(Public Pack)Agenda Document for West Devon Development

West Devon Development Management and Licensing Committee

Title: Agenda

Date: Tuesday, 26th February, 2019

Time: 9.30 am

Venue: Chamber - Kilworthy Park Full Members: Chairman Cllr Sanders Vice Chairman Cllr Roberts Members: Cllr Baldwin Cllr Moyse Cllr Cann OBE Cllr Parker Cllr Hockridge Cllr Pearce Cllr Mott Cllr Yelland

Interests – Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any Declaration and disclosable pecuniary interest not entered in the Authority's Restriction on register or local non pecuniary interest which they have in any Participation: item of business on the agenda (subject to the exception for sensitive information) and to leave the meeting prior to discussion and voting on an item in which they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.

Committee Kathy Trant Specialist - Democratic Services 01803 861185 administrator: Page No

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Declarations of Interest Members are invited to declare any personal or disclosable pecuniary interests, including the nature and extent of such interests they may have in any items to be considered at this meeting.

[If Councillors have any questions relating to predetermination, bias or interests in items on this Agenda, then please contact the Monitoring Officer in advance of the meeting]

3. Items Requiring Urgent Attention To consider those items which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be considered by the Meeting as matters of urgency (if any).

4. Confirmation of Minutes 1 - 4 Meeting held on 11 December 2018

5. Planning Applications 5 - 158

To see Letters of Representation and further supplementary information relating to any of the planning applications on the agenda, please select the following link and enter the relevant Reference number: http://westdevon.gov.uk/searchlanding

WARD NAME Drewsteignton APPLICATION NUMBER 2701/18/FUL LOCATION Land North of A30 Junction, Whiddon Down DEVELOPMENT Development of new shop and ancillary cafe with supporting secondary areas consisting of storage, WCs, offices and kitchen space (resubmission of 1255/18/FUL) APPLICANT JW Mann Ltd

WARD NAME Tavistock South West APPLICATION NUMBER 2780/18/ARM LOCATION Land Adjacent To Callington Road, Tavistock LOCATION Application for approval of reserved matters Page No

for details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for residential development comprising 157no. dwellings with associated landscaping and drainage infrastructure following outline approval 00554/2013 APPLICANT Bovis Homes Ltd

WARD NAME Okehampton North APPLICATION NUMBER 3441/17/OPA LOCATION Proposed development site at SX573976, Folly Gate DEVELOPMENT Outline application with some matters reserved for the construction of 23 dwellings, associated car parking, access and estate road, private amenity space and public open space APPLICANT K Hawkins-Sampson

WARD NAME Buckland Monachorum APPLICATION NUMBER 3194/18/FUL LOCATION Axtown Lodge, Green Lane, Yelverton DEVELOPMENT Erection of two storey residential dwelling with associated parking APPLICANT Mr G Liesching

WARD NAME Okehampton North APPLICATION NUMBER 1667/18/FUL LOCATION Land rear of London Inn, 22 West Street, Okehampton DEVELOPMENT Erection of 3no. cottages APPLICANT Hayrish Ltd

WARD NAME Tavistock North APPLICATION NUMBER 1738/18/HHO LOCATION The Leaze, 7 Kilworthy Hill, Tavistock DEVELOPMENT Householder application for erection of wooden trellis and pergola APPLICANT Ms J Flatman

6. Planning Appeals Update 159 - 160 Page No At a Meeting of the DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT & LICENSING COMMITTEE held at the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Kilworthy Park, Drake Road, TAVISTOCK on TUESDAY the 11th day of DECEMBER 2018 at 10.00am

Present: Cllr P R Sanders – Chairman Cllr A Roberts – Vice Chairman

Cllr R E Baldwin Cllr W G Cann OBE Cllr J Evans Cllr J Hockridge Cllr C Mott Cllr D E Moyse Cllr T G Pearce Cllr J Yelland

COP Lead Development Management (PW) Planning Specialists (IL, CS) Specialist Place Making (AW) Solicitor (SN) Specialist Democratic Services (KT)

*DM&L 29 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Cllr G Parker for whom Cllr J Evans substituted.

*DM&L 30 DECLARATION OF INTEREST Members were invited to declare any interests in the items of business to be considered and the following were made.

Cllr T G Pearce declared a personal interest in all applications by virtue of being a Member of the Devon Building Control Partnership. He remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote on the item.

*DM&L 31 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES The Minutes of the Development Management and Licensing Committee Meeting held on 13 November 2018 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

*DM&L 32 PLANNING, LISTED BUILDING, TREE PRESERVATION ORDER AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS The Committee considered the applications prepared by the Development Management Specialists and considered also the comments of Town and Parish Councils together with other representations received, which were listed within the presented agenda reports and summarised below, and RESOLVED :

(a) Application No: 4261/17/FUL Ward: Buckland Monachorum

Site Address: West Harrow, Crapstone, Devon PL20 7PW

Application for construction of new detached 4 bedroom dwelling with integral double garage

Case Officer Update: None

Speakers included: Objector – Dr Rich Reed: Supporter – Mr Tom Rogers: local Ward Member – Cllr Sanders

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval

COMMITTEE DECISION : Conditional Approval

[Please note: This application was approved by virtue of Chairman’s casting vote]

(b) Application No: 2138/18/FUL Ward: Tavistock South East

Site Address: Land adjacent to Breckland, Down Road, Tavistock

Erection of two dwellings

Case Officer Update: Plot 2 would be 12 metres from the boundary with Deer Leap and no 12 was then a further 11 metres away, so 23 metres in total; the ridge height would be 148.78, whereas the neighbouring property ‘The Bedfords’ ridge height was 153.34; main modifications had been submitted in respect of the Joint Local Plan Policy STP3: provision of new homes, and moderate weight could be afforded to that policy.

Speakers included: Objector – Ms Pauline Marsh: Parish Council Representative – Cllr Paul Ward: Supporter – Mr Peter Rowan: local Ward Member – Cllr Oxborough, Cllr Sellis (statement read)

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval

COMMITTEE DECISION : Conditional Approval

*DM&L 33 PLANNING APPEALS UPDATE The Committee received and noted the updated list of Planning Appeals including Enforcement Appeals. The Specialist Place Making provided more detail regarding the appeal decision related to the Tree Preservation Order.

