Dev Management 15.02.12
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE HELD AT FOLLATON HOUSE, TOTNES, ON WEDNESDAY, 15 FEBRUARY 2012
Members in attendance * Denotes attendance Ø Denotes apology for absence Ø Cllr A D Barber Ø Cllr P W Hitchins Ø Cllr H D Bastone * Cllr J M Hodgson * Cllr J Brazil * Cllr T R Holway * Cllr C G Bruce-Spencer * Cllr D W May (Chairman) * Cllr B F Cane Ø Cllr J T Pennington Ø Cllr R J Carter * Cllr R Rowe * Cllr S E Cooper * Cllr P C Smerdon * Cllr P Coulson * Cllr J W Squire * Cllr P K Cuthbert * Cllr R C Steer (Vice Chairman) * Cllr M Hannaford * Cllr R J Vint * Cllr J D Hawkins * Cllr J A Westacott MBE * Cllr M J Hicks * Cllr S A E Wright
Item Minute Ref No Officers in attendance and participating No below refers All Principal Planning Officer, Senior Planning agenda Officers, Solicitor and Member Services Manager items Apps. 10/2824/11/F Landscape Officer and 53/2994/11/F
DM.38/11 MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 January, 2012 were not signed off by the Chairman, as Members requested that an amendment be made to the minutes relating to the discussion on Application 46/2474/11/F - Sun Bay Hotel, Hope Cove (minute DM.36/11(b) (i) refers). The amendments would be made and the minutes represented to the next meeting of Development Management Committee to be held on 14 March 2012.
DM.39/11 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members and officers were invited to declare any interests in the items of business to be considered during the meeting. These were recorded as follows:
Cllr J W Squire declared a personal interest in application 55/2459/11/F (Householder application for erection of garden shed – Dormers, Ilbert Road, Thurlestone, Kingsbridge) by virtue of knowing the registered objector, and he remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon; - 24 - Dev Management 15.02.12
Cllrs B F Cane, R Rowe, P C Smerdon and R C Steer all declared a personal interest in application 53/2994/11/F (Installation of two wind turbines on 18 metre towers – Coleridge Farm Cottage, Coleridge Lane, Chillington, Kingsbridge) by virtue of knowing the applicant and they all remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon;
Cllr P C Smerdon also declared a personal interest in application 56/2793/11/F (Replace existing motorcycle garage and workshop with two new three bedroom semi-detached houses – Warland Garage, Totnes) by virtue of having been to school with the applicants son, and he remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon;
Cllr J A Westacott declared a personal interest in application 56/2793/11/F (Replace existing motorcycle garage and workshop with two new three bedroom semi-detached houses – Warland Garage, Totnes) by virtue of previously using the garage to service her motorbike, and she remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon;
Cllr R J Vint declared a personal interest in application 56/2793/11/F (Replace existing motorcycle garage and workshop with two new three bedroom semi-detached houses – Warland Garage, Totnes) by virtue of helping the residents of Warlands to set up a resident’s association, and he remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon;
Cllr J Brazil declared a personal interest in application 10/2824/11/F (Installation of 15kw wind turbine on 20m mast with 6m blades – Chivelstone Barton, Chivelstone, Kingsbridge) by virtue of being known to the applicant and several of the objectors and he remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon;
Cllr J Brazil also declared a personal interest in application 10/3028/11/F (Proposed replacement dwelling – Hines Hill, East Prawle) by virtue of living near the application site, and he remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon.
DM.40/11 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Chairman announced that the following members of the public had registered their wish to speak at the meeting:-
10/2824/11/F: Objector – Mr Steve Dooley: Supporter – Ms Kelly Wakeham: Installation of 15kw wind turbine on 20m mast with 6m blades – Chivelstone Barton, Chivelstone, Kingsbridge; 53/2994/11/F: Objector – Mr Andrew Fenlon: Supporter – Mr Nick Zorab: Installation of two wind turbines on 18m towers – Coleridge Farm Cottage, Coleridge Lane, Chillington, Kingsbridge;
- 25 - Dev Management 15.02.12
55/2459/11/F: Objector – Ms Susan Dwyer: Supporter – Mr Peter Jones: Householder application for erection of garden shed – Dormers, Ilbert Road, Thurlestone, Kingsbridge; 23/3243/11/F: Objector – Mr Paul Collings: Resubmission of planning application 23/2518/11/F for demolition of existing bungalow and garage and erection of replacement dwelling house – Daisy Hills, Diptford, Totnes; 47/3219/11/F: Objector – Ms Elizabeth Foley: Supporter – Ms Penny Knapman: Replacement of existing dwelling with new dwelling – hopeside, South Milton, Kingsbridge; 10/3028/11/F: Supporter – Mr Chris Cunningham: Proposed replacement dwelling – Hines Hill, East Prawle, Devon.
