   Tree Protection Plan

20.   Recycling bins

 

 

 

f)      1522/19/FUL      The Creek Car Park and Boat Parks, Gould Road,

Salcombe

Parish:  Salcombe

New two storey Harbour Master Depot facility, including workshop, office, welfare and storage areas

 

Case Officer Update:      The following changes have been made to the conditions attached to the officer’s report:

 

Condition 3: amend to read prior to Construction

Condition 7 amend to prior to occupation.

 

The EA withdrew its objection and that letter was published on the Council website dated: 17 July 2019. The body of the representation dated 17 July did not differ to that featured in the officer’s report published on the council’s website.

 

A response had been received from the Council’s Environmental Health officer which confirmed the following:

     Condition to add: Verification report: Prior to occupation of any part of the permitted development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include, where relevant, a plan (a “long-term monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action and for the reporting of this to the local planning authority.

 

Reason: Without this condition, the proposed development on the site may pose an unacceptable risk to the environment. This is listed as a separate condition as it gives the Local Planning Authority the option to choose a later control point: i.e. prior to occupation, rather than commencement of the development for the main phase of the remedial works.

 

Condition: Unsuspected Contamination

If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an investigation and risk assessment and, where necessary, a remediation strategy and verification plan detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation strategy and verification plan and prior to occupation of any part of the permitted development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority.

 

Reason: No site investigation can completely characterise a site. This condition is required to ensure that any unexpected contamination that is uncovered during remediation or other site works is dealt with appropriately.

Note – this condition can be used in addition to the universal condition, or on sites where no contamination is known or suspected.

 

Condition CEMP:

I note that a CEMP has been produced as part of the application, however due to the potential for contamination and dust to be generated then I would suggest that a revised CEMP is produced prior to commencement of development, this should where necessary also include measures for the control of dust, including asbestos contaminated dust;

 

Prior to commencement of development the following components of a scheme to deal with the environmental impacts of the construction phase of the development shall be submitted and approved by the local planning authority in writing. That scheme shall include details of noise impacts and controls, hours of operation, and dust impact assessment and proposed control in accordance with the Institute of Air Quality Management guidance for dust assessment from construction sites.

 

Condition Lighting:

The site is on a working fish quay and as such is exempt from the provisions of nuisance by way of lighting proposed for the site. There are sensitive receptors and as such I would suggest a condition that:-

 

Prior to the installation of any external lighting an impact assessment carried out in accordance with guidance produced by the institute of lighting professionals should be produced and submitted to the local planning authority for approval. Once approved the lighting shall be installed in accordance with this approval including any baffles or alternative means of controlling light spill, the lighting shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with manufacturers guidance.

 

 

 

Other information: Noise: 

In regards to noise, the depot is to be sited on an existing working fish quay area and as such noise should not be a material factor on this application.        

 

Speakers included:         Supporter – Mr Ray Tyner:  Town Council – Cllr Mike Fice; Ward Members – Cllrs Long and Pearce

 

Recommendation:         Conditional Approval

           

Committee Decision:    Conditional Approval

 

Conditions: 

1.      Time limit

2.      Approved Plans

3.      Materials to be approved

4.      Parking to be provided prior to occupation and retained

5.      Drainage

6.      CEMP

7.      Pollution Prevention Strategy

8.      Ecology report

9.      Construction Management Plan

10.   Surface Water Drainage Strategy

11.   Verification report

12.   Unsuspected contamination

13.   Lighting

 

 

g)     1523/19/FUL      Salcombe Harbour, Dock and Harbour Undertaking,

Fore Street, Salcombe

Parish:  Salcombe

Replacement of the existing Harbour Master facilities and extension to the existing public conveniences, including the provision of welfare facilities for marine users

 

Case Officer Update:      Condition 3: amend to read prior to construction

Condition 11: amend to prior to occupation

Condition 12: amend to prior to installation.   

 

Speakers included:         Supporter – Mr Ray Tyner:  Town Council – Cllr Mike Fice; Ward Members – Cllrs Long and Pearce

 

Recommendation:         Conditional Approval

           

Committee Decision:    Conditional Approval

 

 

Conditions: 

1.      Time limit

2.      Approved plans

3.      Materials to be approved

4.      Obscure glazing

5.      Drainage

6.      CEMP

7.      Ecology report

8.      Construction Mangement Plan

9.      Contaminated Land

10.   Flood Mitigation Measures (EA)

11.   Pollution Prevention Strategy

12.   Lighting Strategy

13.   Surface Water Drainage Strategy

 

 

h)     0075/19/FUL      Site of former WI Hall, Ford Road, Yealmpton

Parish:  Yealmpton

Readvertisement (Revised Plans Received) Proposed revisions to design of single dwelling (self build) following extant permission 0579/16/FUL

 

Case Officer Update:      None

 

Speakers included:         Supporter – Mr Mark Evans:  Parish Council – Cllr Liz Hitchins; Ward Member – Cllr Baldry

 

Recommendation:         Conditional Approval

           

Committee Decision:    Conditional Approval

 

 

Conditions: 

1.      Time limit

2.      Accord with Plans

3.      Samples of materials

4.      Removal of PD rights

5.      No mud and stones

6.      Parking and turning to be laid out prior to occupation

7.      Tree protection

8.      Removal of PD for windows in first floor south west and south east elevation

9.      Updated emergency evacuation plan required prior to occupation

10.   Space under house to be kept permanently void

11.   Parking area to be retained as a parking area

12.   Unsuspected contamination

13.   Foul drainage

14.   Surface water drainage

 

 

 

i)       0750/19/FUL      Tuckers Hay, Compton Pool Cross, Compton,

Marldon

Parish:  Marldon

Demolition of existing outbuilding; erection of detached building to provide two bed annexe unit and closure of existing vehicular access of provision of new vehicular access

 

Case Officer Update:      Sensitive information had been circulated directly to Committee Members

 

Speakers included:         Supporter – Mr B Sanderson:  Parish Council – Cllr Mary Oliphant; Ward Member – Cllr Pennington

 

Recommendation:         Refusal

 

During discussion, whilst Members accepted the case officer recommendation, they felt that the proposal would improve the application site by changing the access arrangements and removing the unsightly outbuildings currently there.  Some Members also made the point that the crisis within the care system needed to be taken into account when considering such an application.  Members also noted that, whilst they may be minded to approve the application in the current circumstances, appropriate conditions would need to be in place to ensure the future use of the proposal would be linked to the family home.  The Head of DM Practice confirmed that conditions would include the following:  Standard time; accord with plans; drainage; existing access closed before development brought into use; clearance of site outside the bird nesting season; a condition that restricts use to family members/dependents.

           

Committee Decision:    Conditional Approval with the Head of DM Practice being given delegated authority, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, to approve the final wording of the conditions.

 

 

j)     1214/19/ADV    Totnes Tourist Information, Civic Hall, Market Square,

Totnes

Parish:  Totnes

Application for consent to display advertisement sign under ramp of Civic Hall

 

Case Officer Update:      None

 

Recommendation:         Approval delegated to Head of Development Management Practice, subject to receipt of revised plans that clarify the precise position of the fascia sign.

           

 

Committee Decision:     Approval delegated to Head of Development Management Practice, subject to receipt of revised plans that clarify the precise position of the fascia sign.

 

 

Conditions: 

1.     Time limit

2.     Accord with plans

3.     No illumination

4.     Standard advert conditions

 

 

k) 1383/19/FUL           Redundant Barn, Gratton Farm, Loddiswell

Parish:  Churchstow

Associated operational development to allow for change of use of building to flexible use (C1), following 0565/18/PAU (resubmission of consent 0271/19/FUL)

 

Case Officer Update:        Churchstow Parish Council had submitted comments and they objected to the application

 

Speakers included:            Supporter – Mr Alex Perraton:  Ward Member – Cllr Kemp

 

Recommendation:            Refusal

           

Committee Decision:       Refusal

 

 

l) 0670/19/ARM          Land adjacent to Cofflete Lodge (south A379),

Brixton

Parish:  Brixton

Application for approval of Reserved Matters following Outline Approval 2481/16/OPA

 

Case Officer Update:      None

 

Recommendation:         Conditional Approval

           

Committee Decision:    Conditional Approval

 

 

Conditions: 

1.      Accord with plans

2.      Natural slate

3.      Natural stone

4.      Weatherboarding

5.      Joinery

6.      Ducts, flues, vents etc.

7.      Render

8.      Boundary treatment

9.      Tamar ZOI Mitigation

10.   Tree Protection and Arboricultural Method Statement

 

 

 

m)  3552/18/FUL        To the Rear of 129 Fore Street, Kingsbridge

Parish:  Kingsbridge

Readvertisement (Revised Plans) Construction of 4no. dwelling houses

 

Case Officer Update:      Officer recommendation to include delegation to Head of DM Practice in consultation with the Chairman subject to satisfactory completion of s106 Agreement and if unsigned within six months Head of DM has the right to refuse the application; two late letters of representation objecting to the proposal; a revised tree survey needed and an additional condition requiring an accurate tree survey to be provided

 

Speakers included:         Objector – Mr Bodger:  Supporter – Mr Dan Lethbridge:  Ward Member – Cllr Jackson (statement read out)

 

Recommendation:         Delegate to Head of Development Management Practice (HoP), in conjunction with Chairman to conditionally grant planning permission, subject to a Section 106 legal obligation.

 

However, in the event that the Section 106 legal Agreement remains unsigned six months after this resolution, that the application is reviewed by the HoP, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, and if no progress is being made delegated authority is given to the HoP to refuse the application in the absence of an agreed S106 Agreement.

 

           

Committee Decision:    Delegate to Head of Development Management Practice (HoP), in conjunction with Chairman to conditionally grant planning permission, subject to a Section 106 legal obligation.

 

However, in the event that the Section 106 legal Agreement remains unsigned six months after this resolution, that the application is reviewed by the HoP, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, and if no progress is being made delegated authority is given to the HoP to refuse the application in the absence of an agreed S106 Agreement.

 

Conditions: 

1.      Time limit

2.      Accord with plans

3.      Natural slate

4.      Render

5.      Joinery

6.      Ducts, Flues, Vents

7.      Eaves and verge detail

8.      Boundary treatment

9.      Refuse storage

10.   Obscure glazing to rear windows

11.   Removal of PD rights

12.   Unsuspected contamination

13.   Installation of drainage system

14.   Clearance of vegetation

15.   Reptile, mitigation and transport strategy

16.   Ecological enhancement strategy

17.   Construction Management Plan

18.   Archaeology

19.   Accurate tree survey required