(The Meeting terminated at 12.30pm)

______Chairman

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Anna Henderson-Smith Parish: Drewsteignton Ward: Drewsteignton

Application No: 2701/18/FUL

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr Michael Gordon JW Mann Ltd Rural Solutions Ltd C/O Agent Canalside House Brewery Lane Skipton BD23 1DR

Site Address: Land North Of A30 Junction, Whiddon Down, Drewsteignton, Devon

Development: Development of new shop and ancillary cafe with supporting secondary areas consisting of storage, WCs, offices and kitchen space (resubmission of 1255/18/FUL)

Reason taken to Development Management Committee: This application was called in by Cllr Sanders for the following reasons:

• Development of a retail unit in open countryside with no relationship to any other buildings or enterprises. • Impact on the rural nature of the site. • Highly visible from many locations both near and distant. • Other more suitable sites in the general area. • No reason given to support an argument that the building and car parking must be developed in this area. • The works required to locate the facility will adversely impact the general topography of the area.

Recommendation: Approval

Pre-commencement conditions agreed by agent.

Conditions: 1) Time limit 2) Adherence to plans 3) Materials 4) Hours of operation and restrictions 5) Origin of goods 6) Sales/goods restrictions 7) Use restrictions and PD removal 8) A1 retail area restriction 9) Drainage design 10) Foul drainage 11) Landscaping 12) Traffic signage 13) Hedgerows 14) Ecological mitigation and enhancement 15) EPS license 16) Tree protection 17) Unexpected contamination 18) PD removal for extensions and alterations 19) Lighting installation 20) Erection or brise soleil 21) Electric vehicle charging points

Key issues for consideration:

The main issues are the principle of the development particularly in this location, access, parking and highways safety, landscape impact and economic, ecology, drainage, neighbour amenity and any impact upon village vitality

Site Description:

The application site is a parcel of agricultural land located immediately to the north of the A30 junction at Whiddon Down. Officers understand that the land was used as a temporary storage area when the junction was constructed, and it’s most recent use has been as agricultural ground for the storage of bales.

The land slopes gently down from south to north. Directly to the south is the access track and dense woodland, with the field boundary to the east and north. The land drops down sharply to the west to the adjacent slip road, with the land retained. The site is served by a single track lane which has a junction with the road to Hittisleigh, which itself joins the A30 slip road close by.

The site is within open countryside but is otherwise free of specific spatial planning constraints. The Dartmoor National Park is approximately 250m to the south. The nearest listed buildings are a set of gate posts and Hole Cottages beyond Whiddon Down to the west. There is no inter-visibility between the site and these buildings. The grade II Thornbury Farmhouse is 650m to the north, but the site does not influence its setting.

The Proposal:

Planning permission is sought for the development of a new ‘farm shop’ and an ancillary cafe with supporting secondary areas consisting of storage, WCs, offices and kitchen space. This scheme is a resubmission of planning application reference 1255/18/FUL which was withdrawn by the applicant in order to conduct further consultation with the local community.

The scheme is formed of two main building elements adjoined and at 90 degrees to one another. The main element is a single A frame building which houses the public shop and café area and associated rooms. The secondary element is also a simple A framed building which extends towards the south and houses the store facilities and the toilets.

The proposed car parking area is to the south of the proposed buildings. The existing field access is extended and widened into a short drive which forms a curved access from one field to the other, screened by new planting. The application is accompanied by a comprehensive landscaping strategy. The proposal indicates surface water to be discharged via soakaway.

Consultations :

• Ward Member Cllr Paul Ridgers –

My reasons for objection are:

The farm shop has no direct link to a farm in the Parish or neighbouring Parishes The development is in Open Countryside and now from the description it is a retail premises, which falls outside of current/adopted planning policy guidelines The application is outside the Whiddon Down village development area. Potential dispersal of village activity to the other side of the main A30, the building size and placement WILL impact on the surrounding area. Concerns over pedestrian safety accessing the building Traffic concerns on the A30 exit from the exit slip road There is already a Shop/café performing the same functions within Whiddon Down The inability of the junction and road to Hittesleigh to cope with the additional 280 vehicles a day

• County Highways Authority

No objection subject to conditions -

‘The application is supported by a Transport Statement prepared by transport consultants, Calibro. Although the scoping of the statement was not previously agreed with the highway authority, the content and conclusions are broadly acceptable to the highway authority.

From the highway authority's point of view, therefore, there are no objections in principle to the proposed development, and the access junction to serve the site has been designed such that it complies with contemporary design guidance for geometry and visibility

The signage schedule and plans in the Transport Statement show five proposed signs; two are on land that is part of the trunk road network under the control of Highways England and the remaining three are on land which does not appear to form part of the publicly maintained highway and is of unknown ownership. The applicant is advised that the highway authorities have strict criteria about the signing of commercial enterprises and these signs may conceivably be in breach of those constraints so may not be acceptable. An informative note to cover this aspect is included below.

It is also recommended that Highways England is also consulted with respect to the effect that the proposed development will have on the trunk road network, and the advertisement signs proposed on land for which they are responsible.’

• Highways England

No objection subject to condition –

‘The application is for a farm shop and café with associated storage and ancillary facilities. The total floorspace proposed is 705sqm, consisting of Al (271sqm), A3 (162sqm) and BB (265sqm) uses. This represents a slight reduction in the quantum of development from the previously submitted and now withdrawn application reference 1255/18/FUL, with the removal of the children’s play element from the proposals.

Whilst access to the development is via an unnamed local road, the site is located a short distance to the north of the A30 Whiddon Down junction with the A382. The proposals are supported by a Transport Statement (TS) prepared by Calibro. We have considered the methodology used for the predicted trip generation and the adequacy of the proposed parking provision, and consider both to be acceptable.

We are therefore satisfied that the SRN can accommodate the level of trips associated with the proposed development and we have no objection in principle to the proposals.

However, due to the close proximity of the A30 eastbound off and onslip, it will be important to ensure that clear signage is provided from the local road network, to ensure that vehicles do not overshoot the local road junction. The TS includes an indicative proposal, but a detailed scheme will need to be agreed with the highways authorities and implemented prior to any development being brought into use. The applicant will need to be aware that signing will not be permitted within the trunk road boundary.’

