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.36/21         

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)  3389/21/TPO    Tree Preservation Order, 636 Endsleigh, Jubilee Road, Totnes, TQ9 5BP

Town:  Totnes Town Council

 

Proposed Works:   Undertake a lateral branch reduction to the limb overhanging and in contact with roof, by 3m.

 

Case Officer Update:      Nothing to update

 

Speakers included:          No speakers

 

Recommendation:         The Council grants consent for the proposed lateral reduction to the limb overhanging and in contact with the roof of Golden Oktober by 3 metres

                                              

Committee decision:     The Council grants consent for the proposed lateral reduction to the limb overhanging and in contact with the roof of Golden Oktober by 3 metres

 

 

6b)  3155/20/FUL     Daynes Farm, Harberton, TQ9 7FB

Parish:  Harberton Parish Council

 

Development:  Erection of farm shop/butchery building and provision of associated infrastructure

 

Case Officer Update:      The Case Officer updated that recommendation refusal reason four was to be discarded as it was no longer relevant because changes to the material on the outside of the building had been made and accepted. The officer then updated on access issues and charging points on site. 

 

Following questions to the Officer, it was confirmed that the ecological assessment was still to be received, and the hedge at the proposed entrance would be moved which could limit impact on the environment but there would still be disruption.

 

Speakers included:          Supporter – Mr David Camp; Parish Council:  statement read; Ward Member – Cllr J McKay.

 

Following questions to the applicant, it was confirmed that there would not be a fence along the approach track, which would be hard core stone.  The field would be used for grazing with additional trees planted.  The applicant confirmed that they currently had solar panels on the existing buildings which allowed for an amount to be returned to the grid.  The intention was to recover the heat from the fridges and recycle this to heat water in the farm shop.

 

The Ward Member highlighted that the farm was already organic and selling local produce, thereby reducing food miles and packaging, and was a vital part of much needed enterprises across the District.  It was his opinion that the increase in traffic would have little effect on local amenities as the route was not near residential buildings.  The Member felt that the butchery unit was far enough away from live animals, and would keep the public away from the farm, but would give them views across the farm, helping to tell the farm story to visitors and local students.  It was confirmed that butchery would be onsite and slaughtering would be locally carried out at Ashburton.

 

During the debate several Members felt that this application should be deemed sustainable due to being on the bus route, the proximity to Harberton, and the recovery and reuse of the heat from the farm machinery.  It was noted that the officer had no option but to recommend refusal due to the policies in the Joint Local Plan (JLP).  It was recommended that this should be looked at when the JLP was next reviewed.

 

It was suggested that, if Members were of a mind to approve the application, the decision delegation could be dependent upon receipt of the ecology report. 

 

Recommendation:         Refusal

                                              

Committee decision:     Conditional Approval delegated to the Head of Development Management (DM), in consultation with the Chairman of the DM Committee, proposer, seconder, and the local Ward Member. 

 

Conditions 

1)      eco assessment looking at movement of hedge, also details of how hedge is being moved, and general area, plus mitigation, ecology report, and revised access plan

2)      external lighting, plan, where, strength, times

3)      Tree planting and landscaping – extensive, particularly around building and track

4)      Larch timber cladding example

5)      Conditioning what is sold

 

 

6c)  3792/20/FUL     River Dart Academy, Shinners Bridge, Dartington, TQ9 5JD

Parish:  Dartington Parish Council

 

Development:     Planning application for erection of a new school building on the site of the current school, new reduced car park, associated hard and soft landscaped play areas, new boundary treatment to the site, and removal of 8no. C grade trees and 2no. U grade trees and demolition of two temporary classroom units

 

Case Officer Update:             The Case Officer emphasised the potential risk of life outlined in the consultation response from the Environment Agency.  The ecology comments on this application were only recently received.  The Ecologist at Devon County Council (DCC) had raised no objections but had stipulated that a Habitats Regulations Assessment from Natural England was required.  This had been requested but not yet received.  It was confirmed that the application had been called to Committee by the Head of Planning and not by the local Ward Member.

 

In response to questions from Members, the Environment Agency Engineer further explained the issues with flooding, including the propensity for the site to flood quickly, with the wire fence potentially causing blockages which could lead to flash flooding, and confirmed flood records went back to 1970s which showed that this school flooded on average every five years or so. 

 

The Schools Planning and Commissioning Manager for Devon County Council (DCC) confirmed that many schools in Devon were located in flood zones and it was not practical to move them all.  The existing site was no longer suitable for the vulnerable children using the Academy, hence the application.  He confirmed that the fence was a requirement of the Department of Education, not DCC.

 

Speakers included:          Objector – Ms S Mara; Supporter – Ms B Mukherjee; Parish Council – Cllr T Turrell; Ward Member – Cllr J Hodgson;

 

When questioned the applicant confirmed that the Dartington Trust had not engaged when approached about possible alternative educational sites on the Estate, and that the Department of Education funding was for the current site.

 

The Ward Member outlined her support for the Parish Council’s view that this application was inappropriate for the site particularly when considering that weather patterns were worsening, thereby increasing the potential for severe flooding.

 

The Planning Manager outlined that refusal notice would not be issued until the Habitats Regulations Assessment from Natural England had been received as this might give a third reason for refusal.

 

Recommendation:         Refusal

Committee decision:     Refusal

 

 

 

6e)  3047/21/HHO   38 Linhey Close, Kingsbridge, TQ7 1LL

Town:  Kingsbridge Town Council

 

Development:  Householder application for detached garage including extension to existing first floor terrace and regularisation of replacement boundary wall (resubmission of 1229/21/HHO)

 

Case Officer Update:      Following questions raised at the site visit, the Officer confirmed that the boundary to the site included the strip of land in front of the fence.  She also confirmed that the fence down the hill would need enforcement action taken.

 

Speakers included:          Supporter – Mr P George; Ward Member – Cllr D O’Callaghan

 

The Ward Member in attendance confirmed that both Ward Members had visited the site and agreed that it was a subjective view.  Although the site was within the AONB Devon (Area of Outstanding Beauty), the site was located in the middle of a housing estate.

 

During the debate, Members agreed that the site visit had been useful.  Several Members felt that the wall was not in keeping with the original design of the estate and would fundamentally change the street scene, while other Members felt that the new fence was a considerable improvement over the previous hedge which had grown out and over the pavement.  Members were of the opinion that the acceptance of the fence would be dependent upon the steps taken to minimize the starkness of the wall.

 

Recommendation:         Refusal

                                              

Committee decision:     Conditional approval on receipt of approved scheme to minimize starkness of wall.  Head of Development Management (DM) in consultation with the Chairman of the DM Committee and the local Ward Members

 

Conditions: 

Standard time limit

Accord with plans

Details of landscaping

Paint colour finish

Surface water drainage