PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Mr Nils White Parish: Bigbury

Application No: 05/2499/14/F

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Ian Booker Burgh Island Hotel Ltd Paul Humphries Architects Ltd Burgh Island Bigbury on Sea TQ7 4BG

Site Address: Burgh Island, Bigbury on Sea TQ7 4BG

Development: Solar panel array (200 panels, 335m2, 50kW) on former tennis court

Scale 1:5500

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Hams District Council 100022628. 2015. Scale 1:5500 For internal reference only – no further copies to be made

Reason item is being put before Committee. Burgh Island is one of the most distinctive landmarks of the South Hams and the application has attracted considerable opposition. The Local Member has therefore requested that the application be decided by the Development Management Committee.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval.

Conditions:  Standard Time Limit;  Accord with approved plans;  Landscaping scheme to be implemented on commencement of development;  Any plant failures to be replaced within 10 years;  Remove equipment when it falls out of use.

Key issues for consideration: The development site is visible from the mainland and lies in close proximity to the Burgh Island Hotel (listed Grade II). Although the Island itself does not fall within the boundary of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the mainland does and the application therefore affects its setting.

The two main issues for consideration are therefore the impact of the development on the setting of the listed building and its impact on the landscape. Officers have assessed these and are satisfied that given the minor impact of the development it should be supported.

Site Description: The application site is on the east side of Burgh Island facing Bigbury-on-Sea, approximately 23m WNW of the Burgh Island Hotel at its closest point. Its last use was as a tennis court and it retains the tarmac surface associated with this purpose. The land was cut and filled in order to provide a sufficiently large, flat surface for the tennis court when it was first built. The resulting scar is prominently visible from many viewpoints around Bigbury on Sea.

The Proposal: It is proposed to install a solar array on the former tennis court. The proposed panels would be low reflectivity grey units and these would be mounted in six 2-panel-wide rows, running north-south and inclined to the East and West at a pitch of 10 degrees. At their highest point of the panels would be 290mm above ground level.

Consultations:

 County Highways Authority No comments received

 Environmental Health Section No comments received

 Bigbury Parish Council Objection

 Ringmore Parish Council Objection

 Twentieth Century Society Do not wish to comment

 Natural England No objection, but asks that AONB unit is consulted

 AONB Unit No objection

 Devon County Council Archaeology No comments to make on application

Representations: A total of 36 letters of objection have been received, 1 letter of support and 2 letters taking a neutral stance.

The objections are based on the following issues:

1. The development would be out of character with Burgh Island and would harm views of it, being highly visible; it would be semi-industrial in scale; there would be a risk of reflection of the sun; it would be contrary to the NPPF and AONB Management Plan and detrimental to the Heritage Coast. 2. The array would harm the setting of the Grade II listed Burgh Island Hotel 3. The proposed screening would be inadequate and the planting would be likely to fail. 4. The proposal would harm the local tourist industry. 5. There would be no community benefit. 6. The CO2 savings would not be as great as claimed. 7. Reflection could cause a danger to landing helicopters. 8. The solar panels may not last very long in this exposed location.

Relevant Planning History

There are no recorded applications that are considered relevant to this proposal.

ANALYSIS

Form of the Proposed Solar Array. Each of the rows would be two panels wide arranged as a double-pitch (forming a chevron in section). One side of the row would be oriented to the west, the other to the east. The pitch of the panels would be 10 degrees. The 6 rows would thus form a lightly undulating surface over the tennis court. The proposed solar panels would be dark grey with internal circuitry concealed.

Prominence of the Development Officers have walked around the site and checked the assessment of views set out in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment submitted with the application. This document assesses the impact of the development from 8 viewpoints:

 Two viewpoints on the footpath leading to the summit of the island, from which the development would be prominently visible and the scale of effects on the view is judged to be major;

 Four viewpoints in and around Bigbury on Sea from which the impact of the proposal would vary depending on the height of the viewpoint.

 One viewpoint at Mount Folly, Folly Hill 1400m NE of the site, from which the impact is assessed to be insignificant

 And one viewpoint at the waterfront at Challaborough, from which the impact is again assessed to be insignificant.

Officers broadly agree with this assessment, but would add the following comments:

1. The development would be visible from the footpath running uphill from the top of Parker Road. The surface of the tennis court becomes more and more visible on ascent.

2. There is an important view of the island from the coast path north west of Challaborough; the surface of the tennis court is just visible.

3. The tennis court is clearly visible from the upper parts of Marine Drive some 600m to 700m away.

Revisions to Proposed Screening

Following discussions with officers, the original landscaping proposal, where screening was limited to planting over a small amount of fill, has been replaced with a new scheme where bunds would be provided to a height of 750mm above the level of the tennis court. These would be surmounted by planting.

Given the minor nature of these changes, it was not considered necessary to re-advertise the application formally; however, Bigbury Parish Council was formally notified, as were all those who had written in with letters of objection. New site notices were also put up around the site.

Principle of Development/Sustainability: Paragraph 98 of the NPPF states that Local Authorities should not require applicants for energy development to ‘demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions’ and should ‘approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable’. In this case, the applicants estimate that the proposed solar array could provide 10% of the electricity needs of the hotel.