• Landscape/Trees

No objection subject to condition, full discussion below

• Biodiversity Specialist– On the basis that officers consider the scheme to pass the first two derogation tests Biodiversity Specialist raises no objections subject to conditions

‘The application is supported by an Ecological Appraisal (Blackdown Environmental, Nov 2018) which includes results of desk study, site visit, detailed reptile surveys and ongoing dormouse surveys. The site is described as comprising two fields, that to the west ‘used for the storage of silage bales and comprises a mosaic of bare ground, vegetated spoil heaps and species poor semi-improved grassland with rushes and the field to the east is used for sheep grazing and is dominated by improved grassland.’ These are bounded in part by species-rich hedgerows. The report summarises the proposal ‘to develop the western field into a farm shop with associated parking, offices and a dog walking area. It is proposed to use the eastern field to obtain access from the main road into the site. The site plan as proposed includes the removal of approximately 17m of species-rich hedge bank from the eastern and southern field boundaries to enable access.’ New habitat proposals include approximately 38m of species-rich hedgerow, 2,100m2 of tree planting and 750m2 woodland edge planting. With respect to protected species:

- No evidence of badger was recorded (although it is likely badgers may or could use the site on occasion). Precautions during construction have been recommended. - There is value for foraging and commuting bats in the hedgerows – these will be retained (except for a 17m gap), and the value of the site for bats will be significantly enhanced through new hedgerow, tree and woodland edge planting. - No reptiles were recorded on site during detailed survey. - It is likely that bird species would use the hedgerows for nesting. Precautions before and during construction have been recommended. - A full dormouse nest tube survey was undertaken in 2018 and dormice were recorded nesting. They are expected to be using hedgebanks throughout the site. have been assumed presence based on local records and suitable habitat on site. Surveys are ongoing, however for the purposes of the PEA, planning application, and habitat creation they have been assumed present, and implications considered (with recommendations for mitigation and compensation).

Based on an assumption of presence of dormice, the proposed removal of 17m of hedgerow has potential to harm dormice and destroy their nesting sites – these are Habitats Regulations offences. Where a Habitats Regulations offence may be triggered, the LPA must consider whether the proposal meets the 3 derogation tests, and accordingly whether Natural England are likely to grant a EPSL which would permit the proposal to lawfully proceed. The first 2 tests are outlined below, but are essentially planning tests (and are for you to conclude as case officer). The 3 rd test I have concluded below: Imperative Reason Overriding Public Interest – Establish the public interest (social, economic) which has some imperative nature (i.e. required soon) which overrides the maintenance of the fields as they are at present. No Satisfactory Alternative – Consider and discount alternatives – e.g. design/layout that would not require loss of any hedgerow – why this is unfeasible. Maintenance of Favourable Conservation Status – the ecologist has outlined mitigation (either the standard 1 or 2 stage vegetation removal methods used where dormice are present, and ecologist supervision) and compensatory provisions (hedgerow translocation, dormouse boxes, and new habitat creation comprising approximately 38m of species-rich hedgerow, 2,100m2 of tree planting and 750m2 woodland edge planting). These measures would maintain the favourable conservation status of the dormice (the habitat creation measures in fact would be expected to significantly enhance available habitat) and accordingly this test is considered met. If you consider that the 3 tests are met, then it would be reasonable to consider that Natural England would grant a EPS Licence, in which case please apply the condition below.

- No works to remove the hedgerows shall commence until the LPA has been provided with a copy of the licence for Dormice issued by Natural England pursuant to Regulation 55 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 authorising the works to go ahead.

Appendix 6 (Conservation Action Statement) of the Ecological Appraisal contains necessary avoidance and mitigation measures – including of note, the requirement for a pre-commencement updated badger survey. Accordingly, if minded to approve please also apply the following condition: Avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measures detailed in Appendix 6 of the Ecological Appraisal (Blackdown Environmental, Nov 2018) shall be strictly adhered to and implemented in full.”

• WDBC Drainage

No objection - subject to surface water and foul drainage conditions

• South West Water

No objection

• Environmental Health

No objection - subject to standard unexpected contamination and detail of provision for electric vehicle charging points conditions

• Dartmoor National Park

No objection subject to landscape condition

• Drewsteignton Parish Council

Objection – ‘• Highways – dangerous country road junctions, increase in traffic, congestion will increase. Currently poor direction signage. The Highways analysis does not reflect accurately what is happening on the roads now regarding accidents and near misses.

• No safe pedestrian or cycle access to the site.

• Contrary to National Planning Policy as it will disperse the village to the other side of the main road, the building will impact on the surrounding area as it is on one of the highest points in the parish visible from Dartmoor in the west and Exmoor in the north. It will have significant impact on the access, highways safety and those residents living at Hittesleigh and beyond.’

• Hittesleigh Parish Council

Object - stating the following;

“As per your planning office, we understand you are accepting responses to 8th October. Hittisleigh Parish Council has reviewed the application and wish to object.

It is a greenfield site for agricultural use. Local knowledge indicates that Highways England used this site for storing equipment and vehicles when building the flyover on the condition that the land was returned to agricultural use.

The adverse visual impact of development in the open countryside is also a concern. There is already development on the opposite side of the highway at Whiddon Services. It would make more sense to expand the development there.

We note the comments made by Highways England and understand that a local highways officer familiar with the area has been consulted. However, we would reiterate our comments on the withdrawn application particularly in regard to the exit from A30 towards Exeter as this does not appear to be taken into account. Namely:

There is very limited space for cars to stop without blocking the access road when exiting the A30T onto the slip road and then turning right onto the old A30. The number of vehicles accessing the Whiddon Down Services can cause congestion when exiting the services. Cars towing caravans are frequent travellers adding to the congestion. The access from the A30T eastbound towards the development is an area of concern. The whole road network around the A30T at Whiddon Down Junction can be confusing to visiting drivers. We are well aware of drivers overshooting turnings and reversing to locate the desired direction.

In addition, those using the proposed development may need to cross back to the Whiddon Services for fuel adding to the complexity of traffic crossing and using the flyover and slip roads.

We are not confident that signage limited solely to the local road network will mitigate the potential risks posed by the cross flow of traffic to/from the A30, the old A30 and the unnamed road leading to the proposed development.”

• Cheriton Bishop Parish Council

Object – stating the following;

“Traffic Generation and highways issues: The Council consider that the development of the site will create considerable issues including car parking.

Design: The Council consider that this is not a Farm Shop as it is not linked in any way to a farm it is a retail unit for which no need has been demonstrated. it is a development on land that was designated agricultural land and should have been returned to that.

The Council was very concerned that they had not been consulted about this or the previous application that had been made as a neighbouring parish.

The Council are aware of the objections raised at the Drewsteignton” Parish Council meeting and are in agreement with these objections.”

Representations:

At the Time of writing 77 persons have made representations of which 60 have raised objections and 17 have stated supported. Amongst these are representations from the Devon Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), ‘Taste of the West Ltd’ and the South West Tourism.

