Minutes of the online meeting of SALCOMBE TOWN COUNCIL On Wednesday 25th November 2020


* – Attendance; A- Absent; N – No Apologies Received

Cllr Mrs N. Turton – Mayor (in the Chair) *
Cllr. M. Fice *
Cllr Mrs Bricknell *
Cllr T. Lang N
Cllr R. Moore *
Cllr Mrs L. Sinnott *
Cllr M. Long (also District Councillor) *
Cllr I. Hatch *
Cllr A. Hainey *
Cllr M. Payne *
Cllr Miss D. Ward *
Cllr P. Lafferty-Holt *

Also in attendance:
Dist. Cllr Mrs J. Pearce *
Cty. Cllr. R Gilbert *
Gill Claydon (Clerk) *
Pete Robinson (Cemetery Manager and Project Officer) *
Tom Ladds Kingsbridge Gazette *
WPC Jo Pengilly A


Members were invited to acknowledge any declarable interests, including the nature and extent of such interests that they may have in any items to be considered at this meeting. Ongoing advice was that Cllr Long would not take part in planning decisions due to him being on the District Development Management Committee. Cllrs Mrs Turton and Mrs Bricknell both declared an interest in 3320/20/FUL being members of the Salcombe Community Land Trust who were in negotiations with the same landowner.

  • Mark and Jane Alexander wished to speak on the neighbouring Lealholme, Allenhayes Road application. Mark Alexander referred to the emailed document he had sent earlier which was circulated to all councillors and raised further points regarding the Conservation Area and their belief this was a late Victorian House of some historical interest. This proposal, in their view, did not respect the distinctive local character and was all part of the cumulative change which should be avoided. He referred to the raised roof and changes that would make it rather domineering. The neighbouring properties retained original dormer windows which were much smaller. The proposal also included an inset balcony which was of a fairly large size and within the Conservation Area plan should not be acceptable.
  • Chris Cunningham and James Birchett of Harrison Sutton were present to speak on behalf of 3643/20/FUL Orestone End. Chris Cunningham advised he had cut his notes down to ensure just a 3-minute presentation whilst James would share drawings as relevant at the right point and they would then answer questions. He assured everyone that they appreciated the sensitive building and location of site within the Conservation Area and due to this hoped their proposal had resulted in significant enhancement to Salcombe. This application was therefore alteration and refurbishment of the existing building and not to knock down. He believed the existing property was not attractive but an unsympathetic and brutal building, especially the lower part. Its origins whilst historic most of the build dated back to the 1970s. The existing flat roof terrace was unattractive featureless and overlooked. They proposed two relatively modest extensions to the building one at ground level and to roof over the existing courtyard. The other extension was more controversial, but he felt a good solution to a challenging situation by extending and fully addressed the exposure issues. It fitted with adjoining buildings in the Conservation Area. There were various other alterations to improve car parking space, make an attractive street scene, improved elevations, and elegant inset balconies along with setting back the glazing. The existing access steps to the foreshore would also be improved. The materials to be used were high quality and traditional with the copper treated so as not to affect marine life. In considering neighbouring properties and views where they were extending onto the roof terrace the neighbour would be able look over the top of the extension. To minimise impact they would enlist a sympathetic contractor and would deal with material delivery and work outside of the summer season and would use a barge bring things from the water thus impact only a section of foreshore which was previously impacted and this would not affect the sea grass. This would be an ecological and biodiversity improvement with a well thought out good quality scheme for sympathetic improvements due to it being in such a prominent position.

Cllr Moore was interested why the terrace was unusable and what definition explained this. Chris advised that this was the only amenity space outdoors for this building, but it was overlooked and had zero privacy. It was also windswept being straight across on an exposed location. They felt it was currently a bleak space. It was suggested that it was only overlooked getting closer to the building and the building gave some privacy so Cllr Moore further questioned the half barreled roof, why was there a change in roof design as it was surrounded by Anglo Saxon sloping roofs. They wanted something interesting without being pretentious. A conventional pitched roof would shade the bulk behind by day but a flat roof, barrel bolt allowed some more interesting design without height of traditional slate pitched roof. It was not an extrusion but had character in its own right.

