DM.21/22
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)
4175/21/VAR
Sherford Housing Development Site, East Sherford Cross To Wollaton Cross Zc4,
Brixton,
Devon
Parish:
Brixton
Development:
READVERTISEMENT (Additional EIA Information Received)
Application to amend conditions 48 & 50 of 0825/18/VAR, to vary
conditions relating to employment floor space in respect of the
Sherford New Community.
Case Officer Update:
The Case Officer highlighted to the committee a
submission received from the Plympton
St Maurice Society on traffic issues
in which they feel have not been sufficiently
addressed. The Traffic Officer who
considered the proposal felt it did not alter the impact to the
residents of Plympton St
Maurice. The application didn’t
seek to change the existing masterplan and was generated by a need
to reflect market changes and the Freeport.
In response to questions raised by Members, it was
reported that the there was no proposal to drop the
school. Members raised concerns on the
change of usage and increase in vehicle movement across the site
and impact to the residents and local community. Members wanted to see evidence and a fuller
assessment of the commercial need at Sherford. Officers
reported that there was a strong demand across all sectors for
business units. There was no
availability in the south west part of South Hams and Plymouth and
this is the last appropriate place for large scale commercial
premises and JLP highlights this as an area.
Speakers included:
Objector - Paul Ottewell; Supporter –
Andy Tinnelly; Ward Members –
Cllr Brown
Following questions to speakers it was reported that
traffic issues in the Plympton St
Maurice area have been raised with the consortium and Plymouth City
Council. Member’s sought
clarification on the roads that would be impacted and officers
reported that the majority of traffic would flow through the Deep
Lane Junction. Member’s
questioned which company would take up the commercial space and it
was reported that a local marine company were interested in the
space.
The Ward Councillor reported that this application
here today for consistency and will be speaking on behalf Brixton
Parish Council who have requested a potential condition to be added
regarding the movement of traffic from A38. Brixton Parish Council do not object to this
application. Sherford is a long term project and since
conception in the 1990s the application on this site has changed
over that time and the changes need to be reflected. The Ward Councillor sympathised with the objector
in terms of traffic, however felt that it didn’t have
significant material consideration on this application. This is a good idea and will bring a lot of
investment to the site and employment.
Since covid and a change to more
flexible working has seen less of a need for office space and this
application is moving with the times.
This is important for the Freeport.
During the debate, some Members felt this was a good
employment opportunity for the area and supports the Freeport,
however traffic was of concern. Members
felt that a condition for a no drive through restaurant near the
Deep Lane junction would help ease traffic congestion. Some Members felt that this application was more
about allowing the Freeport rather than change in use of commercial
space. Members had sympathy with the
objector(s) and the concerns raised regarding vehicular movements
through Plympton St Maurice, however
recognised that the existing S106 obligations around this was
within the remit of the highway authorities and not SHDC and that
continued pressure should sought be applied to the concerning
parties to seek to resolve this outstanding matter.
Concerns on climate emergency where also raised, as
for the people who will move into the new town we are allowing a
much bigger and much worse carbon footprint.
Recommendation:
To delegate authority to the Head of Development Management, in
consultation with the Chairman of the Development Management
Committee to grant conditional approval subject to a S106 with
Plymouth City Council and Devon County Council, and to; 1. Make
minor alterations to the planning conditions set out at the end of
the report to ensure consistency and appropriate cross referencing
to the S106; and 2. In the event that the S106 agreement remains
unsigned six months after this resolution, that the application is
reviewed by the Head of Development Management, in consultation
with the Chairman of the Committee, and if no progress is being
made delegated authority is given to the Head of Development
Management to refuse the application in the absence of an agreed
S106 agreement.
Committee
decision: To delegate
authority to the Head of Development Management, in consultation
with the Chairman of the Development Management Committee in
conjunction with Ward Members to grant conditional approval subject
to a S106 with Plymouth City Council and Devon County Council, and
to; 1. Make minor alterations to the planning conditions set out at
the end of the report to ensure consistency and appropriate cross
referencing to the S106 including an amendment to condition 48 that
adds a further restriction preventing drive through takeaways being
located within the commercial area – Reason: to ensure
highway safety and the function of the highway network are
maintained; and 2. In the event that the S106 agreement remains
unsigned six months after this resolution, that the application is
reviewed by the Head of Development Management, in consultation
with the Chairman of the Committee, and if no progress is being
made delegated authority is given to the Head of Development
Management to refuse the application in the absence of an agreed
S106 agreement.