Concerns raised within the submitted objections are summarised as follows:

• The scheme is not truly a farm shop • Will have a harmful landscape impact • The proposed landscaping scheme should be improved • Will harm amenity through noise, smells, air pollution and light • The surrounding roads are not of sufficient standard to safely accommodate the development • The development will lead to an unsafe surrounding highways environment • Parking provision is inadequate • Lack of pedestrian access provision • There is no need for the development as alternative provision exists • No credible business case • Amount of expected passing trade has been over exaggerated • May impact trade of other businesses • Will cause off site drainage issues • Could challenge the vitality of the pub as a community asset • Doesn’t accord with the emerging Joint Local Plan • Foul water disposal is not addressed in the submission • Will harm ecology • The ecology reports are incomplete • No mention of land in control (under option) of the applicant • Officer report contains misleading statements on a number of matters • Conflicts with Core Strategy • Does not meet the policy requirements for a farm shop • Suggested benefits of scheme are already adequately supplied by existing outlets • Applicant has not shown this location is best option for this development, there are better alternative sites • Should be considered as a retail outlet and be subject of retail impact assessment • Allowing this development will lead to further pressure for expansion • Does not comply with JLP policy DEV15 • Site is not physically well-related to an existing settlement • Assessment of the agricultural land classification has not been undertaken • Is a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) required in relation to impacts upon the Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)? • Has an EIA screening opinion been provided by the LPA • No design rationale provided • Effective consultation has not been demonstrated • The scheme is not compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework

Comments made in support of the application are summarised as follows:

• An important outlet for smaller independent producers and retailers as an alternative to supplying the supermarkets • Opportunity for regional suppliers • Growing market for provenance-based food and drink • Consumers actively seek out local produce where they can, this outlet would contribute greatly to choice and experience – 2 key determinants in food shopping • Adds additional choice for locals • Provides an opportunity for this king of outlet where there currently is none between Exeter and Lifton • Will aid the regeneration of Whiddon Down • Provides a Farm Shop facility for users of the A30 • Will promote/showcase local produce, as evidenced by the list of interested sellers • Will provide job opportunities, including for young people in the area • The site is an accessible location for a Farm Shop • There is an absence of comparative facilities so close to the A30 • Will provide A30 users with information on local area encouraging re-visits or new destinations for future holidays • A beacon business for the Southwest • Increase interest in the National Park and surrounding area • Encourage local businesses to diversify and adapt to support demand/supply chain • Increase visitation to other local attractions

Relevant Planning History

Pre-app advice - positive

1255/18/FUL - Development of new farm shop, with ancillary cafe, supporting secondary areas and a dedicated children's soft play area (class uses A1/A3/D2) - Withdrawn

Analysis

Principle of Development/Sustainability and policy context

Farm shop and retail policies

Since the writing of the previous draft report (appended in full herewith for ease of reference), the joint local plan (JLP) has been out for consultation on the main modifications, this happened on 22 nd October 2018-3rd December 2018. At this point some policies within the JLP can now be given significant weight depending upon whether any modifications are proposed, what these are and whether there are any unresolved objections to the policy following the examination in public (EiP). Policy DEV15 is the single most relevant policy to this development proposal insofar as it identifies what the Local Planning Authority (LPA) consider to constitute a ‘farm shop’ and where and when this will be considered appropriate and acceptable. DEV 15 is not considered to have any outstanding unresolved objections and although some minor modifications are proposed to the wording from that tabled at the EiP, these are expansive explanatory additions rather than altering the meaning of the policy in any way. In addition no modifications whatsoever are proposed to policy point 5 on Farm Shops. As such it is considered that DEV 15 can now be afforded significant weight and the relevant extracts read as follows:

The creation of new or extensions to existing, garden centres or farm shops, in the open countryside and unrelated to a settlement will only be permitted if the proposed development is ancillary to, and on the site of, an existing horticultural business or existing farming operation, and provided that 75% of the goods sold will be produced within the immediate and adjoining parishes. Although restrictions on sales and their provenance have been agreed by the applicant, these are not as restrictive to West Devon and the surrounding parishes as the above policy requires. Similarly the proposed development is not ancillary to nor on the site of an existing farming operation.

DEV15 also goes on to say that development proposals should: iv) avoid incongruous or isolated new buildings. If there are unused existing buildings within the site applicants are required to demonstrate why these cannot be used for the uses proposed before new buildings will be considered.

The previous case officer report provides commentary with reference to the interpretation of Local Plan Policy ED20, which is the main policy of that plan that advises on new farm shop enterprises.

Part of that interpretation of Policy ED20 covers the issue of the sourcing of produce from a “collective of farms” for sale within a single shop unit.

On this matter there is a divergence of officer view. Officers acknowledge that farm shops, subject to suitable planning permission, can sell produce from elsewhere. However the conclusion that this can relate to a facility that is not itself located on or affiliated with an existing farm enterprise is not supported by the policy preamble.

The preamble is clear that;

“A farmer can sell his own produce from an existing building on his farm without the need to seek planning permission as the use is ancillary to the use of the farm, however, if he wishes to bring in produce from elsewhere to supplement his own farm produce he will require planning permission. Difficulties can arise where it is proposed to sell a product range beyond that grown on the farm, in these situations farm shops can have an impact on the existing shops and services in rural areas…” (emphasis added)

As Members will note the preamble refers very clearly to the starting point of a farm shop selling on a farm’s own produce from and existing building as being considered ancillary to the farm use and not requiring consent.

Equally the preamble is clear that planning permission is required to bring in produce from elsewhere to supplement his own farm produce. Whilst not explicit, the preamble infers that such activity is taking place on the farm and that the external produce is brought to that farm.

In addition the preamble then continues as follows;

“It can also have an impact in terms of traffic generation, highways, access and parking arrangements. In individual cases where the development of an unrestricted retail use on a farm would be likely to result in an adverse effect on a nearby shop , the Borough Council may wish to use planning conditions to limit the broad types of produce sold in the farm shop so as to enable permission to be given.” (emphasis added), again the preamble is referring very clearly to the farm shop use being on a farm.

In light of the above thread that runs throughout the preamble, it is officer view that Policy ED20 does not provide support for a retail unit that specialises in selling farm produce where it is not related to an existing farm enterprise and this current proposal would thus not be considered as a ‘Farm Shop’ by officers for the purposes of planning policy. Similarly officers consider that the ‘man on the street’ would expect a ‘Farm Shop’ to have at least its beginnings as a shop sited on an active farm holding predominantly selling produce grown/reared on site.

Thus in this instance the proposal does not, in officer view, equate to a ‘farm shop’ in terms of the policy and instead should be regarded as a retail unit. Whilst the retail unit may seek to limit itself to the sale of local produce from farms in the surrounding area it is not of itself a ‘farm shop’. An analogous concept would be to consider that many retailers sell produce from the locality such as supermarkets selling locally produced food and drink or a retailer seeking to source locally made crafts and clothing. In each instance they still fall under an A1 use in the same way as any other retailer that sources products from local, national or international suppliers.

In light of the above, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is obliged to deal with the proposed development as a retail development and apply the relevant planning guidance and Development Plan policies in its assessment of the proposal.

