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.10/21         

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)    0900/21/HHO     12 Linhey Close, Kingsbridge, TQ7 1LL

Town:  Kingsbridge

Development:   Householder application for proposed internal and external alterations

The Committee was informed that this application had been deferred to review aspects raised from one set of neighbours following the site visit. 

6b)  2334/19/FUL        Totnes Cross Garage, A3122 Halwell Cross to Totnes Cross, Halwell, TQ9 7JG

Parish:  Halwell & Moreleigh

Development:  READVERTISEMENT (revised plans and amended description) Conversion and extension of shop and commercial premises to create enlarged retail area. New vehicle repair workshop and MOT bays, associated access and parking

Case Officer Update:                             

The Council had recently received an energy statement showing carbon reduction which culminated in a greater reduction than the 20% required, therefore the relevant reason for refusal was no longer relevant.  The Case Office outlined that a further 63 letters in support had been received, all reiterating the reasons summarised within the report.  One letter of objection had been received outlining a concern that the intersection would be more dangerous following this expansion.

Following questions from the Members, the Case Officer confirmed that, should the application be approved, then a dormouse survey may be required.

Speakers included:         Supporter – Mr J Hollis; Ward Member – Cllr Helen Reeve;

During the debate, several Members noted the commitment of the applicant to local produce and helping the local community.  It was also noted that the entrance had not been opposed by Highways, and some Members felt the new entrance may be an improvement. 

The Head of Development Management clarified that the ecology reports had suggested mitigations for the dormice issue and therefore this could be reviewed by the Council’s Ecologist and, if approved, would be conditioned.

Members then voted on approval of this application, citing the following reasons for going against officer recommendation:

Reasons against –    

1) not of a scale that would lead to additional trips, natural growth to process, therefore there would not be additional journeys, but there might even be a net reduction in journeys.

2) the benefits accrued meant it was necessary

3) the larger development up the hill would help diminish the impact of the build and access would be an improvement.

Proposed conditions:

1) subject to dormouse issue resolution,

2) Landscaping and screening

3) Carbon reduction

4) External lighting

5) Provision of local produce based on the applicant’s current sales and plan

6) Full conditions delegated to Proposer, Seconder, Chair, Ward Member, and Head of Development Management.

Recommendation:       Refusal

Committee decision:  Conditional approval

6c)  1944/19/FUL        Land between 19 & 21 Clayman’s Pathway, Ivybridge, PL21 9UZ

Town:  Ivybridge

Development:   Householder application for proposed internal and external alterations

A Committee Member felt that the officer’s report did not go into sufficient detail regarding potential flooding and that the Committee should make a site visit to see the potential risks.  This was put to the vote whence the Committee voted to defer this application so that a site visit could be made.

As dictated by procedure, the speakers were offered the opportunity to speak, which the objector accepted.  The Case Officer then gave her presentation with no updates to the report. Following a question from a Member, the officer confirmed that there had not been a contamination study made but that this could be conditioned.

Speakers included:       Objector – Mr C Whitley;

Recommendation:       Conditional approval

Committee decision:  Deferral