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/

 

DM.37/20       

The Committee considered the details of the planning application 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:

 

7a)    1585/20/FUL            Land adjacent to Dartmouth Park and Ride site, Wessex Way, Dartmouth

 

Parish:  Dartmouth and East Dart

 

Development:   Construction of new two storey Health and Well-being Centre and associated external works (READVERTISED). 

 

Case Officer Updates:                      

Following the tree officer’s holding objection, there had been a revision to the number of trees to be removed resulting in a reduction from around 15 down to 7 with more mature trees remaining.  The holding objection had therefore been lifted;

Proposed revisions to Conditions 2, 3 and 4 were highlighted;

A request had been received from Devon County Council (DCC) Drainage department whereby the drainage condition was to be pre-commencement but agreement had been reached for this to be pre-construction beyond slab level. 

                                              

The Biodiversity Officer had raised concerns regarding the western hedge as this was a bat fly zone, but the amended plans, with reduced tree loss, had seen these concerns lifted; 

Devon County Council Highways originally raised concerns about the layout which had been resolved with the amended plans.  However, there remained concerns regarding the amount of free parking for the Health and Wellbeing Hub, which was felt could be insufficient.  Therefore DCC had asked for a Section 106 Agreement to be entered into whereby, if parking over-spilled into nearby residential areas then, a contribution would be given to implement a residents’ permit scheme. Some local residents had expressed concern over the out of town location but the area was noted as being well served by public transport (although this was disputed by the Objector) with other services nearby giving the area sustainability in its own right.

 

Speakers included:       Objector – Ms L Gunnigle; Ward Members – Cllrs H Bastone, J Hawkins, and R Rowe;

 

Committee Decision: 

That approval be delegated to the Head of Development Management, in conjunction with the Chairman of the Committee to conditionally grant planning permission, subject to a Section 106 legal obligation for the following: A contribution towards the design and implementation for a residents’ parking scheme on surrounding streets, at any time over the next 10 years, should on street parking for the use of this facility spill into such areas.

 

(NB. in the event that the Section 106 legal Agreement remains unsigned six months after this resolution, that the application would be reviewed by the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, and, if no progress were made, delegated authority would be given to the Head of Development Management to refuse the application in the absence of an agreed S106 Agreement).

 

Conditions:

1. Time limit

2. Accord with plans

3. No external lighting until agreed with LPA

4. Adherence to Ecology report

5. Unexpected contamination

6. Protection of hedgerows

7. No removal of hedgerow

8. Cycle parking in place before occupation

9. Parking to be completed prior to occupation

10. Surfacing of P& R to be complete prior to it being brought into use.

11. Tree protection scheme to be agreed

12. Landscaping scheme to be submitted and agreed.

13. Landscape maintenance schedule

14. Archaeology – written scheme of investigation

15. Samples of materials upon slab level

16. Refuse provision

17. Fencing details

18. CMP

19. Percolation testing

20. Groundwater monitoring

21. Design of surface water management scheme to be submitted

22. Design of surface water management during construction

23. Details of adoption and maintenance arrangements

24. Details of carbon reduction measures

25. Details of cycle way

26. Levels of building

27. Protection measures for T14

28. Details of low carbon measures

 

 

7b)       4063/19/FUL   Sandnes, Beadon Road, Salcombe, TQ8 8LU

Town Council:            Salcombe

 

Development:  Replacement dwelling with associated landscape works (amendment to design previously approved 1125/17/FUL)

 

Case Officer Update:                          

Since the report had been finalised, a further 25 additional representations had been received, including from the South Hams Society – all in objection but with no new issues raised.  The objections were appropriateness of design, amount of glass, impact on ecology, and ongoing concerns over the Construction Management Plan. 

Update ref. conditions – condition number 5) pre-commencement condition relating to ecology now had reason for pre-commencement, and condition 11) carbon reduction – details of air source heat pump had now been received, so the condition would be re-worded to take this into account and ensure the condition was appropriate and work would be carried out as required. 

 

                                              

 

 

The Solicitor clarified a typographical error on the presented agenda report under the relevant planning history, where the replacement dwelling expiry date for permission was extended until 1^st May 2021 rather than 1^st May 2020 as had been detailed in the report.