DM.41/11 SITE INSPECTIONS
a) Applications deferred at this meeting
RESOLVED
That a Site Inspection Group comprising the Chairman and four other Members, who were present at the meeting, be appointed to consider applications deferred at this meeting for that purpose.
DM.42/11 PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The Planning Case Officers submitted details of planning applications as indicated in Appendix A to these minutes.
During discussion of these planning applications, the following motions (which were in contradiction to the planning officer recommendations in the published agenda report, or were determined by a Chairman’s casting vote) were PROPOSED and SECONDED and on being put to the vote were either CARRIED or LOST:-
a) In respect of application 10/2824/11/F (Installation of 15kw wind turbine on 20m mast with 6m blades – Chivelstone Barton, Chivelstone, Kingsbridge), the Senior Planning Officer (SPO) advised that a letter from Marldon Parish Council had been withdrawn and two late responses had been received from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), both of whom had no objection to the application. He also advised the Committee that a large number of responses had been received relating to this application, and that the officer recommendation was for refusal on two grounds, being within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the impact on a listed building. The SPO also advised that the application had been readvertised as the original notices made no reference to the setting of Listed Buildings. The second advertisement expired on the 24 February.
- 26 - Dev Management 15.02.12
The Development Management Committee was asked to make a decision on the application with the view that if no new issues are raised through any further representations the application can be issued on the 25th February. The SPO also confirmed that the site was in the AONB.
A number of slides were then shown, which indicated the location of the wind turbine, together with a plan, and a number of photographs from various locations towards the application site. The SPO confirmed that the Environmental Health Officers had raised no objection in relation to noise and shadow flicker. Wildlife had been considered but the Landscape Officer and the RSPB raised no objections. However the Landscape Officer had raised an objection in relation to the impact within an AONB and the setting with the church. This objection was supported by the AONB Manager. Finally, the SPO advised that South Pool Parish Council had raised no objection to the proposed wind turbine.
The Ward Member advised that, regardless of the recommendation, he felt it important that the public could see how this decision had been taken as it had been a contentious matter and a number of meetings had been held. His own view was that he did not find wind turbines upsetting, but he accepted that others found them abhorrent. He was surprised that the interaction with a Listed Building had been raised as a concern because when the skyline was viewed other things could be seen. In terms of the affect within the AONB, there were a number of beautiful views in the area but questioned whether this view was breathtaking enough to be adversely affected. A number of the photographs shown would have been taken from gateways, and it was fair to say that often, travelling in a car, the view was not the same and would only be seen for a split second. In terms of use, this application was not to make profit, it was to help the economic viability of a farm. The final point made was that the local view appeared to be evenly split, and as the Parish Council had made no objection, he would favour support of the application, albeit a finely balanced decision.
During discussion, the following points were made:
The Conservation Officer advised that his objection was supported by guidance from English Heritage;
A Member noted that a policy was needed to assist Members in coming to a consistent view in relation to renewable energy applications, and in this particular case, he could not see an issue with approving the application;
- 27 - Dev Management 15.02.12
One Member noted that a similar wind turbine had been erected within his ward and close to his property, yet there had been no noise disturbance. The turbine was also located close to a Grade 1 Listed church, so perhaps there was an issue of consistency;
A Member stated that the planning system should support local businesses and, whilst this application was sensitive in environmental terms and would have an impact, he felt the turbine would not dominate;
Another Member added that this was a manmade landscape and Members should recognise the need for change, and that she would prefer to see a lively landscape;
Some Members felt strongly that the AONB should be consistently protected, otherwise there might be a danger of losing that designation.
The following motion was then PROPOSED and SECONDED and on being put to the vote was declared CARRIED:
‘That planning permission be conditionally approved’.