Cllr Miss Ward noted the statement that the building was quite drab, but they now proposed to cover it in Delabole slate which was a drab covering not in keeping with any other buildings along the seafront. Chris responded that there was already slate on the front and the Delabole slate they wished to use was a beautiful slate grey of reclaimed quality. Cllr Miss Ward disagreed as currently she felt the buildings looked pretty as they were painted. They were to paint the render faced on to the road said and replacing the existing slate facing onto the water at the lower part. Chris felt this was an interesting point on which the Conservation Area officer might disagree preferring reclaimed Delabole.

Cllr Fice noted the reference to improving the parking area and question how as it was only a limited space. He had seen the drawings which appeared no different. The response was they were improving the front of the building and it was for practicality as at present the garage was not usable. Cllr Fice noted that nobody used garages and they were not moving the house back, so it was the same space as present and this was a misnomer. Visually it would be more attractive when finished and the right-hand side was a significant step down which improved. The bottom part of the property as it stood was 1960s and had been designed to replicate what was there before the old sailing club, a start line dating back to the 1930/40s so that was preserving the historical context previously. The architects advised they had looked at previous history and it was two parts, upper building and lower and probably in the 1970s the two were merged so it was more a case of styling the lower part as it was brutal and not much joy in it. Plus, the quality of stonework was not good. The remaining Conservation Area was elegant, so this was an opportunity without detrimental impact to improve the building. James Birchett referred to the kerb side improvements.

Cllr Payne raised concern with regard to online and community opposition to this application and advised he remembered the original two houses. Complaints ranged from colour to affecting the Listed Buildings surrounding and public access to the view. Changing the foreshore, would block public views of the sea, block sunlight with many more points stated. Cllr Miss Ward felt grey was not good as there were bright colours around Salcombe that gave it character. The response was that there was no reason technically that it could not be coloured render.

Cllr Hainey suggested that if the clients wished to spend money renovating in this area why not leave the historic property as it was as the proposal was out of keeping.

District and County Councillor Reports

Cty Cllr Gilbert sent a resume of matters by email and advised that along the A379 at Edmeston there continued to be traffic lights and work would start on January 11th for the full repair. He had sent various Covid 19 information which he hoped town council had found helpful. He had also advised recent about the Avian bird flu and various general funding streams available.

Recycling Centres were to remain open through this latest lockdown. Ash die back was proving far more costly than first thought due to works required. The Fiscal year 2021/22 was going to be very challenging following the pandemic costs of 2020. The St. Dunstan Road streetlights he believed were now fixed. Scaffolding in Fore Street had been reviewed and he assumed the glass recycling lorry was now able to access Fore Street or had made alternative arrangements. Regarding the Park & Ride Pay & Display monies he hoped after his intervention matters would now improve. He had forwarded Town Council an economic briefing from County for South Hams recently, which he hoped everyone found interesting and he would update Town Council on Covid 19 matters during his attendance at this meeting.

Cty Cllr Gilbert noted he had referred at Malborough wrongly to the glass collection issue around scaffolding and hope that this had now been resolved. Cllr Long advised that the scaffolding remained in place and the glass contractor was using a smaller truck. Cty Cllr Gilbert noted changes but felt that with the Covid update everything was moving so fast he would leave that item.

With regard to the Government Budget highlights this day were adult social care precept could be increased from 2 – 3% and County would decide on this in due course. Pothole repairs and congestion on roads a further £1.7billion had been allocated. Homelessness there was to be a 60% increase to deal with this, but growth would not get back to 2019 levels until the end of 2022, as at this moment. There was also a £1.2 billion subsidy for gigabyte rollout for digital matters. School budget increased from £46.7 billion to £49.8 billion. £220 million was allocated for the holiday food programme. There was much more in the new budget, but this was a quick overview.

Cllr Lafferty-Holt was pleased to see that the overgrown bushes at the junction with Bennett Road was cleared and questioned whether this was town or County Council. The Mayor noted that her husband may have had a hand in this which Cty Cllr Gilbert congratulated and thanked Richard Turton.
Cty Cllr Gilbert left the meeting to attend other parish meetings.

Dist Cllr Mrs Pearce hoped that any previous problems with waste collection changes had now subsided as she felt it had gone quieter. Cllr Fice noted that the previous Friday one end of Buckley Street was ignored for food caddie collection but Dist Cllr Mrs Pearce felt this was an isolated incident as collection of food caddies was a special service for those who did not have brown bins.

