Agenda item

Planning Applications

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:




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)          2735/22/HHO    10 The Plat, Strete

                  Parish - Strete


                Development: Householder application for replacement rear single storey sun room, first floor bedroom extension over garage, modifications to existing drive to provide additional on-site parking including resurfacing of existing for a new impermeable surface (Resubmission of 1175/22/HHO)


                This application was Chaired by Councillor Rowe.

                Case Officer Update:   The Case Officer reported they had received the lighting plan and highlighted an error within the report that the additional parking for this application will be a ‘permeable’ surface and not ‘impermeable’ as stated in the report.  The Case Officer explained that the lighting plan took into account all the measures and impact on all neighbouring properties.  The Officer further added that the drainage proposal was not compliant within the SPD guidance but it could be agreed by condition.  The Case Officer said that the proposed extensions were considered subservient additions to the existing dwelling and would not cause harm to the wider landscape. The development was not considered to have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties          


                In response to questions raised, it was reported that:

·         This application does not fall with the conservation area;

·         The scale of the development would not require a construction management plan.


                Speakers included:           Objector – Nicola Cullen; Supporter – Peter Wells; Parish Councillor – Councillor G Campbell; Ward Member – Cllr R Foss.


                In response to questions the objector reported that the shadow would engulf their property.


                In response to questions the Parish Councillor reported that 5 residents objected, and 10-12 people objected at the parish council meeting.


                                The Ward Member raised the light impact on neighbouring properties.  This application normally would not come to committee but decided to bring this to the committee for a decision.


In response to questions raised it was reported that the standard test was used to test the impact of overshadowing.  The impact likely to be felt more in the spring and winter.


                During the debate, Members discussed at length the lighting issue and the impact on neighbouring properties and whether neighbouring properties would be overshadowed by this application.  Member felt that overshadowing of neighbouring properties was not an issue even though a number of objections were received Members said that they could not see any reason to refuse this application. 


Recommendation:          Conditional approval.


Committee decision:      Conditional approval.


Conditions:                        Standard time limit

                                Adherence to plans

                                Materials to match

                                Adherence to ecological mitigation

                                Surface water drainage



6b)         2156/22/FUL      "Higher Farleigh Meadow", Diptford

                Parish – Diptford


Development: Application to regularise and retain agricultural storage building (Retrospective).


                Case Officer Update:       The Case Officer reported that a letter of objection has been received and highlighted that the application did not provide sufficient justification to explain why a building of the scale proposed was required for such a small area of land.


                In response to questions raised, it was reported that:

·         Consultants were only used to assess larger applications;

·         The fire vehicle and metal structure on the land forming the application site not part of the application.   


Speakers included: Supporter – Amanda Burden; Parish Council – Councillor S Franklin; Ward Member – Cllr P Smerdon.


In response to questions, the supporter reported that the applicant will use the land to grow vegetables and hold small amount of livestock.  The building will be used to store animal feed.


The Ward Member included Cllr Pannell’s statement which referred to the scale of this agricultural building and whether it was appropriate for the size of the holding.  Concerns were raised that fields capable of being divided into a number of one acre plots could easily be filled with such buildings which will then have a significant impact on the rural landscape.   The Ward Member said that this application had been recommended for approval but officers had since changed their recommendation.  The Ward Member explained that the Diptford Parish Council were concerned that the building too large with further concerns on the fire vehicle and shipping container on site.


                In response to questions raised by Members, the Case Officer explained that when senior officers reviewed this application they had a different view and changed the recommendation to refusal.


                During the debate, some Members felt that this application was a classic building for agricultural need and to give the applicant the benefit of doubt.  Other Members questioned whether the building was applicable to the size of the land as well as being mindful of allowing a building of that size within an AONB.   Members felt that this could then encourage larger buildings on small plots of land across the area.


Recommendation:          Refusal


Committee decision:     Refusal



6c)          2453/22/HHO    36 Furze Road, Totnes

                                                Parish – Berry Pomeroy

Development:  Householder application for proposed single storey front extension

Case Officer Update:       The Case Officer highlighted that the applicant was a Councillor.  The design of the current proposed development was considered to be an incongruous addition to the property and immediate street scene, and failed to have proper regard to the local pattern of development. As such the proposal failed in the Officer’s view to comply with the requirements of policy DEV20.


In response to questions raised by Members, it was reported that an application made by a Member or employee automatically comes to the committee.


Speakers included:          Supporter – Neil Warren


In response to questions to the supporter, the Supporter reported that there were a number of properties with front facing extensions within short distance of this application.


During the debate, Members felt that the application did respect the street scene and saw this as an improvement to the locality.


Recommendation:          Refusal


Committee decision:     Approval subject to the following conditions:

·         Standard time limit and completion in accordance with plans

·         recommendations within the ecology report to be followed

·         Drainage


Supporting documents: