DM.34/22
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)
3027/21/FUL “Vineyard North of Lower
Aunemouth", Bantham
Parish:
Thurlestone
Development: Temporary installation of two rows of Paraweb
Fencing to protect planted Windbreaks
Case Officer Update:
The Case Officer
reported that this application was approved
by the Committee on 7 September 2022. However, member’s
agreement to amend the wording of the reason for condition 6 was
not secured. The purpose of bringing the application back to
committee is to secure such approval.
Recommendation:
Conditional approval.
Committee
decision: Conditional
approval.
Conditions:
1) Time limit
2) Approved drawings
3) Ecology recommendations
4) Nesting birds
5) Planting
6) Temporary condition / removal after five
years
6b) 1614/21/VAR "Brutus Centre", Fore Street, Totnes
Parish:
Totnes
Development: Application for variation of condition
2 (approved plans) of planning consent 2560/21/FUL
Case Officer Update:
The Case Officer reported this is a variation of previously
approved application which includes a contentious amendment for the
addition of a substation. Objections
received from residents regarding the impact of noise and public
health. No objections from
environmental health and Western Power can build a substation under
permitted development if this application is refused.
Members raised concerns on the proximity of the
substation to dwellings and whether the substation could be located
in a different area. Questions were
raised with regard to Western Power installing the substation if
application refused.
Speakers included:
Objector – Isabel Carlisle; Ward Member
– Cllr J Birch.
The Ward Member raised concerns on the health impact
of this application and the non-compliance of DEV1 and
DEV2. Outlined in DEV1 it states
‘ensuring new development provides for protection of noise
for new and existing residents’.
The application lacked evidence to support health and environmental
impacts and requested that this application is
deferred. A deferment will allow
Members to undertake a site visit, for a health impact assessment
to be produced and response from environmental health.
In response to questions raised, the Head of
Development Management reported that it would be a judgement for
members on whether they can defend a refusal on what can done under
permitted development.
The Environmental Health Officer reported that they
had previously worked on a development with the same scenario of a
substation located next to an existing property. The substation was not encased in a brick
structure which caused night time vibrations felt by
residents. This resulted with the
equipment being mounted on vibration pads and encased in a brick
structure. This resolved the
issues. What has been proposed here is
the solution that has been used elsewhere.
Some Members still had concerns on noise and impact
on residents and moved for the application to be
deferred.
A vote
was taken to defer the application. The
vote was lost.
During the debate Members raised that if this
application was refused, Western Power will build the substation,
however if we approve will have some control over the build and can
include conditions to further reduce impact to
residents.
Head of Development Management requested a 5 minute
adjournment to formulate the wording of the condition.
The additional condition to include that no work
shall be undertaken in connection with the provision of the
substation or building to house it until the details of the
equipment being installed being submitted to and approved by the
local planning authority and to include noise and vibration
mitigation. The installation to
be in accordance with the approved details.
Recommendation:
Conditional Approval
Committee
decision: Conditional
approval
6c) 2013/22/FUL
20
Buckwell Road, Kingsbridge
Parish:
Kingsbridge
Development: Erection of
new dwelling (Re-submission of 0536/22/FUL)
Case Officer Update:
The Case Officer explained the parking arrangements following
concerns raised by Members at the site visit. At the site visit the 3 neighbouring
properties and the topography of the area were shown to
members. The neighbouring property in
Allotment Gardens was viewed at the site visit and the dwelling
will be visible from neighbouring property but not considered to
have a harmful impact.
In response to questions raised by Members, the Case
Officer reported:
·
Parking
provision was adequate for this dwelling;
·
Tree
protection to be agreed before commencement.
Speakers included:
Objector – Catherine Palmer; Supporter – Amanda
Burden; Ward Member –
Cllr O’Callaghan.
Members sought clarification on the height of hedges and it was
reported that high hedges should be kept below 9 meters and the
proposed dwelling would be higher than the hedge.
The Ward Member highlighted the affordable housing
crisis in Kingsbridge and was extremely supportive of people in
this situation, however needed to be mindful of the planning rules
and regulations. The loss of the light
for the neighbouring property in Allotment Gardens with new
dwelling should be at a distance of 15 meters and not 13
meters. The council have asked for the
trees/hedges to be reduce which might affect the privacy of
properties in Marco Gardens. Parking in
Kingsbridge is a big issue and this additional dwelling with
additional parking needs would add to the problem.
During the debate, Members supported the application
and felt this helped the housing crisis but also accepted the
impact on residents. Members also
raised the neighbourhood plan and the impacts of back garden
developments and principle residency.
The Head of Development Management requested an
adjournment to review the Neighbourhood Plan for
Kingsbridge.