Conditions
1. Removal of wind turbines at the end of their productive or economic life 2. Material, finish and colour of development. b) In respect of application 23/3243/11/F (Resubmission of planning application 23/2518/11/F for demolition of existing bungalow and garage and erection of replacement dwelling house), the Senior Planning Officer (SPO) introduced the application and updated the Committee on the response from Diptford Parish Council. The Parish Council objected to the application on the grounds that it was on a prominent site, would be intrusive on the skyline, and amounted to overdevelopment. A late letter of objection was reported to Members which raised an additional concern about increase in traffic. The SPO went on to explain the position of the application site, and photographs were shown of the existing property. It was also explained that there had been an agricultural tie but that was no longer in place. The SPO advised that a previous application had been withdrawn, which had proposed extending the cartilage and erection of a garage building. This new proposal was to replace the existing bungalow with a two storey property but to excavate the site and alter the roof pitch so that the ridge height would not be higher than the existing property. - 28 - Dev Management 15.02.12
The SPO concluded by stating that on balance, officers considered that the two storey building would result in a visual improvement, whilst acknowledging the increase in overall volume, and therefore recommended conditional approval.
The local Ward Member advised the Committee that this application was on the boundary of two parishes, and that both Parish Councils objected to this application. The elevated position of the property meant it was visible for many miles which made it an important site. There was an existing garage but the application did not include a garage, so there were concerns that later applications may follow for further outbuildings on the site. Even without further applications this proposal alone amounted to overdevelopment of the site and therefore he could not support this application and would propose refusal.
During discussion the following points were raised:
A number of Members raised concerns over elements of the design of the property which included a roof pitch of 20 degrees. Members felt that this was not acceptable for a natural slate roof. In response Members were advised that this matter would be subject to Building Regulations which were separate to Planning Permission; it was acknowledged that the roof pitch was low for natural slate, however, any proposed change to the roofing material or roof pitch would be subject to a fresh planning application;
Another Member was concerned about the additional light pollution from the property in view of the elevated position and design which would lead to first floor windows being visible from a distance, and felt that this would not respect the nature and tranquillity of the area;
A number of Members felt that it would not be possible to construct a two storey building on site, without increasing the ridge height. In response, the SPO did show the photograph of the existing property which showed a relatively steep roof, and reminded Members that the proposal was for a much shallower roof, thereby contributing to the additional height. In addition, the ridge height would be monitored under Building Regulations;
One Member felt that the proposed design looked better than the existing property, but felt that there should be a condition relating to landscaping details and the building should be screened by trees;
- 29 - Dev Management 15.02.12
A number of Members were concerned that the increase in volume of the proposed property constituted overdevelopment, and, if the application were to be approved, that under no circumstances should any further development be permitted on the site.
The following motion was PROPOSED and SECONDED and on being put to the vote was declared CARRIED:
‘That planning permission be refused’.
Reasons for Refusal Large scale development in a prominent position within the landscape, combined with design concerns including shallow pitch of roof. Considered to be out of keeping with the area.
It was then:-
RESOLVED
That the planning applications considered at this meeting be determined as indicated in Appendix A to these minutes.
(Meeting commenced at 2.00 pm and concluded at 6.00 pm).
______Chairman
- 30 - Dev Management 15.02.12
APPENDIX A
10/2824/11/F
Installation of 15kw wind turbine on 20m mast with 6m blades. Chivelstone Barton, Chivelstone, Kingsbridge, TQ7 2LY. Mr A Wakeham
Parish Council - Chivelstone Parish Council’s Views – No objection Officer Update – Re-advertisement of application reference setting of Listed Building. Advert expiry date is 24th February. Recommend Committee is mindful to make a decision but no formal decision notice issued until 25th February dependant on whether any subsequent third party letters of representation raise new issues, when a decision will be taken under delegated powers in agreement with the Chairman of the Development Management Committee. Marldon Parish Council has withdrawn its objection. South Pool Parish Council has not commented on the merits of the application – error in officer report. Confirmation site is in AONB, not adjacent to it. RSPB and CAA raise no objection.
Recommendation – Refusal
Recommended Conditions – N/A
Committee Decision – Conditional Approval to be issued on 25th February, in accordance with Officer Recommendation.
Conditions 1. Removal of wind turbines at the end of their productive or economic life 2. Material, finish and colour of development.
53/2994/11/F
Installation of 2 wind turbines on 18m towers. Coleridge Farm Cottage, Coleridge Lane, Chillington, Kingsbridge, TQ7 2JG. J Darke Ltd
Parish Council - Stokenham Parish Council’s Views – No objection Officer Update RSPB – No objection CAA – No objection Corrections :
Proposal and Site Description states ‘two 15kw turbines’; this should be ‘two 11KW turbines’ Analysis Paragraph 6 states it is ‘neither a schedule 1 nor a schedule 2 development’; this should state ‘it is a schedule 2 development because its height exceeds 15m’.
