To consider the submitted report on whether or not to grant planning permission for the relocation of Torbay School to MyPlace, Parkfield, Colin Road Paignton and the construction of new single storey extensions to help accommodate the school pursuant to planning application number P/2017/0121 (‘the Application’).  

Prior to consideration of Planning Application P/2017/0121/MPA, the Monitoring Officer presented her procedural briefing and recommendation (as circulated on 8 May 2017).  Members noted that the Council meeting’s Rules of Debate did not reflect the custom and practice of the debate followed by the Development Management Committee when considering Planning Applications.  Therefore, the Monitoring Officer had prepared a procedural recommendation to apply to the Council’s consideration of Planning Application P/2017/0121/MPA to ensure consistency.

The Monitoring Officer also reminded Members that, along with pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests, Members were required to ensure there could be no question of predetermination or bias when considering Planning Applications.  It was noted this required all Members (including those Members of the Development Management Committee who considered the application on 13 March 2017) to keep an open mind in respect of all the issues presented in relation to the Planning Application before reaching a decision.

Councillor Thomas (D) proposed and Councillor Tyerman seconded a procedural motion, which was agreed (unanimously) by the Council as set out below:

(i)         that Council suspends Standing Order A16.6 to A16.9 and adopts the following procedure for consideration of Planning Application P/2017/0121/MPA:

(a)       Standing Order A23.3 (i) to (iv) to be followed in respect of representations as follows:

(i)   introduction of item by officer;

(ii)  representations by objector(s) (5 minutes);

(iii)     representations by applicant, agent or supporters (5 minutes);

(iv)     officers to comment if necessary on matters raised above;

(b)       Questions by Members to the Planning Officers in respect of the application;

(c)       Once all questions have been asked, a motion will be put forward and seconded to open the application for debate, the options for the motion include:

            1.         Approval (with or without conditions);  or

            2.         Refusal (with reasons);  or

            3.         Deferment for further information or a site visit;  or

4.         Delegation for determination by an officer or other Committee of the Council

(d)       Members may speak more than once on a motion;

(e)       During the debate if any further additions (such as reasons for refusal or additional conditions) are suggested to the motion, the Chairwoman will seek consent of the proposer and seconder for these to be included in the original motion.  If consent is not forthcoming, then a further motion can be moved once the motion on the table has been dealt with;

(f)        Prior to the vote on the motion, the Chairwoman will confirm the details of the motion, including asking the Planning Officer to clarify if there are any additional technical conditions required or reasons for refusal;  and

(g)       A vote will be taken on the motion and the Chairwoman will announce the result of the vote.  If the motion fails the Chairwoman will invite Members to propose an alternative motion which will be subject to debate prior to the vote and following (c) to (f) above;  and

(ii)        that the Monitoring Officer is authorised to update the Constitution to reflect this practice for consideration of future Planning Applications by full Council and Development Management Committee.

Members then considered the Planning Application.  At its meeting on 13 March 2017, the Development Management Committee considered a planning application for the relocation of Torbay School to MyPlace, Parkfield, Colin Road, Paignton and the construction of a new single storey extension to help accommodate the school.  The officer recommendation to the Committee was conditional approval.  The Committee resolved to refuse the application on the grounds of overdevelopment on the site and the impact the proposal would have on neighbouring properties by reasons of the proximity to these properties.  The Committee’s decision was not in accordance with paragraph 4 of the Terms of Reference for the Development Management Committee (Schedule 4 of the Constitution) and therefore the Executive Head of Business Services referred the application to Council for decision.  The Council considered the submitted report setting out details of the planning application.

Prior to the meeting, Members undertook a site visit and written representations were circulated to Members on 8 and 9 May 2017.

The Team Leader Development Management and Planning Officer presented the planning application at the meeting and responded to Members’ questions.

The Chairwoman allowed additional time for speakers making representations on the application (10½ for speakers against the application and 10½ minutes for the speaker in support of the application).  Members heard representations from Mr Sinclair, Mr Watts and Mr Hurst against the application and Mr Dempsey (Director of Children’s Services and applicant) in support of the application.

Councillor Kingscote proposed and Councillor Morey seconded a motion as determined by the Development Management Committee on 13 March 2017 as set out below:

that the application be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment on the site and the impact the proposal would have on neighbouring properties by reason of the proximity to these properties.

During the debate, Councillor Kingscote and Councillor Morey accepted additional reasons for refusal by Members along with advice from Planning and Legal officers, which were then incorporated in the original motion. 

A recorded vote was taken on the motion.  The voting was taken by roll call as follows:  For: Councillors Barnby, Ellery, Excell, Hill, Kingscote, Lewis (B), Lewis (C), Morey, O’Dwyer, Robson, Stockman, Stringer, Stubley, Sykes, Thomas (D), Thomas (J), Tolchard, Tyerman and Winfield (19);  Against:  Councillors Amil, Bye, Darling (M), Haddock, King, Manning, Mills, Parrott and Stocks (9);  Abstain:  Councillors Brooks, Carter, Darling (S), Doggett, Pentney and Sanders (6);  and Absent: Mayor Oliver, Councillors Bent and Morris (3).  Therefore the motion was carried as follows:

that the application be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site and the impact the proposal would have on neighbouring properties by reason of the proximity to these properties.  In addition the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the core tourism area, constitute poor design, loss of leisure facilities and has failed to demonstrate it will not contribute to flood risk within the critical drainage area which is contrary to Policies T01 T02 DE1 DE3, SC1, Sc2 and ER2 of the Torbay Local Plan.  The perceived benefits to the provision of education facilities in Torbay are not considered to overcome the harm caused by the proposals.

(Note:  During consideration of Minute 22, Councillor Bent left the meeting.)