She continued that the District main focus at present was getting the current wave of grants out to businesses who were required to close during the 4-week lockdown. She explained the criteria for grants. Second homes were included in these grants even though November was not normally a busy time for lettings. However, the Regulations said they must be included. Devon Communities Together was working with Districts to assist regarding problems brought on by restrictions and District were going to employ 3 Covid marshals for a period of 6 months out of further Government funding. These would be Compliance Officers who would act as an active presence on ground in towns to ensure businesses were complying with Covid restrictions during the busy period for Christmas and through to New Year. They were not in place to catch people but offering advice and then if premises were not complying enforce. There was an Emergency Welfare Support Fund given to County Council and devolved to District Council and applications were getting busier. This was the tip of the iceberg as people had previously been protected but some were caught out by the ending of furlough 31st October. She believed unemployment could rise from now on and people would be in a difficult place. She asked if town council had been informed about money in the Reopening High Street Fund. She apologised as this was European money which was ring fenced so it was hard to think up schemes as to what to claim but if there was anything put them in and claim. Regarding the District Budget they were still awaiting payments from Government for reimbursement relating to their lack of income during the pandemic and so far, had not seen any but the first payment was December and second January. That scheme would continue into June 2021, so this was good news if paid. This income would assist District plans for the following summer for schemes such as Whitestrand car park closure and the town and District could start to talk about managing this for another year once funding was known. Personally, she would like to see Whitestrand as a café plaza rather than a car park.

Homelessness per se was not a huge problem in the South Hams as it was managed by housing officers well. The officers encouraged people to get in touch immediately they had problems so if they could manage that period to find an alternative solution then people were not actively out on the street. There were a few rough sleepers, but only a couple, which was often due to other problems and this made it hard to get them into accommodation but if managed before issues arose it did not become a huge problem.

Dist Cllr Long had received a number of calls recently regarding the application to the Local Restriction Support Grant which flagged up issues where some businesses closed in the last lockdown so when Regulations came out from Government, particularly food retailers, the food outlet guidance did not go into enough detail. Some did not need to close, but did and were refused a grant simply because they were not mandated to close. Some food outlets are seen as essential – fudge shop, sweet shops, and ice cream parlour. This needed more clarity as they could have opened. North Sands toilets refurbishment was completed, reopened and looking really good so the facility could now be cleaned far more efficiently and effectively. He just hoped they were not damaged or misused going forward. The maintenance team had gone on to commence South Sands toilets which were slightly more complicated as much of the pipework was behind tiles and blocked due to a lot of horizontal services that trapped dirt. They were tidying up drains and dealing with those issues. The work might seem excessive but whereas District to used to spend time on maintenance to unblock by doing this upgrade it should cure the problems. Once refurbished South Sands toilets would stay closed till reopening in spring.

The Mayor enquired about the High Street Funding considering how onerous the requirements were and whether it was worth it due to criteria. Dist Cllr Mrs Pearce advised that the requirements were around accounting and branding products so for Salcombe with their processes this would be worth doing.

Cllr Fice noted that the Brewery Quay officer’s report had still not been uploaded, after 4 weeks. to the planning portal so nobody knew why it went to delegated authority. Dist Cllr Pearce was surprised and advised she would ask again. Cllr Lafferty-Holt raised the introduction of Compliance Officers and was curious with the nation spiralling into debt whether it was worth employing people to have cosy fireside chats and was this not pointless. Cllr Long advised this was Government grant funding would provide a presence to deal with complaints directly and these officers would be working alongside Environmental Health officers and be able to take enforcement action quickly, if necessary. This was to ensure businesses were complying and keeping everyone safe and with two officers spread over such a wide area this would not be much. Dist Cllr Long acknowledged that whilst this seemed folly to have someone on the ground to monitor as most businesses in Salcombe were complying, elsewhere, he had heard, was not so compliant.

Cllr Lafferty-Holt continued and raised Whitestrand car park as various people had spoken to him about this area and were keen to have it closed the following and other summers to utilise this central open space. He enquired at what point this discussion could take place. Dist Cllr Mrs Pearce these next few weeks were needed for District to get organised with the change in restrictions, but conversation would start on this soon after Christmas. District wanted to give businesses proper time to get themselves organised when this initially was put in place but the Covid requirements made this difficult but next year, if agreed, they would have more time to get ready.