Retail development assessment

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides the overarching guidance in the general assessment of retail proposals. Within the NPPF under section seven it notes the following;

“Planning policies and decisions should support the role that town centres play at the heart of local communities, by taking a positive approach to their growth, management and adaptation. Planning policies should: a) define a network and hierarchy of town centres and promote their long-term vitality and viability – by allowing them to grow and diversify in a way that can respond to rapid changes in the retail and leisure industries, allows a suitable mix of uses (including housing) and reflects their distinctive characters; b) define the extent of town centres and primary shopping areas, and make clear the range of uses permitted in such locations, as part of a positive strategy for the future of each centre;” (paragraph 85, NPPF)

The NPPF defines town centre uses as follows;

“Retail development (including warehouse clubs and factory outlet centres); leisure, entertainment and more intensive sport and recreation uses (including cinemas, restaurants, drive-through restaurants, bars and pubs, nightclubs, casinos, health and fitness centres, indoor bowling centres and bingo halls); offices; and arts, culture and tourism development (including theatres, museums, galleries and concert halls, hotels and conference facilities).” (Glossary, NPPF)

Members will note that retail development is the first of these uses to be defined.

Paragraph 86 of NPPF then requires the LPA to;

“apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses which are neither in an existing centre nor in accordance with an up-to-date plan. Main town centre uses should be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations; and only if suitable sites are not available (or expected to become available within a reasonable period) should out of centre sites be considered.”

However the NPPF also goes on to state in paragraph 88 that ‘ This sequential Approach should not be applied to applications for small scale rural offices or other small scale rural development.’

The most relevant current Development Plan policy that specifically deals with retail development is Core Strategy Policy SP12, which states that;

“Retail development will be encouraged where it reinforces the role of the town centre and enhances the attractiveness, viability and safety of the town. Proposals for out-of-centre retailing will only be supported where the sequential approach justifies the proposal and there is no unacceptable impact on the town centre.”

WDBC also has an adopted SPD, ‘Assessing the Impact of New Retail Development in West Devon Supplementary Planning Document’ from April 2013. Within this, paragraph 3.11 states:

3.11 Given these circumstances and based on the evidence from the Town Centre Retail Study 2012 which notes the special characteristics of both Okehampton and Tavistock, it is considered that the impact on the existing town centres will become evident at a lower threshold and it is therefore appropriate to set a blanket threshold of 250m2 net for any new retail proposals in edge of centre, out of centre and out of town locations for new build development, change of use or extensions to existing units.’

In terms of emerging policy officers would note that Policy DEV16 of the Joint Local Plan is currently a draft policy as with Policy DEV15 it is not considered to have any outstanding unresolved objections and although some minor modifications are proposed to the wording from that tabled at the EiP, these do not alter the meaning of the policy in any way.

The relevant sections of DEV16 as proposed under the main modifications consultation reads as follows;

“Providing retail and town centre uses in appropriate locations

In determining development proposals which include retail and other town centre uses, including new floorspace, changes of use of existing floorspace, variations in planning conditions and obligations, and also extensions of existing units, the LPAs will consider the following matters:

1. Proposals will be assessed in relation to their support for the spatial strategy of the local plan and the sequential hierarchy of centres. Proposals within identified centres should be of a scale appropriate to the role of the centre.

2. Proposals for main town centre uses in edge of centre locations, and out of centre locations and the Derriford Commercial Centre should be supported by a sequential test that demonstrates flexibility in its assessment and that there are no other sequentially preferable suitable and available sites within or on the edge of an appropriate centre within the hierarchy of centres. This sequential approach is not applicable to applications for small scale rural offices or other small scale rural development. [MM44]

3. Proposals for retail, leisure and office development in edge of centre locations and out of centre locations and the Derriford Commercial Centre must be accompanied by an impact assessment where the floorspace exceeds the thresholds set out below. Any proposal which would have a significant adverse impact on the investment in and/or the vitality and viability of an existing centre or prejudice the deliverability or investment in a proposed centre will not be permitted. [MM44] i. Retail development creating new or additional floorspace greater than 500 square metres (gross) in the Plymouth Policy Area. ii. Retail development creating new or additional floorspace greater than 250 square metres (gross) in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area. iii. Leisure and office development creating new or additional floor space greater than 2,500 sq.m.(gross).”

Overall upon distilling the retail guidance of the NPPF, the current and emerging policies and SPD the two main issues relevant to the assessment of the principle of this application, are;

1. The potential need for a Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) and 2. The potential need for a sequential test.

Sequential test:

The agent has maintained that the proposal is ‘small scale rural development’ as referred to in NPPF para 88 set out above. Their rationale for this is based on several aspects, not least that the Council’s Retail Impact Threshold, as discussed below, is 250sqm of retail area. They further define their interpretation of the NPPF’s ‘small scale’ by the incorporation of other legislation such as the Sunday Trading Hours Act for which the threshold is 280sqm of net space before a ‘small scale retail development’ becomes large scale. They have identified that this Act is used elsewhere in practical planning to define small scale retail such as the CIL Charging schedules of North Somerset, Bournemouth and Cornwall who all use the Sunday Trading definition to define small scale retail parameters. This 280sqm Sunday Trading threshold is also stated as a point of change in the preamble to policy R5 of the WDLP.

There is no formal definition of small scale retail either within our own SPD or planning policies, or within the NPPF. As such in this instance the RIA threshold combined with the fairly widely accepted application of the Sunday Trading Act threshold would suggest that in this instance and location the quantity of retail space applied for is considered by officers to be small scale and as such does not require a formal sequential test of alternative sites.

The Application was accompanied by a Planning Statement which included a summary of alternative sites and the reason why these were considered less suitable and or sustainable than that proposed. Officers consider that the location proposed is relatively centrally located in terms of the potential suppliers of goods cited within the supporting documentation, however it is also a located in a situation which is central to the wider area and exploits the excellent accessibility, transport network and passing trade. Whilst this proposal is to provide a retail outlet for local/regional farm goods, when combined with the café, facilities and A30 location it also has the potential to be a ‘destination’ in itself and en route to Cornwall or East Devon. The most pertinent sections relating to such economic attractions are paras 80 and 83 of the NPPF.

Paragraph 80 states that ‘ Planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development.’

With regard to the rural economy, paragraph 83 states that: ‘Planning policies and decisions should enable: a) the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings; b) the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses; and paragraph 84 states that ‘Planning policies and decisions should recognise that sites to meet local business and community needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport. In these circumstances it will be important to ensure that development is sensitive to its surroundings, does not have an unacceptable impact on local roads and exploits any opportunities to make a location more sustainable (for example by improving the scope for access on foot, by cycling or by public transport). The use of previously developed land, and sites that are physically well-related to existing settlements, should be encouraged where suitable opportunities exist.’