Recommendation – Conditional approval
- 31 - Dev Management 15.02.12
Recommended Conditions
1. Removal of wind turbines at the end of their productive or economic life 2. Material, finish and colour of development.
Committee Decision – Conditional approval as per officer recommendation.
55/2459/11/F
Householder application for erection of garden shed. Dormers, Ilbert Road, Thurlestone, Kingsbridge, TQ7 3NY. Sir J Beckwith
Parish Council - Thurlestone Parish Council Views – Objection Officer Update - None
Recommendation – Conditional approval
Recommended Conditions 1. Standard time limit. 2. Accord with plans. 3. Obscure, fixed glazing. 4. Ancillary use.
Committee Decision – Conditional approval as per officer recommendation but with additional condition for retention of boundary hedge.
56/2793/11/F
Replace existing motorcycle garage and workshop with 2 new 3 bedroom semi- detached houses. Warland Garage, Warland, Totnes, TQ9 5EL. Mr B R Trott.
Town Council - Totnes Town Council Views – Objection Officer Update - None
Recommendation – Conditional approval, subject to the prior satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement dealing with affordable housing contribution (£9,500).
Recommended Conditions 1. Standard Time Limit 2. Accord with Plans 3. Floor Levels 4. Contaminated Land Investigation 5. Universal condition for development on land affected by contamination 6. Contaminated Land Remediation Verification report 7. Unsuspected Contamination 8. Importation of Material 9. Eaves Verges and Hips 10.Render Details 11.Timber Cladding 12.Joinery Details - 32 - Dev Management 15.02.12
13.Timber Doors and Windows 14.External Attachments to Building 15.Roofing Natural Slate 16.Removal of Permitted Development Rights 17.Sustainability CSH Level 4 18.Natural Stonework – edit condition to require retention of stone wall at front of property.
Committee Decision – Conditional approval & Section 106 agreement as per officer recommendation.
23/3243/11/F
Resubmission of planning application 23/2518/11/F for demolition of existing bungalow and garage and erection of replacement dwelling house. Daisy Hills, Diptford, Totnes TQ9 7NQ. Mr & Mrs A Langley
Parish Council - Harberton Parish Council Views – Strongly object Officer Update - Diptford Parish Council – Object on grounds of prominent site, intrusive on skyline and overdevelopment. Additional letter of objection raised new concern about increase in road traffic.
Recommendation – Conditional approval
Recommended Conditions 1. Time Limit 2. Plans 3. Removal of PD rights (extensions) 4. Eaves and verges 5. Ducts, flues, rainwater goods, vents 6. Render details 7. Windows/doors details 8. Roof details (natural slate) 9. Landscaping details 10. Hedge retention 11. Sustainable Code Level (4 or over) 12. Protected Species (recommendations from survey)
Committee Decision – Refusal. Large scale development in the countryside. Design, shallow pitch of roof, out of keeping with area, prominent within landscape.
47/3219/11/F
Replacement of existing dwelling with new dwelling. Hopeside, South Milton, Kingsbridge, TQ7 3JR. Mr & Mrs P & P Knapman
Parish Council - South Milton Parish Council Views – Objection Officer Update - Additional letter of objection raising concern about impact on Skerries.
Recommendation – Conditional approval - 33 - Dev Management 15.02.12
Recommended Conditions 1. Time Limit 2. Plans 3. Removal of PD rights (extensions) 4. Eaves and verges 5. Ducts, flues, rainwater goods, vents 6. Render details 7. Timber cladding 8. Windows/doors details 9. Roof details (natural slate) 10.Landscaping details 11.Sustainable Code Level (4 or over)
Committee Decision – Conditional approval as per officer recommendation with additional condition regarding the erection of a new roadside boundary wall to be constructed in reclaimed, or other local natural stonework.
10/3028/11/F
Proposed Replacement Dwelling. Hines Hill, East Prawle. Mr and Mrs Timmis
Parish Council - Chivelstone Parish Council Views – Objection Officer Update - Landscape officer and Natural England raise no objections subject to conditions about wildlife and drainage. Additional drainage condition recommended.
Recommendation – Conditional approval
Recommended Conditions 1. Time limit 2. Plans 3. Material samples 4. Eaves and verges 5. Local stone 6. Ducts, flues, rainwater goods, vents 7. Joinery 8. Removal of PD rights 9. Tree protection 10. External lighting 11. Sustainable Code Level (4 or over) 12. Wildlife and SSSI protection 13. Drainage
Committee Decision – Conditional approval as per officer recommendation, plus one extra condition for drainage.
- 34 -