Impact on Landscape Character

Given the importance and sensitivity of Burgh Island, the impact of the proposed development has been assessed carefully on site, taking into account the character of this protected landscape, visual impact, and mitigation provided by landscaping works.

The Landscape Officer has assessed the impact of the proposal on site and has no objection to the proposal. While the change in surface appearance caused by the solar array is judged to be slight- to moderate-adverse the landscape character is considered to be conserved when the form and scale of the proposal and mitigation works are taken into account.

There are limited views of the development from the island itself and the impact on the most notable of these, from the footpath which passes along the boundary of the hotel grounds, is assessed to be moderate to substantial. However, the proposed landscaping would mitigate this impact to an acceptable degree.

Due consideration has been given to the South Devon AONB and the Management Plan 2014-2019. In consideration of the above appraisal, officers believe that the special qualities as identified within the character assessments are not substantially affected by the proposed development.

Compliance with the AONB Management Plan

Whilst the location of the proposal does not lie within the boundary of the South Devon AONB, Burgh Island and in particular the hotel and its grounds make a significant contribution to the coastal landscape setting experienced in the adjacent area designated as AONB. The island is read as an integral part of the South Devon AONB, contributes to its natural beauty and special qualities and is therefore subject to the application of the South Devon AONB Management Plan.

The planning authority’s Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 derived statutory duty to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB when making its decision on this application must use the AONB Management Plan in interpreting the duty in the context of South Devon. The term natural beauty includes heritage features and therefore Burgh Island Hotel and grounds in this instance. On balance and after careful consideration of the development’s design solution, scale, location, mitigation and end use, against the full scope of the 2014-19 South Devon AONB Management Plan, the South Devon AONB Unit conclude that this proposal will not substantially affect the natural beauty, special qualities, distinctive character and key features of the South Devon AONB or South Devon Heritage Coast. Locating the small scale solar array within the scar of the former tennis court, coupled with its use to directly offset the energy costs associated with running a valued heritage asset play an important part in reaching this conclusion and trigger the support of a number of AONB Management Plan policies including NatRes/P6 on Energy. In the South Devon AONB Unit’s view the granting of permission for this proposal would be compatible with the CROW Act 2000 statutory duty and application of the National Planning Policy Framework’s paragraph 115.

Impact on Setting of Heritage Assets

Burgh Island Hotel is listed Grade II and is especially sensitive due to its dramatic landscape setting. There are other heritage assets on the island – The Pilchard Inn; the remains of the Chapel on the island summit; and various Second World War pill boxes. None of these is designated, however and it is the hotel that would be most affected by the proposed development due to its proximity to the site.

Views of the Hotel with the proposed Solar Array The hotel is prominent in views from the mainland and the island itself. The significance of the building is largely determined by its dramatic setting to the extent that the drama of the island and that of the hotel’s architecture are mutually dependent. This means that views of the building are especially sensitive as harm to them could easily detract from the overall experience of it.

The assessment of the impact of this development on the listed hotel is therefore a similar exercise to that carried out for the wider landscape; namely, whether the development would be visible and if so, how the appearance of the array would detract from the building’s setting.

From the island footpath where it passes closest to the site boundary, the northern part of the tennis court is prominent in conjunction with the hotel and the proposed solar array would be clearly visible. However, the proposed landscaping would help to screen this view, mitigating the impact on the setting of the hotel, especially once the planting was established.

From the mainland, the scar formed by the tennis court cutting is quite visible in many views of the hotel as described above and a narrow strip of the grey tarmac tennis court is visible from the higher viewpoints. As with the wider landscape impact, the question is whether the smoother, lighter surface of the solar array, combined with bunds and planting would have an overall negative impact on the setting of the hotel. Again, taking into account the distance to the site from these viewpoints and the small area that would be visible, it is considered that the impact would be neutral.

Views of the Proposed Solar Array from the Hotel Due to the height of the tennis court (corresponding to the hotel first-floor level), the development would not be visible from the main entrance to the hotel. It would also be concealed from the principal public rooms, which are located on the south side of the building.

However, the array would, be visible from second-floor and, to a lesser extent, first-floor rooms on the north side of the west wing of the hotel. Although the principal views from these rooms are of the sea and the coastline to the north, the tennis court is in full view in the foreground and the proposed landscaping would not conceal the proposed solar array from this vantage point.

The harm caused by the development on these views again needs to be judged in terms of what is there already. The undulating form of the proposed array would arguably blend in with the landscape slightly less than the existing grey tarmac which is darker and rougher in appearance. However, the landscaping would provide a certain amount of mitigation, softening the edges of the northern end of the tennis court. Furthermore, it should be recognised that the tarmac, with its inscribed yellow H denoting the helipad, cannot be mistaken for a natural feature and is not in itself attractive. There are additional modern features within these views as well – the new tennis court beyond the old one and the hotel parking area. It has therefore been concluded that any harm resulting from this proposal would clearly be less than substantial. The public benefit of increasing the amount of renewable energy generation capacity is considered in this instance to outweigh any harm.