Cllr Miss Ward also questioned the new officers. She asked if they would have any jurisdiction over holiday homeowners who should not be in their homes. Dist Cllr Mrs Pearce noted that technically it was the police who had jurisdiction, but it was a grey area although if the property was a business District could look at it. However once lockdown was over, they could be used. Towards the end of the last lockdown some holiday homes owners took it that they could arrive a week earlier to get their properties ready for the date given so they could have their businesses up and running. Cllr Miss Ward noted they should not have been there as the Government £10,000 funding was provided to assist business and for local people to be hired to do the work.


The Minutes of the online meeting dated 11th November 2020 were approved to be duly signed by the Mayor as a true and correct record.


The applications below were considered by councillors and the following response submitted to District Planning by the Town Clerk:
To assist discussion Cllr Fice asked if application 3320/20/FUL could be moved and dealt with after the tree applications.
• 3156/20/FUL Relocation of existing oil tanks Moult Hill Barn, Moult Hill, Salcombe, TQ8 8LF – Response 3rd December – No comment.
• 3312/20/HHO Householder application for extension, internal alterations, and changes to external appearance Deep Blue Yonder, Sandhills Road, Salcombe, TQ8 8JP – Response 3rd December – No comment.
• 3320/20/FUL Proposed residential development comprising 27 dwellings with associated amenities and infrastructure Land at West End Garage, Main Road, Salcombe – Response 3rd December
Objection – Salcombe Town Council (‘STC’) understood that this development site was included within the Joint Local Plan (‘JLP’) and the Salcombe Neighbourhood Plan (‘NP’), and as such dd not have a problem with development on this site. However, the JLP and NP both included a development of 20 houses when this proposal was for 27 house and there were significant issues with the proposed development. There was also a concern that a development of open market houses just across the road had not been completed as it was understood that the houses were not selling, so would these properties proposed be saleable. There also appeared to be a bit of licence taken with some of the reports with one report stating that there was ‘no records of historical petrol and fuel sites within 250m of site’, another stated that there was no evidence of Cirl Buntings when it was common knowledge that they were in this area all year round, and then there was the noise assessment, dealt with below.

Affordable Housing – the provision of affordable housing was totally unacceptable with a density of 70 dwellings per hectare and with no outside amenity space. Despite the attendance by the developers at a STC meeting in February several points had not been taken on board, one of which was that affordable 3-bedroom houses were needed. The response from the SHDC environmental health team stated that the site layout had been designed so that houses adjacent to the road were side on to minimise noise from the road, this was not the case with the affordable housing. The affordable housing had also been placed too close to the existing garage meaning that the noise and fume levels would be unacceptable. The proposed flats were all at first floor level or above so would not be available for the disabled or elderly and 2 bed flats were not suitable for young families.

Noise levels – the consultant report on noise was an interesting one as it was carried out at a much quieter time than the holiday season when the road was exceptionally busy. Neither of the sound meters was placed at a point where the house nearest to the boundary with the garage and road would be situated. The report stated that houses should be set back from the boundary with the garage to minimise the noise impact but this had not been done. There was also a significant gap in the data as the data from Monday night was unavailable although no reason had been given – this was the night when the large crab lorries left Salcombe and were noisy – could this omission be explained please?
Highway issues – this was a major point of concern raised by STC at the meeting in February but again the comments had been ignored. The proposed pedestrian and cycle access to the site was dangerous as it proposed only a drop kerb crossing with a central refuge just over the brow of a hill on a road with no streetlighting – this was a recipe for disaster. The internal road layout also caused concern as the main access was past the affordable housing (which had no amenity space) separating it from the central green space.

