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.53/23         

The Committee considered the details of the planning applications prepared by the relevant Case Officers as presented in the agenda papers, and considered the comments of Town and Parish Councils, together with other representations received, which were listed within the presented agenda reports, and RESOLVED that:

 

6a)       1885/23/FUL               Land at SX 743 506, WoodleighParish:  Woodleigh Parish Council           

Development:  Application for a permanent agricultural workers dwelling

 

The Case Officer summarised the key issues, namely that:

·           Two main concerns raised following consultation.  Officers consider landscape to have been addressed however the size of the proposed dwelling continues to be of concern.

                                   

The Case Officer responded:

·         The dwelling includes an office and meetings rooms.

·         The ridge height around 7 – 7.5 metres.

·         The size of an for agricultural building should be between 140 – 170 sqm of floor space. 

                       

The Agricultural Consultant explained that the business should be sustainable and profitable to build and finance the property whilst still providing a living wage for the worker.  The dwelling should be commensurate to the needs of the requirements.

                       

Having heard from speakers on behalf of supporters together with the Ward Councillor, Members debated the application.  During the debate, one Member felt there were serious merits being proposed and to look at the broader proposals such as bringing in students for agricultural purposes.  If a smaller proposal before us could get further applications to extend the property.  This was an opening for other farmers to improve farming and to encourage younger people into the farming community.      Another Member had concerns on the size of the dwelling and whether it could be reduced in size. 

 

Recommendation:                 Refusal

 

Committee decision:             Delegated approval to the Head of Development Management to agree the wording in consultation Chair, Vice Chair and Cllr J Hodgson (Proposer) and Cllr A Nix (Seconder).

 

 

 

                       

 

6b)       3764/23/ARM            Land at Ashford SX 677 487, Aveton Gifford

                                                Parish:  Bigbury

                       

                                               Development:   Application for approval of all matters reserved following outline approval reference 0409/21/OPA for erection of agricultural worker’s dwelling (resubmission of 2395/23/ARM)

 

Case Officer Update:  The Case Officer summarised the key issues, namely that:

•          Exceeds generally accepted floorspace for agricultural worker dwellings.

•          Size contributes to landscape impact due to levelling works required.

•          Change to topography and bulk of dwelling harmful to protected landscape.

•          Size remains the same as previously refused scheme.

                       

The Case Officer explained:

•          There were no public footpaths in the area.

•          Height of the dwelling was 4 metres above the hedge line.

 

Having heard from speakers on behalf of supporter together with the Ward Member, Members debated the application.  During the debate, Members raised concerns on the level of groundworks required and the landscape impact.  Members requested that reasons for refusal to amended as follows:

•          Reason for refusal 1 to be removed.

•          Reason for refusal 2 to be amended to include Members concerns on the visual impact on the wider landscape, needs to be more cut in and ridge height modified,

                       

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

Committee decision:Delegated refusal to the Head of Development Management to agree the wording in consultation Chair, Vice Chair and Cllr J Hodgson (Proposer) and Cllr M Long (Seconder).

 

 

6c)       3653/23/FUL               Pittaford Farm, Slapton, TQ7 2QG

                                                Parish:  Slapton

 

                                               Development:   Regularise the change of use of part of an agricultural building to a dog grooming business (sui generis use). (Retrospective and Resubmission 4272/22/FUL)

 

Case Officer Update:  The Case Officer summarised the key issues, namely:

•               Does the use applied for require a countryside location?

•               Does the use applied for require a coastal location?

•               Does the use applied for result in an increase in private vehicle journeys?

•               Can these journeys be mitigated through sustainable travel measures?

 

The Case Officer explained:

•          Not a new building and was previously an agricultural dwelling.

•          Sustainable travel was not offered as part of the solution.

                                   

Having heard from speakers on behalf of the supporter, Parish Council and Ward Member, Members debated the application.  During the debate, one Member raised felt this was rural diversification and felt uncomfortable with refusal.  Another Member felt this ticked a lot of positive boxes with a number of happy clients and important to support the rural economy.  Another Member felt the need to protect our coastal areas but failed to see this would have a detrimental effect on the undeveloped coast.  Some Members felt this supported the local economy and farming diversity and was in a building that already exists and would cause no harm or damage to the undeveloped coast.

