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.65/23         

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)       0384/23/OPA       Land At Sx 652 517, Penn Park, Modbury Parish:  Modbury Parish Council

Development:  READVERTISEMENT (viability appraisal submitted with revised affordable housing provision and open market housing mix). Outline Planning Application (with all matters reserved apart from access) for demolition of existing buildings and a residential redevelopment of up to 40 dwellings, including the formation of access and associated works on land at Penn Park, Modbury

Case Officer Update: 

The Case Officer summarised the key issues, namely that:

•          Principle of Development/Sustainability.

•          Affordable Housing and Housing Mix.

•          Local Infrastructure.

•          Noise and disturbance from adjoining buildings/uses.

•          Contamination and geotechnical.

•          Heritage, Landscape and trees.

•          Ecology, Travel Plan, Vehicle Access, Low Carbon Development, and Drainage.

In response to questions raised, the Officer’s reported that:

•          Drovers path was unregistered land and not in the control of anyone although part of the path was accessible to the landowner.

•          The indicative plan shows the spillway and swale.  If water levels got too high in the attenuation baisn, it would go into the spillway and therefore bypass the property. During the development phase the construction management plan would include addressing any surface water issues.

•          This outline application was for up to 40 homes.

•          There were no proposals to change the footpath along the road apart from cutting back the vegetation.

•          The location of the bus stop on the eastern curve was the only place that could accommodate because of the size of the verge.

•          As this was a small development only a few people would use the bus service.  A visibility concern was raised on crossing the road but felt this was a minor risk.

•          National guidelines set out that the ideal walking distance to a bus stop was 400 metres this bus stop would be 500 metres.

•          The bus stop was just with the 30mph zone.

•          The criteria to move the 30mph sign was not met and would be a departure from policy to move the sign.  Would also make enforcement more difficult for the police.

•          Another developer Bloors delivered an open market housing mix aligned with the wider mix for the area.

•          To be policy compliant the developer would need to provide 30% of units which equate to 12 units. They were offering 4 units (10%).

•          Land value was calculated as a desktop exercise on viability, land values as well as taking in account whether the land was developable.

•          House prices have been volatile however do try to get comparable properties within a 2-year period and use data and from sites such as Right Move and Land Registry.

Members raised a number of safety concerns on the higher number of school children catching the bus and crossing the road.

Having heard from speakers on behalf of the supporter, Parish Council and Ward Member.  Members debated the application.  During the debate, one Member felt there was a danger with the highways and did not want the responsibility of an accident on their hands.  Another Member felt that the 30% affordable housing needs to be addressed also the safety of the route and therefore supported the officer’s recommendation.

Recommendation:                 Refusal

Committee decision:             Refusal

6b)       4021/21/VARDevelopment site at SX 809597, Steamer

                                    Quay Road, Totnes

                                    Town:  Totnes

Development:  Application for variation of condition 2 (approved drawings) of planning consent 4165/17/FUL [erection of a 68 bed Care Home (use class C2) with associated car parking, refuse and external landscaping]

Cllr Hodgson (proposer) and Cllr Allen (seconder) requested a deferment to allow Members to undertake a site visit before considering the application.  A vote was taken to defer and following the vote this application was deferred to the next meeting with the inclusion of a site visit.

Committee decision:Deferred for a site visit

6c)       0156/24/HHO   28 Redwalls Meadow Dartmouth TQ6 9PR

                                      Town:  Dartmouth

Development:  Householder application for erection of single storey ancillary residential annexe and associated works.

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

•          Annex building meets the markers of being an ancillary domestic building.

•          No sub-division of the plot of independent dwelling was being sought.

•          As such consideration and recommendation has been made on this basis.

•          Building proposed does not threaten primacy of host (less than 50% footprint and 2m lower than eaves).

•          Harmonious in terms of scale, mass and material finish.

•          Plenty of amenity space within the garden remaining.

•          No detrimental impact on neighbour amenity.

•          Both drainage scheme and use type could be conditioned on any approval.

Having heard from speakers on behalf of the supporter and Parish Council and Ward Member.  Members debated the application.  During the debate, Members raised concerns on entrance from Mount Boone and access to the application site, garden amenity space and boundary fences on the application site.  It was therefore proposed that Members undertake a site visit.  Following a vote, it was agreed that the application would be deferred to the next meeting to allow Members to undertake a site visit.

Committee decision:Deferred for a site visit