Although the NPPF and existing and emerging policies recognise the need for caution with out of town retail, they and the NPPF also clearly accept that there may be situations where it is reasonable or necessary. The JLP policy predates the latest iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework but it seeks to support the local economy, which is entirely consistent with the economic aims of the Framework a core principle of which is ‘to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy’ (paragraph 8).

Overall then it is officer opinion that in terms of a sequential test, in this instance and taken in context, this proposal does not meet the thresholds that would require one to be undertaken as it is small scale rural development. Additionally the location is considered to be accessible and adequately justified given the pool of potential suppliers cited and the potential for the development to become a distinctive destination in itself.

Were any future proposals for expansion ever proposed then the resultant retail area would obviously be larger and not necessarily appropriate although this would of course be for consideration at the time.

RIA and village vitality:

It has been confirmed by the agent that the net retail floor area of the proposal is 228sqm and the externally measured gross is 247sqm (in accordance with the NPPG guidance on gross floor area calculation). This has been indicated on plan by the agents and a rationale or what functional space has been included and excluded provided. Officers are in agreement with this approach and as such the proposal is below the thresholds for providing a formal RIA within the existing SPD (250m2 net) and the new JLP policy DEV16 (250m2 gross). This approach has been challenged by objectors to the proposal, however officers consider that it has been undertaken correctly and that, combined with the conditions which are proposed to limit flexibility between area use and limit sales area, that this approach is correct.

This does not of course mean that consideration of the expected impact of the proposal upon the surrounding retail offers and village/towns is not necessary however. The proposal will offer an alternative retail and café option to those already present in the area, such as the Whiddon Down services store, Hog and Hedge, The Post Inn and nearby farm shops for example. The consideration with new out of town centre retail development is to ensure that it will not have a detrimental impact upon the vitality and viability of the Town/village centres whilst at the same time ensuring that the planning system does not unduly interfere with the free market economy.

Whiddon Down is the nearest settlement, which is close by, being immediately to the south. It does benefit from the convenience store associated with the garage, but this facility is not intended to be replicated by this café/shop application and a condition is recommended to ensure that the proposed development does not provide convenience items such as newspapers or medicines.

The village is also served by the pub, the Post Inn, which officers regard to be an important community asset, offering an enclosed, accessible, safe and warm space for the community to socialise and take meals. As such, officers are recommending a condition which ensures that the café facility associated with the shop remains ancillary to the retail, and for the café to maintain only normal daytime opening hours, to avoid drawing away from the social function that the pub, as a community asset, will provide in the evenings. As an exception to this, the café opening hours will be extended into the evening for a three month period in the summer, but will only provide hot drinks and snacks, and not plated meals.

Utilising these conditions, officers conclude that the proposed development will not prejudice village vitality; the conditions will ensure that the development does not directly challenge the vitality of the pub in Whiddon Down as a community asset nor challenge community shops within Whiddon Down and lying further afield, such as the shop at Spreyton.

Design

The scheme provides a pseudo agricultural design, with the buildings having a simple appearance and seeking to replicate the utilitarian vernacular of agricultural structures seen throughout West Devon. The building is large however with a height in excess of that required to house the uses proposed and the development in terms of layout is heavily dominated by the large area afforded to parking provision. The lack of context on a working agricultural holding does mean that despite the design cues the building does not, in officer opinion, wholly read as an agricultural structure, however overall it is suited to its purpose and the provision of ample parking is realistic and honest give its reliance on the private motor vehicle and its locational intent to exploit passing customers. The proposed external design is therefore considered to be acceptable subject to the detailed specification of finish materials to be considered within a planning condition and with the addition of more recently proposed brise soleils in order to minimise evening light spill as will a condition restricting external lighting.

There was concern that as the floorspace afforded to retail provision is shared with that for use as café the lack of any internal subdivision between these spaces is of concern as this permeability could lead to the bleeding of one use into the other and an overall lack of clear definition as how much retail space is proposed. The provision of potentially flexible floorspace for uses other than retail also raised questions as to whether the retail use was the primary use. However the Council is now in receipt of plans showing the gross and net retail areas and as such can condition that this area is retail only so as to control the ratio or café to retail to that which is shown and considered acceptable.

Landscape:

The site lies close to the boundaries of a number of differing landscape characters and types. This often makes for a more complex landscape which is influenced by a number of different features, landscape elements and forms. This raises the importance of fully understanding the site and its context, allowing the local characteristics to be noted and considered in the context of the proposed development. Similarly the site should be assessed for both its visual amenity and any harmful visual impacts resulting from the proposed development (from construction to implemented and mature planting) within the local and wider landscape, including the setting of the Dartmoor National Park (DNP). An appraisal has been carried out by officers in consideration of the above.

The proposed development is located on the north side of the A30, at the Whiddon Down junction. This has seen relatively recent junction improvements (about 11 years ago) and associated planting which is now beginning to mature. To the south, and separated by the trunk road, is the small village of Whiddon Down (WD) and also the WD A30 services and motel.

These are all within a rural landscape, on the moorland edge, but strongly influenced by the steeply undulating landscape and complex land patterns to the north. The presence of the A30 is clear but not always visually dominating although it does impact on the tranquillity and remoteness present further away from its influence. The proposed site is in close proximity the associated junction movements and can be seen when travelling east along the A30 and from the A3124 overpass. The proposed building would be seen largely in isolation, on rising ground, however, would not appear to breach the skyline. This is not perceived as a prominent ridgeline in the wider landscape but whilst in a more elevated positon, visual receptors are considered to have a low sensitivity (trunk road users) or at such a distance as to limit the harm and recognition as a non-agricultural building. The dominant mass of Dartmoor will not be lost or adversely affected. The Landscape Character Assessment notes the very limited right of way network. This is further mitigated by existing vegetation but importantly significant new planting around the site boundaries and across the parking area. As noted by the DNP, there are opportunities to further enhance this which can be secured by condition.

In summary the proposed development will result in negligible to low/moderate harm to the current landscape character and visual amenity. Specialist landscape officers are satisfied that the overall landscape character is conserved given the scale, form and location of the proposal close to the A30. It therefore broadly accords with both existing and emerging landscape policies.

Protected Landscape The proposed development is within the setting of the Dartmoor National Park; its officers have not raised an objection and WD officers broadly concur with the conclusions drawn, including the need to secure some additional strategic planting.

Detailed Design / Landscape Design The landscape scheme has been well considered and will mitigate the proposed building in the wider and local landscape. Of particular note are the orchard and woodlands which reflect local character.

