This site uses cookies Learn More

General Discussion

Lynne
Lynne
12 Oct 2021 16:10

This planning application is on the agenda at the TDC Planning Committee meeting being held next Tuesday (19th Oct.)

 

Dawlish Town Council recommended refusal. TDC planners recommending approval.

 

https://democracy.teignbridge.gov.uk/documents/s13706/7d.21.01788.HOU%203%20Southdowns%20Road.pdf

Lynne
Lynne
19 Oct 2021 17:24

Decision deferred. A site visit by TDC planning committee members needs to take place before any decision gets made. 

Cassandra
Cassandra
20 Oct 2021 17:09

Does this mean that TDC planners had made their decision to recommend approval before visiting the site & not knowing how it impacted on the other surrounding houses?

Lynne
Lynne
20 Oct 2021 17:41

I've just listened to the podcast again just in case there was an answer to your question - but there was none.

The person who would know though is Cllr John Petherick. He attended this meeting (via zoom) arguing for a site visit by Cllrs. He made the point that Dawlish Town Council planning committee members had visited the site and he himself had also done so - twice. So was he implying that no site visit had been made by TDC planners? 

The objection to this planning application is based on potential overlooking. TDC Local Plan Policy WE8 to be precise. 

Lynne
Lynne
20 Oct 2021 17:50

This is policy WE8. I suspect it is WE8 c iii (that I've highlighted in red that is the basis of the objection)

 

WE8 Domestic Extensions, Ancillary Domestic Curtilage Buildings and Boundary Treatments To ensure existing dwellings can be adapted and improved while complementing the character of existing residential areas and protecting the living conditions of neighbours, minor developments within residential curtilages such as extensions, outbuildings, other means of enclosure and renewable energy installations will be permitted if:

a) the design and materials are complementary to the existing building;

b) in Conservation Areas the design and materials are also complementary to the character of the area;

c) the scale is appropriate to the existing building and would not: i. overdevelop the site or result in the provision of insufficient amenity space ii. result in the undue loss of outlook or light to habitable rooms of neighbouring properties iii. reduce the level of privacy enjoyed by neighbouring properties iv. have a dominant or overbearing impact on neighbouring properties or the street-scene

d) there is no net loss of any trees, hedgerows or other key features (e.g. stone boundary walls) which contribute to the character and amenities of the property and/or area; e) compensatory provision for car parking, garaging, cycle storage, and refuse and recycling areas displaced by the development can be made where necessary;

and f) it can be demonstrated that the proposals are in a location that will not affect the integrity of the South Hams SAC.

Teignpot
Teignpot
24 Oct 2021 07:52

There is no implication that the planners didn't visit!

Surely you know that there's a difference between planners and councillors?

Lynne
Lynne
24 Oct 2021 08:23

Did you miss the question mark? If things aren't stated explicitly then all sorts of things can be implied.

Fully aware of the difference between planners (officers of the council) and councillors (members of the council) thank you very much.

Suggest anyone wanting to know if planners visited the site or not to contact either the planning department at TDC or one of the local district councillors - Cllr J Petherick or Cllr G. Taylor

Teignpot
Teignpot
24 Oct 2021 11:36

And you got the answer to your question mark. It's Cassandra who doesn't know the difference between a planner and a councillor, which your response allowed to continue by not correcting her. 
 

Seems like you're still sore about being called out for your support of the sham at Warren Farm. Thank you very much...

Lynne
Lynne
24 Oct 2021 12:04

I'm not sore, as you put it, about the Warren Farm issue.  It saddens me, yes. But I am not angry about it. Was it duplicity on the part of the landowner at the time when so many of us were trying to defend his ownership of his land, or did he subsequently change his mind about what he wanted to happen to his farm? I guess the only person who would know the answer to that is the landowner. 

Provided Warren Farm doesn't get the go ahead to be developed, and there are very good planning policy reasons why it should not,  I will be satisfied. We will have to wait and see what the next stage in the Local Plan Review has to say. 

 

Ps Just re-read the first four posts on this thread - it seems to me now that Cassandra and myself were perhaps talking at cross puposes. It didn't occur to me that she was confusing planners (employees of the council)with planning committee members (elected councillors). Was that the case @Cassandra?

Cassandra
Cassandra
24 Oct 2021 17:57

I'm not au fait with the inner workings of the council, never having been employed by anything remotely like that in the past but what I do know is that if the case goes to appeal, a final planning decision is made by a Senior Planning Officer, usually from the office in Bristol. He/she considers all aspects of the case, usually visits the site & takes into account all correspondence relating to the matter. Surely it makes sense that all the evidence from whatever source is taken into account when the final decision is made, or do these various departments not correspond with each other?

1 Agree
Comment Please sign in or sign up to post