Views of the Solar Array from the Air Aerial views of Burgh Island are significant and the presence of a helipad attests to the use of helicopter by some guests. Clearly, the landscaping proposals would not screen the array when seen from above. However, when taking into account the current appearance of the former tennis court, that of the new one, and even parts of the hotel that were never meant to be seen, such as its flat roof, the additional impact of the proposed solar array is considered to be minor.

One objector has alleged that the reflection of the sun from the panels could present a danger to helicopters when landing; the reflectivity of these panels is designed to be minimal (in order to make them as efficient as possible) and they would therefore not represent a risk in this regard.

Impact on Tourist Industry Given the minor impact of the proposal on landscape character and the setting of the listed building, it is not considered that it would affect the local tourist industry.

Archaeological Impact One objector has raised concerns that the need to bury cabling associated with the proposed panels could disrupt archaeological remains in the area. The County Archaeologist has stated that ‘Assessment of the Historic Environment Record and the details submitted by the applicant do not suggest that the scale and situation of this development will have a significant impact upon any know heritage assets’.

Conclusion The sensitivity of Burgh Island is fully acknowledged. However, the proposed solar array would actually represent a very minor change to it. This is because it would be confined within the area of the existing tarmac tennis court, would be less than 30 centimetres high and would be dark grey in colour. Furthermore, the proposed screening would go a long way to reducing its overall impact. Taking all this into account, any harm caused by the proposed development to the character of Burgh Island and its famous listed hotel is considered to be very slight and outweighed by the benefit of increasing the renewable energy generation capacity. For this reason, the application is supported.

This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and with Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Planning Policy

South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment CS11 Climate Change

Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP6 Historic Environment

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states: “In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority, or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses” This statutory obligation is further reinforced through Section 12 of the NPPF.

National Planning Policy Framework The following paragraphs are of particular relevance to this case:

Para. 98. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should: ● not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and

● approve the application18 if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying suitable areas.

Para. 114. Local planning authorities should: ● set out a strategic approach in their Local Plans, planning positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure; and ● maintain the character of the undeveloped coast, protecting and enhancing its distinctive landscapes, particularly in areas defined as Heritage Coast, and improve public access to and enjoyment of the coast.

Para 115. Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important

Para. 128 states: “In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance.”

Para. 129 states. “Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise.

Para. 132 states. “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.”

Para. 133 states. “Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss.....”

Para 134 states. “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.”

The recently launched National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) is also of relevance particularly the Section: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment.

National Planning Practice Guidance Para 3. Decision-taking: historic environment – “Heritage assets may be affected by direct physical change or by change in their setting. Being able to properly assess the nature, extent and importance of the significance of a heritage asset and the contribution of its setting, is very important to understanding the potential impact and acceptability of development proposals.”

Under the same heading reference is made to the Setting of a Heritage Asset: “A thorough assessment of the impact on setting needs to take into account, and be proportionate to, the significance of the heritage asset under consideration and the degree to which proposed changes enhance or detract from that significance and the ability to appreciate it. Setting is the surroundings in which an asset is experienced, and may therefore be more extensive than its curtilage. All heritage assets have a setting, irrespective of the form in which they survive and whether they are designated or not. The extent and importance of setting is often expressed by reference to visual considerations. Although views of or from an asset will play an important part, the way in which we experience an asset in its setting is also influenced by other environmental factors such as noise, dust and vibration from other land uses in the vicinity, and by our understanding of the historic relationship between places”. Further guidance is given with regards to assessing harm: “ What matters in assessing if a proposal causes substantial harm is the impact on the significance of the heritage asset. As the National Planning Policy Framework makes clear, significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. Whether a proposal causes substantial harm will be a judgment for the decision taker, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the policy in the National Planning Policy Framework. In general terms, substantial harm is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases. For example, in determining whether works to a listed building constitute substantial harm, an important consideration would be whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key element of its special architectural or historic interest. It is the degree of harm to the asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development that is to be assessed. The harm may arise from works to the asset or from development within its setting. While the impact of total destruction is obvious, partial destruction is likely to have a considerable impact but, depending on the circumstances, it may still be less than substantial harm or conceivably not harmful at all, for example, when removing later inappropriate additions to historic buildings which harm their significance. Similarly, works that are moderate or minor in scale are likely to cause less than substantial harm or no harm at all. However, even minor works have the potential to cause substantial harm.” The Setting of Heritage Assets – English Heritage Guidance 2011. In the introduction to this document it states: “The significance of a heritage asset derives not only from its physical presence and historic fabric but also from its setting – the surroundings in which it is experienced.” The document explains that to properly assess a development’s impact on the setting of heritage assets a sequential approach should be adopted. This approach is detailed on pages 17-22 and covers a 5-step approach categorised as follows: Step 1 – Identifying the heritage assets affected and their settings. Step 2 – Assessing whether, how and to what degree these settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset. Step 3 – Assessing the effect of the proposed development on the significance of the asset(s) Step 4 – Maximising enhancement and minimising harm Step 5 – Making and documenting the decision and monitoring outcomes

Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report.