However, some additional consideration is required for the north-west elevations, through reduced glazing and potential light spill, and increased planting to frame views in and out from the site (within blue line ownership). As such this will be conditioned as will the addition of brise soleil to some of the larger areas of glazing.

Overall the Specialist Landscape Officer’s opinion was that there was no objection subject to conditions to secure some additional planting and reduce potential light glare through large glazed openings.

Officers are in agreement that although the application site is within an elevated location and can be viewed by a number of receptors within the surrounding area overall it is acceptable as discussed below:

It is viewed when approaching for a short period along the A30 in an eastbound direction, and from the road bridge crossing the A30 at that point. After passing under the road bridge the application site is within an elevated and prominent position immediately above the approaching junction.

However, from this angle it is viewed within the context of the significant woodland screen behind the site to the east. Therefore, although the proposed building will be seen from this significant distance, it will sit subserviently underneath the substantial wooded background, and will not break the skyline. This context, in combination with the utilitarian and pseudo agricultural quality off the design response, leads officers to conclude that the proposal will sit acceptably within the landscape when viewed from the west.

With regard to light pollution, the openings on the west elevation are not excessive, and light emission from the windows would, in any case, be seen within the context of the multitude of car headlights and rear lights when viewed from this direction at night and will be lessened by additional planting and the brise soleil.

From the north the site does appear elevated on its approach, but it is also well shielded by the boundary vegetation which, with the opportunity for augmentation through the landscape condition, will successfully conceal the buildings from view.

Consistent with the comments made by the Dartmoor National Park Authority, officers consider that views from the National Park can be mitigated by a modified planting schedule. Dartmoor National Park is not objecting to this scheme.

The proposed development will be readily visible from the area immediately to the south and south east, in and around the A30 and the Whiddon Down junction. From areas below the site the development will be seen to rise up and break the skyline. However, it is important to appreciate that simply seeing a development is not analogous with it having a harmful visual impact. One must consider the impact of the development within the context of the prevailing landscape characteristics of the area.

This is an area dominated by the A30 and its various junctions and road spurs, in addition to the service station facility at Whiddon Down Services. Even though the Farm Shop will be visible within these areas, the prevailing character is therefore already engineered, with large scale arterial road engineering, associated retaining walls and banks, cuttings and embankments, spur roads and elevated service buildings. In addition to this, the significant noise pollution emanating from the A30 removes any sense of tranquillity one would normally associate with the countryside. Furthermore, commercial roadside facilities are an accepted element of landscape character at A road junctions and form part of the general kinetic experience along arterial routes, and indeed there are already such facilities along the A30, for example at Sourton junction.

Within this context, officers are satisfied that the proposed development will not unduly alter the existing landscape character nor have a harmful visual impact.

Economic Benefits

Although it has been clearly identified above that this proposal is not a ‘Farm Shop’ it does carry some of the economic benefits associated with such a shop as cited in the Council’s Farm Shop policy which identifies that ‘ Farm shops can serve a vital function in rural areas by helping to meet the demand for fresh produce and providing new sources of jobs and services, in turn this will help contribute to the rural economy.’ Despite its lack of association with one particular agricultural holding, these benefits are also true of the current proposal.

In this case, officers also consider this site to be very well placed to take advantage of the thousands of people who travel through Devon along the A30; the site will be accessible to the significant number of commuters and tourists visiting both Devon and Cornwall. As such, this is regarded as a significant opportunity and platform from which to retail local produce and to promote the local economy to a wide ranging demographic.

Whilst both national policies and existing/emerging local policies encourage retail to be located in town centres where possible, they all acknowledge that there will be instances where this is not possible and where an alternative location for retail may be acceptable positive, and non-detrimental. For example, the preamble to Policy DEV16 (retail location) of the JLP states that:

‘ This policy provides some flexibility to enable carefully selected development outside settlement boundaries where it can be demonstrated that this could be achieved sustainably, taking into account how the proposal might reduce rural isolation, provide jobs for residents of the immediate area reducing commuting, and foster vitality without significant adverse effects on the local character and environmental quality’.

Neighbour Amenity:

The scheme is well isolated from neighbouring properties and will not have an unacceptable impact upon neighbour amenity

Highways/Access:

A number of concerns regarding this element have been raised by interested third parties. Due to the location of the site and access adjacent to the A30 and its junction, the scheme has been carefully considered by both Highways England and Devon County Council as the highways authority. Both are offering no objection and both have provided full written response. DCC have stated that:

‘‘The application is supported by a Transport Statement prepared by transport consultants, Calibro. Although the scoping of the statement was not previously agreed with the highway authority, the content and conclusions are broadly acceptable to the highway authority.

Highways England have stated that:

We are therefore satisfied that the SRN can accommodate the level of trips associated with the proposed development and we have no objection in principle to the proposals.

Officers note the comment made by DCC regarding signage on third party land and, as these signs are superfluous in any case, these drawings are not included within this recommendation. However, Highways England has identified that signs are necessary within their land to prevent vehicles overshooting the junction, and the condition they are requesting to prevent this, seeking the detail of this signage, is included within the recommendation.

Officers are satisfied that the parking provision presented within the submission will satisfactorily cater for visits to the facility.

Ecology

The Council’s biodiversity specialist has carefully considered the submitted ecological surveys and is satisfied with the findings. Initially at the time of writing the original officer report dormice surveys were outstanding. However, the worst case scenario for the outcome of these surveys was considered and would require the works to gain a licence from Natural England before they can proceed. The biodiversity specialist originally made his assessment against the existence of dormice within the hedgerow as the worst case scenario which triggered the need to carry out the three derogation tests. Since the previous officer report was written the full surveys have now been completed and submitted and have demonstrated the presence of dormice and as such the derogation tests are applicable as follows:

Imperative Reason Overriding Public Interest – Officers regard this to be an important opportunity to capitalise on an accessible site well placed to bring local goods to a wide ranging market and showcase produce. The potential boost that this provides to the local rural economy combined with any other economic benefits such as repeat visits, the potential ripple effect to local suppliers of produce and staff employment (5 full-time 5 part time) is considered to meet this test.

No Satisfactory Alternative – The location exploits the plentiful customer base and whilst being alongside the A30 and elevated is surprisingly well screened and innocuous. It is clear that the design approach, specifically the landscaping, has had to take into account a number of factors, including the need for safe access and the need to assimilate the development into the site whilst managing the slope of the site. The site is relatively central to the sited potential suppliers and the % of produce limitations conditioned. This junction is relatively new in terms of the age of the A30 and as such already reads as a heavily engineered/developed point along this route thus lessening the impact of this further proposal by avoiding other more naturalised landscapes or those with a greater time-depth. Equally the location of the site is such that it does not impact upon Dartmoor National Park being a nationally designated landscape, sensitive to changes to its setting. Due to the unusually low number of public footpaths offering views to the site the visual impacts of the development is very low.