Conditions:
The original outline conditions as imposed upon
0825/18/VAR to be reiterated, but amended as necessary to reflect
the proposed amendments (included in full at the end of the
report).
6b) 1159/21/FUL
Land at West End Garage, Main Road, Salcombe
Parish:
Salcombe
Development: Erection of 21 residential dwellings
(including 30% affordable homes) with associated amenities and
infrastructure (Resubmission of 3320/20/FUL).
Case Officer Update:
This application was considered in June and the
committee were unhappy with certain aspects of the development and
therefore deferred the application.
Meetings have taken place with the developer on the concerns raised
which included the room sizes in the apartment building, some of
the garden sizes and the level of renewal energy provided. Officers
feel that these concerns have been addressed.
Members raised concern over the lack of a pedestrian
crossing. The Highways
Officer outlined in the report
that the number of dwellings do not support the need for a crossing
and will leave the crossing well underutilised.
Speakers included:
Supporter – Stephen Thompson; Ward
Members – Cllrs Pearce and Long.
The Ward Members both reported that the deferment
improved and addressed the issues raise. However disappointed in the response received from
highways and once this development up and running will go back to
highways. Also highlighted that this is
a strategic site from a landscape perspective and would like to
public realm trees to be TPOd to be
preserved.
During the debate concerns were raised on the
pedestrian crossing and whether Section 106 could secure this at a
later date. Members also wanted to
ensure adequate planting and landscape management plan in place for
this development. Officers highlighted
that condition 13 requires a landscaping plan pre
commencement.
Recommendation:
Delegate to the Head of Planning to approve conditionally subject
to the conditions below and subject to prior completion of an
acceptable s106 agreement.
Committee
decision: Delegate to
the Head of Planning to approve conditionally subject to the
conditions below and subject to prior completion of an acceptable
s106 agreement. To include a mechanism to TPO newly planted
trees.
Conditions:
1. Time Limit
2. Approved plans
3. Construction Management Plan (pre
commencement)
4. Drainage; surface and foul (pre
commencement)
5. CEMP (pre commencement)
6. LEMP (pre commencement)
7. Accord with tree survey
8. Accord with ecology report
9. Bird/bat/box provision
10.Repeat badger survey
11.No
clearance in nesting season
12.Landform/Engineering Plan (clearly showing the
details of levels and design of any retaining feature on the
western boundary) (pre commencement)
13.Hard
and Soft Landscaping Plan (inc.
boundary treatments/enclosures) (pre commencement)
14.Exceptional planting contract
15.External materials, finish and colour (including
windows and doors)
16.EV Charging inc. 7kw
point for each property
17.Comply with Energy Statement
18.Waste Management Plan (pre
commencement)
19.Unexpected Land Contamination
20.Parking provision
21.Highway details
22.Off-site highway works
23.Provision of site access
24.Road survey (pre commencement)
25.Employment and Skills Plan (pre
commencement)
26.Removal of PD
27.Locked gates
28.No additional lighting
6c) 1424/22/VAR
Waves
Edge, Challaborough
Parish:
Bigbury
Development: Application
for variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning consent
4416/17/FUL (APP/K1128/W/18/3202068) (Retrospective)
Case Officer Update: A
further discussion with the agent since the chair’s brief and
the agent happy to accept condition to use an anti-reflective
coating to the roof windows.
Speakers included: Ward Members –
Cllr Taylor.
The Ward Member had received objections from the
parish council and neighbours regarding the massive reflection from the roof
lights. This is a retrospective
planning application and why a bungalow needs so many roof
lights. This is affecting the
neighbours and the increase in roof lights will cause light
pollution.
During the debate Members discussed the roof lights and the concern
on light pollution in this area.
Members supported the applicant’s use of reflective cover to
reduce the glare to neighbours, however did request whether a
further condition be included on blinds and officers reported that
this would be difficult to enforce.
Members requested applicants to put on the reflective screen within
a month and to be maintained for perpetuity.
Recommendation:
Conditional approval with additional condition for anti-reflective
coating to roof windows as per Case Officer update.
Committee
decision: Conditional
approval with additional condition for anti-reflective coating to
roof windows as per Case Officer update.