 

Speakers included:       Objector – Mr M Smout; Supporter – Mr P Andrews; Town Council:  Cllr M Fice; Ward Members – Cllrs M Long and J Pearce

 

Debate:                                                

During the debate, much discussion was had around the size of the lane and the size of construction vehicles to be used.  A number of Members were of the view that a further condition should be added whereby the Construction Management Plan should require a topographical survey to be undertaken before commencement and after completion, and the road should be returned to pre-commencement condition after build.  The view was also expressed that the Construction Management Plan would be slightly amended to show deliveries would not be made during school holidays.

 

Some Members felt that approval should be dependent upon receipt of plans showing that Solar PV cells were added to the application.

 

Recommendation:       Conditional Approval

 

Committee Decision:                         

That approval be delegated to the Head of Development Management, in consultation with the Committee Chairman and the local Ward Members, subject to the receipt of a topographical study that supported the contents of the Construction Management Plan and the imposition of the following conditions.

 

Conditions:

1. Standard three year time limit for commencement of development

2. Development to be carried out in accordance with approved drawings

3. Implementation of landscape proposals

4. Ecology (light spill)

5. Restriction of works until confirmation a licence has been provided

6. Removal of PD rights

7. Unsuspected contamination

8. Restriction on external lighting

9. Surface water drainage

10. Foul drainage

11. Low carbon

12. Trees

 

 

7c)       1770/20/FUL   Land at SX 726 406, Malborough, associated with

                                    Land at Lower Mill Park, West Alvington

 

Parish:  Malborough

 

Development:   Readvertisment (revised site description) Provision for general purpose agricultural building.

 

Case Officer Update:                          

At the request of a Member, the area of the site was confirmed as 0.54 hectares with Ilton Copse at 0.42 hectares and also belonged to the applicant.  Applicant’s total land ownership was shown and defined as 6.44 hectares.  Application was for agricultural building within newly planted forested area. A late letter of representation had been received from the South Hams Society regarding Permitted Development rights and fallback position.

 

Speakers included:       Supporter – Ms A Burden; Parish Council – Cllr J Yeoman; Ward Members – Cllrs M Long and J Pearce

 

During the debate, the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) was highlighted and some Members highlighted the lack of a clear business plan.  As a result, the agricultural need was felt to be questionable in such a prominent location.  Earth works that had already been carried out had impacted upon the availability of agricultural land for use.  Some Members felt that the application did not meet the requirements within the local Neighbourhood Plans.  Some Members felt that there was no proof that this was a necessary building and it did not enhance the AONB. 

 

Recommendation:       Conditional Approval

 

Committee decision:  Refusal

 

Reasons:                     

1.       The proposals did not demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed building was reasonably required to support the necessary needs of agriculture in the AONB and undeveloped coastline;

 

2.       The considerable visual impact and local landscape character would not preserve or enhance the AONB; and

 

3.       The proposals were contrary to policies TTV1, TTV26, DEV15, DEV23, DEV24, DEV25 of JLP, and NPPF (not limited to paragraph 172), and to the Marlborough Neighbourhood Plan.

 

 

7d)    2840/20/FUL      Higher Hareston Brixton

 

Parish:  Brixton

 

Development:   change of use of land for the provision of two pods for self-catering holiday purposes

 

Case Officer Update:                           No updates. 

 

Speakers included:       Supporter – Mr R Bassett; Ward Member – Cllr D Brown

 

Recommendation:       Refusal

 

During the debate, the relevance of Policy DEV 15 (supporting the rural economy) was discussed, as was the proximity of the application site to both the new town of Sherford and to the village of Brixton.  Members felt that diversification against sustainability was at the crux of the decision and the majority view was that the associated benefits of the proposals outweighed the recommended reasons for refusal.  In particular, some Members disagreed with the views of the case officer that the site should be considered to be unsustainable for such an application. 

 

Committee decision:  Conditional approval

 

Conditions:

1.           Standard three year time limit for commencement of development;

2.           Development to be carried out in accordance with approved drawings;

3.           Holiday lets solely to be used for holiday accommodation only;

4.           Within 28 days of the units no longer being required for holiday accommodation, the units shall be removed from the site and the land restored to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority;

5.           Surface water drainage; and

6.           Foul drainage system details.

 

Reason(s):

 

The majority of Members were of the view that the access from the application site to the village of Brixton was acceptable.