                                   

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

Committee decision:Delegated approval to the Head of Development Management to agree the wording in consultation Chair, Vice Chair and Cllr J Hodgson (Proposer) and Cllr G Allen (Seconder).

 

 

6d)    3353/23/HHO               Eastcot, Grenville Road, Salcombe, TQ8 8BJ

                                                Town:  Salcombe

                                   

Development:  Householder application to clad the top half of the front elevation with cedral cladding (Retrospective)

 

Cllr Taylor chaired this application.

 

Case Officer Update: 

The Case Officer summarised the key issues, namely that:

•     The proposed use of cedral cladding was expected have a neutral impact on the character of the existing property and surrounding area.

•     The palette of materials were widely seen within the Grenville Road street scene and surrounding area.

•     The localised impact on the National Landscape was neutral and acceptable within an existing residential context.

•     The impact upon neighbouring amenity and adjourning property, Wisteria was acceptable.

                                   

Having heard from speakers on behalf of the supporter together with the Ward Member, Members debated the application.  During the debate, Members felt the applicant was future proofing their home and the street scene already has a mix of styles of properties.  The cladding was similar in colour to nearby neighbouring properties and not out of place. 

 

Recommendation:     Conditional Approval

 

Committee decision:Conditional Approval

 

                                    Conditions:      

1. Accordance with Plans

                                    2. Avoidance of doubt

 

                       

 

6e)       3650/23/FUL               Land At Sx 782 623, Symonds Drive, Dartington

                                                Parish:  Dartington Parish Council

 

                                                Development:  Application for the erection of a single residential                                          dwelling (Affordable Discount Market)

 

Case Officer Update: 

The Case Officer summarised the key issues, namely that:

•        Principle of development:  Site allocated for development.  Increase from 80 to 81 dwellings (1.25% increase) was within acceptable range of allocation and makes more efficient use of the available land.

•        Affordable Housing:  Additional affordable dwelling beneficial in light of the Council's declaration of Housing Crisis.

•        Landscape character:  Dwelling would be read as part of the wider developed site, contained within previously approved built form.

•        Ecology:  Existing biodiversity measures agreed would not be affected.  Devon hedge to southern boundary, conditions recommended regarding external lighting.

 

The Case Officer explained:

•        The SPD requires 3-bedroom properties to have 2 parking spaces.                         

•        Highways raised no objections.

 

Having heard from speakers on behalf of the supporter, Parish Council together with the Ward Member, Members debated the application.  During the debate, some Members felt was a good idea and something that should be pursued.  Another Member felt that the impact of accumulative development needed to be considered and whether there was a need to squeeze in another house.  Members raised the 80% affordability and felt more comfortable to approve if it was 60% affordable. 

 

The meeting was deferred to allow the applicants to look at figures.

 

Recommendation:     Conditional Approval subject to completion                                                                                      of S106.          

 

6f)        4240/23/CLP              Land South of Woolwell Centre, Woolwell

                                                Parish:  Bickleigh

 

Development:  Certificate of lawfulness for proposed creation of a tarmac track for wheeled sports, with associated reprofiling of earth at the site to create supporting berms and features

 

Case Officer Update: 

The Case Officer summarised the key issues, namely that:

•        Application seeks a legal determination whether the proposal constitutes permitted development (PD).

•        Planning merits of the case (and thus policies of the JLP) were not material to the determination of this type pf application.

•        Consideration purely focuses on whether the proposal complied with the relevant requirements of the GPDO.

•        The proposal was considered to comply with the requirements set out in the GPDO and was concluded to constitute permitted development.

 

Having heard from the Ward Member, Members debated the application.  During the debate, Members welcomed this type of facility.

           

Recommendation:     Certificate of Lawfulness (Proposed) Certified

 

Committee decision:Certificate of Lawfulness (Proposed) Certified