Landscape and design – the affordable housing apartment block was very poorly designed, looked like a ‘barrack block’ thereby making it look out of place, did not have sufficient space, and there was no planting anywhere near. These issues coupled with the closeness to the garage and the main road made it a very unattractive place to live. The topography and position of the site meant that it was very visible over a wide area and it was not felt that the external landscaping did enough to make the site blend into the landscape.
Energy saving measures – we are currently in a time where climate change is a huge topic and central and local government had schemes to minimise our carbon footprint. There were no such energy saving measures incorporated into this proposal (another ignored topic from the STC meeting in February) and STC would like to know why things such as water harvesting, solar panels and heat pumps had not been incorporated into what was a virgin site. There was no mention of the projected EPC values of these houses, could this please be provided.
Neighbourhood Plan – there were several areas where this proposal was contrary to the NP
ENV1 – the proposal, due to lack of effective screening, would have a negative impact on the AONB
ENV2 – no provision had been made for wildlife corridors
ENV6 – there would be a significant impact on local important views V8 and V16, again due to the lack of effective screening
B1 – due to the poor pedestrian access, the proposal did not safely connect directly to walking and cycling routes
T1 – there appeared to be no provision for visitor parking which would put further pressure on street parking within the Parish
H1 – there were no 3 bed affordable houses which were required according to the latest housing survey
H2 – although a minimal difference the percentage of affordable housing was below the 30% minimum, and with the difficulty of selling properties at the development across the road, was this housing needed? There was also no provision for accommodation for the elderly with the only flats available being on the first floor
H3 – all properties would be subject to the Principal Residence condition and as this was a large development STC believed that there must be a S106 agreement in respect of this and not a planning condition.
• 3381/20/HHO Householder application for replacement of garage and attached store with new garage and upstairs studio/ study Creek View, Shadycombe Road, Salcombe, TQ8 8ND – Response 3rd December – No objection but condition was required that the studio remained ancillary to main dwelling.
• 3463/20/FUL (was 3463/20/HHO) Proposed refurbishment, partial demolition, extension and remodelling to existing dwelling Orestone End, Cliff Road, Salcombe, Devon, TQ8 8JQ – Response 3rd December – Objection – this was an overdevelopment of a prime waterfront site with an significant adverse impact on the AONB. There was too much glass which would cause significant light pollution. The infill of the northern end of the property would have an impact on the historic public steps. Due to the difficult access to the property there needed to be a Construction Management Plan. The proposal was contrary to the Salcombe Neighbourhood Plan in the following areas
ENV1 – the proposal did not maintain the intrinsic character of the townscape or seascape, and had a visual and environmental impact on the AONB
ENV5 – there would be an adverse impact on the SSSI due to a second set of steps to the sea thereby increasing water traffic in this area
B1 – the proposal was not in keeping with the area and did not preserve or enhance the Conservation Area and had a negative impact on heritage assets. The materials used did not compliment the local and traditional palette of materials, particularly the use of copper and zinc. The addition of the sitting room extension did not sit well with the surrounding environment
Harrison Sutton Architects left the Zoom meeting.
• 3471/20/HHO Householder application for proposed single storey rear extension to increase size of the existing garage space White Horses, Moult Hill, Salcombe, TQ8 8LF – 10th December – No comment.
• 3502/20/VAR Variation of conditions 2 (approved plans) and 4 (landscape scheme) of householder consent 3775/18/HHO Dartview, Main Road, Salcombe, TQ8 8AA – Response 10th December – No comment.
• 3504/20/HHO Householder application for alterations to roof including dormers Lealholme, Allenhayes Road, Salcombe, TQ8 8HU – Response 10th December – Objection – this was overdevelopment which would turn a 2 storey house into a 3 storey house thereby impacting on the street scene and would dominate the neighbouring property Eastone Grey. The proposal was contrary to Salcombe Neighbourhood Plan policy B1 in that it was not in keeping with the area and did not preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.
• 3510/20/FUL Application for variation of condition 2 of planning consent 0996/17/FUL Westcombe, Lower Batson, TQ8 8NP – Response 10th December – No comment.
• 3511/20/FUL Application for alterations and extension to flat 15a Fore Street, Salcombe, TQ8 8BU – Response 10th December – Objection – Folly Lane is a narrow historic lane in the middle of the Salcombe Conservation Area. This proposal was contrary to Salcombe Neighbourhood Plan policy B1 in that the materials (zinc) and design (glass doors and balustrade) did not preserve and enhance the Conservation Area and were not in keeping with the area.
• 3548/20/HHO Householder application for alterations to dwelling and rear extension 3 Croft View, Terrace, Salcombe, TQ8 8DL – Response 10th December – Objection – the use of bifold doors to replace the window at the front of the property would have a negative impact on the street scene and the adjacent Conservation Area.


