*DM&L.25
The
Committee proceeded to consider the report that had been prepared
by the relevant Planning Officer on each of the following
Applications and considered also the comments of the Town and
Parish Councils together with other representations received, which
were summarised within the
report.
(a)
Application No: 2844/22/FUL Ward: Okehampton South
Site Address: 2,
Crediton Road, Okehampton
Development: Alterations to roof structure &
associated works
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
Conditions:
1.
Standard time limit
2.
Adhere to plans
3.
Adhere to ecology Report
4.
Installation of bat and bird box on completion of
development
5.
Details of fibre cement slates to be submitted and
agreed in writing with LPA
6.
Details of proposed Upvc
windows to be submitted and agreed in writing by LPA
The
Planning Officer took members through the report and stated that
the key issues were:
·
Visual impact on the setting of the conversation
area (site within CA buffer-zone)
·
The site is not Listed nor within the setting of a
Listed Building
·
Neighbour Amenity
·
Design & Materials
·
Environmental Hazards
·
Ecology
Since the
publishing of the officer’s report the agent had submitted
details of the colour and type of roofing tile and these were
acceptable and in keeping with the conservation area, therefore
condition 5 in the report was no longer required. In debate Members
commented
on the key issues identified by the Planning Officer and on the
positives of bringing the building back into use.
Committee Decision: Conditional Approval
Conditions:
1. Standard time
limit
2. Adherence to
plans
3. Adherence to
Ecology Report
4. Installation
of bat and bird box on completion of development
5. Details of
proposed UPVC windows to be submitted and agreed in writing by
LPA
(b)
Application No: 2603/22/FUL Ward: Tavistock North
Site
Address: West Devon Borough Council
Development: Erection of 3 flagpoles 8 meters high to replace
Single 8 meter high flagpole
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
Conditions:
1.
Time
2.
Accordance with plans
3.
Carbon reduction implementations
Speakers
Objector: Hilary Moule
Supporter: Chris Brook
In her introduction, the Planning Officer made a
correction to the report stating that reference was made to a
Neighbourhood Plan for Tavistock when in fact there was no adopted
Neighbourhood Plan. There were also additional representations that
had been received since the agenda had been published.
The new points raised were summarised as
follows:
·
Concerns remained that this application represented
a waste of taxpayers money;
·
The proposal was not considered to meet the aims of
the Council regarding carbon reduction (particularly the use of
fibreglass);
·
Loss of the foliage mentioned by officers and
residents that
screened
the proposal had died back over the past 6 months, however the site
was still being described as not visible from the road or nearest
dwellings;
·
A number of Councillors had been contacted about
concerns and did not respond;
·
The report concluded that the impact on residents
would not be significant but this was refuted by the objector who
believed that the noise impact from apparatus associated with the
flagpole would be ‘considerable’ for the nearest
neighbouring residents.
During
questions, the Planning Officer stated that the cost of the
flagpoles was not a material planning reason.
The
Objector stated that she lived 20 metres from the proposed site for
the flagpoles. She noted that the wildlife report was missing from
the officers published report. There
were two species of owl and bats in the vicinity and this could
have an effect on them.
She further
stated that
·
the amenity loss would be significant to her with
noise and disturbance.
·
There were two flagpoles in the town and a redundant
one on the corner of Quant Park and asked why more were
needed.
·
The existing flagpole was currently buffered by
trees, however the site of the proposed ones had no significant
trees.
·
The production of fibreglass was toxic and
environmentally unfriendly.
·
The 12 representations to oppose the application
cited the inappropriate use of taxpayers money. No Officer or
Councillor had questioned the finances used to prepare this
planning application let alone its implementation.
The
supporter explained about:
·
The community and civic role of the
Council.
·
The issues around flying more than one flag on a
flagpole.
·
Having three flagpole would mean the council could
represent its communities and make statements where
appropriate.
·
The constraints as to where to site the
flagpoles.
·
A rubber weight would be used at the top of the
flagpole to stop the noise from the halyard.
·
The existing flagpole would be removed.
A Member
asked why it had not been brought before the Hub Committee, in the
past Members are normally consulted.
The Monitoring Officer said it was right for the Member to raise
the question, but it was a matter to be dealt with elsewhere and
outside of the Development Management & Licensing
Committee.
In response
to further questions, the supporter explained the choice of
fibreglass poles was due to them being lighter and more slender
than a wooden flagpole, giving an easier installation. He explained
the constraints on site meant that the proposed position was the
best compromise.
The Head of
Development Management confirmed there was a report on the impact
of the development on the trees and in the report no concerns were
raised on the impact on wildlife.
In debate
Members raised concerns over noise pollution. The Head of
Development Management confirmed noise was a material planning
consideration under DEV1 of the Joint Local Plan. The Monitoring
Officer explained to Members that whilst noise nuisance was a
matter of planning judgement there had to be sufficient evidence to
back it up.
Committee Decision: Refusal
Reasons:
The proposal will have harmful effects and an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of local residents by reason of
noise disturbance and pollution arising from the apparatus
associated with the flying of flags from the proposed flagpoles
contrary to Policies DEV1 and DEV 2 (1) of the Joint Local
Plan.