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.22/21         

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:

 

6a)    2560/21/FUL  “Former Brutus Centre”, Fore Street, Totnes, TQ9 5RW

          Town:  Totnes

 

Development:   Construction of new dwelling with associated groundworks and landscaping.

 

Case Officer Update:   

The Case Officer clarified that it was £210,000, not £210, for affordable housing offsite contribution, as detailed in the attendant report.  Concerns had been raised, with the Case Officer, about the build impact on the Red-wood tree roots system, and if the Tree Preservation Order had been breached: the Case Officer had not been able to consult with the Council’s Tree Officer but, if approved, could resolve post Committee meeting.  The Case Officer updated the Committee with the two conditions that had been missed off the published report, which were that work would be outside the bird nesting season, and to receive details of the balconies. 

 

It was also clarified that the application consisted of two storeys and a slightly recessed third storey, as opposed to the four storeys as outlined during the site visit.

 

It was stated that the loss of retail space was acceptable as the site had been on the open market for sale for a long time with no buyer.  Officers also felt that the loss of 25 parking spaces in the public car park was acceptable as there was a sufficiency of car parking provision elsewhere in Totnes.  Following a question from a Member, the Case Officer could not confirm the percentage loss of car parking spaces but would give this information after Committee.  Although there were no significant species found on site, various ecological conditions had been attached to the application.  The Case Officer confirmed she had not yet had a response from the lead Local Flood Authority.

 

One Member questioned whether the bin area was sufficient for the size of the development and queried how the bins would be emptied.  The Case Officer suggested a site warden would move the bins but this was not confirmed with the applicant.

 

The south elevation window material was confirmed as high end and that the cladding material was still under discussion with the applicant but could be conditioned if approved.  It was agreed that, if approved, the church tower view from Station Road would have to be built as shown and any loss to the view would be subject to enforcement action.  There was some debate about the accuracy of the photo montage, so a request was made that an accurate plan with the church and context in the background be requested from the applicant.

 

Following the case officer’s clarification of the affordable housing contribution, the Committee heard from the Plymouth City Council Viability Officer who had been instructed to advise the Council and the Council’s Affordable Housing Officer.  Members were unhappy with the amount proposed by the applicant (£210,000) and requested greater detail as to how the amount had been decided upon.  Members also queried whether the local housing need would be met by the application.

 

The Local Ward Member, who was in attendance, pointed out that in respect of the previous application on this site, which was being appealed, the Statement of Common Ground quoted the figure of £210,000 as the current affordable housing contribution as having been agreed.  In view of the Committee’s concerns, he requested that the Council’s agreement to the affordable housing contribution in the Statement of Common Ground be withdrawn.  Additional information with regard to the viability of the proposal and the affordable housing contribution should be sought before bringing the application back to Planning Committee.

 

The Committee were then asked to vote on deferral of this application until the additional information was received on the viability and affordable housing contribution calculations and a review of the demographic need for local housing in relation to retirement homes.

 

Following the Committee’s approval to defer the application, the registered speakers were asked if they wished to speak at this Committee meeting or return when the application was reheard.  All requested to speak at the future Committee meeting.

 

Recommendation:                Approval subject to delegation to the Head of Development Management Practice, submission of amended plans to deal with the Heritage Specialist’s detailed comments and the preparation of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure the following contributions: Affordable Housing: £210,000 as an offsite contribution Open Space Sport and Recreation: £19,968 towards improvements to sports and recreation facilities at Borough Park, Totnes. 

                                              

Committee decision:            Deferral and officers be instructed to withdraw the Council’s agreement to an affordable housing contribution of £210,000 set out in the Statement of Common Ground in connection with the appeal against the previous refusal of planning permission on this site.

 

 

6b)    1129/21/FUL  Land to rear of 62, Staddiscombe Road, Plymstock, PL9 9LZ

          Parish:  Wembury Parish Council

 

Development:  READVERTISEMENT (Revised plans received) Technical detail for all aspects to Planning in Principle approval (2837/18/PIP)

 

Case Officer Update:    The height of the proposed dwelling in relation to the nearby garage was clarified.  The Case Officer gave an explanation of why the application had been deemed a sustainable location when planning in principle had been approved.

 

Speakers included:       Objector – Jon Hearn; Supporter – Mr Paul Adams; Ward Member – Cllr Brown

 

Recommendation:                Conditional approval subject to Section 106 obligation to secure Tamar EMS mitigation

 

Committee decision:            Conditional approval subject to Section 106 obligation to secure Tamar EMS mitigation

 

Conditions:

1. 3 year commencement

2. Accord with plans

3. Drainage implementation

4. Landscape implementation

5. Provision and retention of privacy screen

6. Materials details

7. Implementation of DEV32 measures

8. Biodiversity enhancements

9. Construction Management Plan

10. No external lighting

11. Light reduction measures to windows

12. Unexpected contamination

13. Parking retention

14. PD removal

15. Garage condition reimposed

 

 

6c)    3423/20/FUL  Rowan Cottage, Bugford, Stoke Fleming, TQ6 0LT

Parish:  Stoke Fleming

 

Development:  Construction of new outbuilding for use as ancillary residential accommodation with associated groundworks, including removal of existing garage.

 

Case Officer Update:    No update

 

During the debate, Members questioned the impact of the building on local flooding and whether the new dwelling would be subservient to the main dwelling; with one Member stating that the annexe was too separate, with independent access, and could be used in isolation, which was contrary to the Supplementary Planning Document.  It was confirmed that, although not a material matter, the application did not have permission for the drainage to run off into the neighbouring farmer’s field.

 

Members were concerned that this application constituted over development with the footprint of the annex being nearly the same size as the extant dwelling, giving rise to bulking.

 

Speakers included:         Objector – Mr Keith Grey; Supporter – Mr Alan Houston; Parish Council – Cllr Marion Holmes; Ward Member – Cllr H Reeve;

 

Recommendation:                Conditional Approval

                                              

Committee decision:            Refusal with the reasons delegated to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the local Ward Member, the Chairman of the Committee and the Propose and Seconder of the Motion.