• 3472/20/TPO G1: Monterey Cypress x3 – Dismantle to stumps at ground level. Trees are dead/dying and leaning towards property. Firwood Cottage, Sharpitor, Salcombe, TQ8 8LW – Response 7th December – Object as this was part of tree scape in the area and town council questioned whether the health of these trees had been impacted by the building of a wall adjacent to the base of the trees. Town Council would rely on the tree officer recommendation if it was felt they required to be felled. Replanting was noted to be with Yews but it was felt there should be other trees included in this planting requirement due to the proximity to the property which might be more suitable for that location.
• 3608/20/TPO T1: Macrocarpa Aurea – Remove, to increase light to house and shrubbery and re-establish view for neighbours. T2 & T3: Oak and T7: Sweet Chestnut- Re-pollard to previous points, 1.5-2m reduction; to re- establish view for neighbours. Castle Point, Sandhills Road, Salcombe, TQ8 8JP – Response 9th December – Objection as these were amenity value trees so to cut the trees without an arboricultural reason or if they were dead, diseased or failing and merely to provide a view was not a reason for felling. It was also questioned that unless there were justified arboricultural reasons to repollard, such as limbs pulling away and overgrown, this was not appropriate.
Dist Cllr Mrs Pearce left the meeting.


• 4063/19/FUL Sandes, Beadon Road – District Planning had advised that this would be going to committee on 2nd December 2020 meeting commencing 10a.m. An email had been sent requesting that Mike Fice be allowed to speak on behalf of Town Council to this application.


Pete Robinson referred to the precis he had sent out regarding the town council trees survey results. Some works would be scheduled for next year and there were those which were recommended for some immediate work. Forestry Commission approval might be needed for a felling licence if all trees were done together but as a proper surveyed had been obtained which approved removal so this should be straight forward. A review of canopies would take place next summer 2021 for some tree groups identified to be watched.

It was AGREED that Works to Tree Preservation Order trees permission should be applied for and quotes for this work obtained. Thereafter the report would be used to allow time during spring and the following autumn to carry out further recommendations and spread the work and reduce visual impact.

Cllr Lafferty-Holt enquired about replanting to soften the effect but with works required and the topography of those areas replanting could not be done as they would be damaged. There were the Woodland Trust tree pack whips to be planted at The Berry which would be undertaken as soon as possible.


It was AGREED to respond as follows to;
(a) the proposed changes to the Devon Home Choice Policy with consultation closing by 31st January 2021. Not felt that that there were points that needed to be raised as a concern as the Salcombe policy was not affected and this was just upgrading their process so need to respond.
(b) the alcohol Public Space Protection Orders which dealt with potential anti-social behaviour in an area, which could have a harmful effect on the quality of life for those in the local community for response by 18th December. Response to be DEFERRED for consideration at the next meeting.


It was AGREED to provide a grant of Five Hundred Pounds (£500) to assist the provision of the Christmas Lights displayed around town acknowledging that the insurance outgoing alone was £900 this year.


District Council had a further £77,370 funding that they had secured to assist any measures required to be put in place, going forward. It was AGREED that to assist Salcombe town high street businesses an application for further signs and town promotion would be made following input from the Mayor and Cllr Miss Ward.


The request by the museum to retain artefacts loaned by the Town Council for continued display or whether to formally donate these was considered and it was AGREED that ownership would not be transferred but approval for the ongoing retention for display given. A question was raised to ensure that during lock down responsible empty building insurance was retained. This current empty building factor would be highlighted with the committee.


A proposal to purchase a replacement photocopier was made and quotes received were considered and it was AGREED to purchase a HP Office Jet Pro 7740 A3 Wireless All-In-One Printer £240 from a local company being Actionwest.

Consideration with regards to a replacement cartridge package would be raised as an enquiry before purchase for how many pages per month and how many prints would be required and whether this would be a viable option. All of this would be left with the Project Officer Pete Robinson to ensure the best package.


The Mayor had advised all had been quiet since the last meeting mainly due to the second lockdown. An updated newsletter had gone out and The Berry legal group met and would approach District to reopen transfer talks. She noted that from the outset of the Covid pandemic she had been delivering for Ashbys to four households who had no other family support and had received a £40 bottle of Salcombe Gin as a gift.