Following the adjournment, it was reported it that
they couldn’t source the right policy that covered principle
residency, however, spoke with the applicant and they are happy to
have a principle residency condition added.
Members requested for a landscaping condition to be
added and it was reported that no boundary fencing to be erected
without detailed plan being approved.
Recommendation:
Conditional Approval
Committee
decision:
Conditional Approval
Conditions:
Standard time limit Accord with plans
Tree protection measures (pre-commencement)
Construction Management Plan (pre-commencement)
Removal of permitted development rights
Natural slate
Details of external lighting to be
submitted
Accord with recommendations of ecology
survey
Drainage details to be submitted
Parking area to be installed prior to occupation of
dwelling
6d) 3503/21/ARM "Gerston Gate Barn",
Gerston Lane, West Alvington
Parish:
West Alvington
Development: Application
for approval of reserved matters following outline approval
1655/19/OPA (for provision of an agricultural worker's
dwelling)
This application was Chaired by Cllr
Rowe.
Case Officer Update:
The Case Officer reported this was a reserved matters planning
application for an agricultural dwelling. There is a need for agricultural worker on the
site however the Agricultural Consultant raised concerns on the
size of the residential floor space.
The size of the holding in relation to the plan needs to be
commensurate with the site.
In response to questions raise, the Case Officer
reported:
·
The
application lacked the justification for the additional floor
space;
·
The
design features were in keeping with the local
surroundings;
·
This
application is not about personal needs and the dwelling to be a
size commensurate to that need;
Speakers included:
Supporter – Andrew Lethbridge; Ward
Members – Cllrs Long and Pearce.
The supporter reported that the dwelling cladding
and windows will be in keeping with the local
surroundings. In the future this
dwelling would be the main farmhouse running the operation at
Gerston Gate.
The Ward Member raised that there isn’t a
policy which sets out particular sizes for rural workers dwellings
this cannot be challenged. This is for
a principle farmhouse and there is a need for farm workers to have
dwellings in this area and our policies do not address this and the
two areas for refusal can be challenged.
The Monitoring Officer reminded the Ward Member to
avoid giving a fixed view and to have an open mind. The Ward Member responded that he was not a
farming person and was challenging the elements of design that he
felt needed to be raised and challenged.
The Ward Member reported that the policy is clear on
the functional need of the holding rather than the need of the
people. The farmhouse goes beyond that
functional need and agreed with the officer’s
recommendation. If this was appealed
would be interested to see the outcome.
During the debate, Members raised that the applicant
already had an approved dwelling and now wants to extend
unreasonably in a protected area. It
was important to take notice of the comments made by the
agricultural consultant, however some Members felt that a dwelling
of this size was warranted and to have a clear policy for
agricultural dwellings to be built that are efficient and effective
to bring up a family. Whether this was
commensurate was subjective and a balance.
Recommendation:
Refuse
Committee
decision:
Refuse
6e) 3235/21/FUL "Harwood Farm",
Salcombe Road, Malborough.
Parish:
Malborough
Development: New
Residential Dwelling
Case Officer Update:
The Case Officer reported this is a full planning application for a
dwelling for agriculture worker on site. This application has been refused because of
the applicant’s failure to demonstrate carbon reduction, foul
drainage, principle residency, the size of the development and
visual impact on the protected landscape.
In response to questions raised, the Case Officer
reported:
·
The
new dwelling would replace the temporary dwelling currently on
site;
·
Planning
permission would not be granted until all technical issues
resolved.
Speakers included:
Supporter – Alex Brazier; Parish Councillor – Cllr
Sampson; Ward Members –
Cllrs Long and Pearce.
The supporter reported that:
·
The
structural work would be undertaken by competent people and
internal work completed by the applicant;
·
They were
looking to expand the business however sourcing more land was
difficult;
·
The house
will be lower than the ridge height of the barn;
·
Information on air
source was not included in the plan but will form part of the
build;
·
The
applicant was willing to consider principle residence.
The Ward Member reported that this is the same as
the previous application but holding smaller and again bear in mind
the functional need of the dwelling and support the officer
recommendation to refuse.
The Ward Member reported that there is a functional
need for a farmhouse but need a clear policy on this. This application has been live for a year
and no changes and issues raised with the applicant. There is a need and yet there are conflicts in
policy and requirements.
The Head of Development Management responded that
this application with us longer than should have been. From a planning enforcement perspective an
agricultural dwelling justified on this site and will not take any
action on the temporary dwelling and an extension will be
recommended for approval.
During the debate, Members raised there is clearly a
need for the dwelling but not this application. However some Members supported the application and
the need to support farming families.
Recommendation:
Refuse
Committee
decision:
Refuse