• Cllr Long – Advised that there had been extensive works within Cliff House Woods removing shrubs, holly and smaller trees and he had therefore spoken to the person who had carried this work out. There was a Tree Preservation Order on this area and the person doing the work was assured that an application had been made, which it had not, so Cllr Long was reporting the works. He was also raising with enforcement that the Chairman of Cliff House Woods had agreed with one property owner who wanted to do work to their property they could take a mini digger through Cliff House woods to their property. Cllr Long also pointed out this could not be permitted as the steps and pathway belonged to Cliff House Trust. The work was far more extensive and devastating than expected. Cllr Miss Ward asked who would have authorised this work because someone must be paying the bill. It was advised who was there doing the work and there was another person present tidying up. They had not touched the large main trees but had taken other foliage down and there was debris left.
• Cllr Hainey – Noted that the hedges down Batson Hill below the cemetery along the line of the housing development were overgrown. Work was required to cut back. A pothole raised earlier by Cllr Mrs Sinnott was washed out again. Also, he had noticed that North Sands car park was being used as a builders store at present with vehicles taking up 6 or 8 spaces and Cllr Long said he would look and photographs would be sent. A dumper truck driver was going between North Sands and Tides Reach and at the speed he was driving would not have been able to stop if someone had come along. Cllr Long did not feel it was Tides Reach contractors so he would enquire of other developments around there.
• Cllr Mrs Sinnott agreed the dumper driver ran them over when photographing the pavement that was demolished at North Sands, this was a danger to everybody.
• Cllr Hainey asked about chippings being left at The Berry car park. The contractors were asked to put them in this location, but Pete Robinson advised that the dumper could not get closer to stack. Pete had spoken with the dumper driver they would spread the chippings through the woods so should be gone by the end of the following week.

• Town Council were thanked for obtaining the ‘Dogs on Leads’ sign for the allotment committee and this had already been placed. It was also advised that the annual insurance and subscription letters would not go out till the new year but there had been increased activity this last year and they now had seven people on the waiting list.
• David Moxham from The Fortescue Inn had advised that he would be accommodating four lifeboat crew on passage to Salcombe at his premises the previous day. This was to allay any fears or comments raised.
• The wall on Newton Road had now toppled and this had been reported but Highways did not feel it was a highway matter but a private owner. Pete Robinson had been liaising with District officers with regard to safety but nothing further could be done by town council until the owner dealt with it.
• District were planning a series of media posts and wanted a photograph of Salcombe shopping/Christmas lights. Pete Robinson did not have such so it was asked if anyone else could provide this.
• Vanessa Woods Community Engagement Officer for the Office for National Statistics had contacted regard to the changes in collecting census details to be rolled out in 2021. She had requested to be allowed to attend and speak to a meeting so that assistance could be sought to get the message out as wide as possible.
• A response had finally been obtained on 19th November from County Car Parks regarding the park and ride machine income. The income for quarter 1 was low, £45, due to lockdown and therefore they had not processed and sent this amount. With the changes of App payment provider, they were working out the revenue and this should be furnished shortly.
• Pete Robinson had advised he had seen evidence of moles at The Berry and would keep an eye on this and call in the pest controller if felt necessary.
• The Annual Parish Paths Partnership forms had been received for completion and return by 15th February 2021.
• Whilst the District Maintenance team had been able to quote for weed spraying FCC could not commit to delivering a road sweeping service to align with it. The reason given is a mixture of road review and the change to service next year so that they could not agree any additional or fixed works for the next 12 months. It had been suggested that the spraying could take place with agreed checks when works were carried out, but District felt it would not be effective without the sweeping alongside. It was noted that weeds and moss were treated 6 -7 years aog with a salt solution 20% so why were there now difficulties. Cllr Miss Ward noted the small electric cleaning machine could not do the job as they could not get to where a person physically could. A map of where town council wanted work done had been created when this request was given to District. Cllr Long was to ask District ground maintenance if they could carry out the removal of dead weeds.
• The latest Edition, Twelve, Charles Arnold Baker was to be released 4th December at a 20% discount price of £119.99 if pre ordered. It was suggested that Salcombe Town Council share the cost of such purchase with Stokenham Parish Council and obtain this update. It was agreed this was required.


Bank Balances
Current Account £500.00
Deposit Account £465,015.46
Receipts: Allotment Committee additional £37 subscriptions.

APPROVED Internet payments to:
Krystal Hosting Ltd – Salcombe Town Council website Ruby package £119.99
PKF Littlejohn LLP – Annual Audit March 2019/20 £480.00
Wages – November £1853.23
NEST – November Pension £181.90
HMRC – Nat Ins and In Rev £797.89
Devon Tree Services – Works to tree at Redfern and The Berry £1728.00


The next Town Council Meeting would be held at 6.30p.m. on Wednesday 9th December.


……………………………………………….. 9th December 2020.
Town Mayor

Meeting ended: 20.55p.m.

Download as PDF

Pin It on Pinterest