In considering the finer detailed elements of the sites development for the use proposed the ecological harm as identified is resultant from a specific removal of hedge in order to facilitate the access to the site. It is understood that during the development’s initial design iterations several different access arrangements were considered, but it was concluded that the final design solution was the most appropriate and provided safe access to the highway network. The access provides the necessary visibility splays to provide safe access in and out of the site whilst the internal layout provides the swept path requirements to allow deliveries to access the site. Overall then officers are satisfied that there is no satisfactory alternative both in terms of the location of the development or in terms of the loss of landscaping such as it is.

Maintenance of Favourable Conservation Status – the ecologist has outlined mitigation (either the standard 1 or 2 stage vegetation removal methods used where dormice are present, and ecologist supervision) and compensatory provisions (hedgerow translocation, 14 dormouse boxes, and new habitat creation comprising approximately 38m of species-rich hedgerow, 2,100m2 of tree planting and 750m2 woodland edge planting). These measures would maintain the favourable conservation status of the dormice (the habitat creation measures in fact would be expected to significantly enhance available habitat) and accordingly this test is considered met.

Other than the access point, the internal layout seeks to minimise the impact upon the field boundaries requiring only the removal of approximately 7m of the eastern boundary hedge bank and approximately 10m of the southern boundary hedge bank to facilitate vehicle access into the site. As noted above, we propose to translocate areas of hedge bank within the proposed development site, mitigating the loss of these sections and providing opportunities for biodiversity enhancements. Officers also consider the significant enhancement of habitat, delivered through the landscaping scheme, to be an environmental benefit which heavily weighs in favour of this application.

Other Matters:

Thornbury Farmhouse is the nearest listed building and is 650m away to the NNE of the site and its main aspect is N-S. It is predominantly enclosed on all sides by agricultural buildings of various materials heights and ages and as such any wider views to and from it are intermittent at best and views from it certainly quite constrained by existing structures. It is not the type of property to have had designed views and its main aspect is offset form the proposal in any case. There are few public rights of way in the area and due to the high sided road hedges the number of locations affording views of both are minimal. Additional planting and the brise soleil will minimise light spill and the development is already set against the settlement of Whiddon Down and its services plus the light and disturbance of vehicles on the A30. Whiddon Down does not have a Conservation Area, nor any Listed buildings in proximity to the application site. As such it is not considered that this proposal will affect the setting of, or cause any harm to, Thornbury or any other LB.

A number of third party representations have been received from representatives of existing farm shops within the locality. Although the potential impact of a development upon village vitality or community assets is a legitimate material planning consideration, the commercial impact upon competing businesses as a result of greater commercial competition is not. This is a fine balance, however as discussed above, it is considered that the scale of this proposal combined with the limiting conditions regarding use and goods to be sold are adequate to ensure that the proposal can prosper and provide healthy competition whilst not unduly impacting upon the commercial vitality and viability of the existing businesses or community assets within the immediate or wider area.

Conclusion

In reassessing this application officers have reached conclusions that diverge from the previous assessment as to whether the development constitutes a “farm shop”. This reassessment has confirmed that the development does not meet the intent of those specific policies relating to farm shops within current or emerging Development Plan policy.

In acknowledging the above, officers have concluded that the nature of the enterprise requires that it should be considered as a small scale rural development Therefore whilst the development as proposed does not meet the definition of a farm shop it cannot simply be refused and should be assessed against the relevant policies relating to both retail and small scale rural development.

As has been set out within the main body of the report the size of this development is such that it falls below the established and well used thresholds that would trigger the need for either a retail impact study or sequential testing.

In arriving at their conclusions on this proposal officers have given careful consideration to the various impacts of the development as noted within the report. In doing so they have identified that suitable conditions can be imposed to make the scheme acceptable in planning terms.

In light of all of the above officers are therefore of the view that whilst the proposed development cannot be considered as a farm shop, there are positive economic and social impacts that will occur as a result. This in combination with the lack of negative visual and landscape impact as well as the proposed ecological and landscape mitigation and enhancement of the site to the benefit of the locality all weigh in favour of granting consent.

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

Planning Policy

Section 70 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that regard be had to the development plan, any local finance and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act requires that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The relevant development plan policies are set out below:

West Devon Borough Council Core Strategy 2011

SP1 – Sustainable Development SP10 – Supporting the Growth of the Economy SP11 – Rural Regeneration SP12 – Retailing SP13 – Community Services and Facilities SP17 – Landscape Character SP18 – The Heritage and Historical Character of West Devon SP19 – Biodiversity SP20 – Promoting High Quality Design SP21 – Flooding

West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review 2005(as amended 2011)

NE10 – Protection of the Countryside and Other Open Spaces BE13 – Landscaping and Boundary Treatment ED14 - Employment ED16 – Rural Employment ED20 – Farm Shops R2 – Retail R5 – Small-scale Shops TLS5 – Recreation T8 – Car Parking T9 – The Highway Network PS2 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PS3 – Sewage Disposal PS4 – Private Water Supply

Status of emerging JLP policies for decision makers

The Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan has undergone a main modifications consultation (22 Oct – 03 Dec 2018) as part of the examination in public to determine the soundness of the plan. The joint councils are waiting to hear from the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) regarding the next steps. Until PINS provide an update, the JLP councils are unable to commit to a timetable for adoption.

The National Planning Policy Framework provides guidance on the weight that can be given to policies in emerging local plans in paragraph 48:

48. Local planning authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)

The JLP is nearing the conclusion of the examination process, and can be considered to be at an advanced stage of preparation.

Whilst technically all objections are unresolved until the Inspectors’ issue their Final Report, some policies which did not receive objections at the Reg 19 stage could be given very significant weight. The nature and scope of objections made regarding each policy have been taken into account when determining the weight to be apportioned to each emerging policy.

The Council consider that all emerging policies are compliant with the NPPF. It should be noted that the JLP is being examined against the provisions of the 2012 NPPF, and therefore for the purposes of paragraph 48 of the NPPF policies should also be assessed for their conformity against the 2012 NPPF.

In considering the merits of this proposal, case officer recommendations are informed by the weight that can be attributed to emerging JLP policies and adopted development plan policies, as well as the degree of conformity with the 2018 NPPF.

PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017)

SPT1 Delivering Sustainable development SPT2 Sustainable linked neighbourhoods and sustainable rural communities SPT5 Provision for retail development SPT6 Spatial provision of retail and main town centre uses TTV2 Delivering sustainable development in the thriving towns and villages policy area TTV31 Development in the Countryside DEV1 Protecting amenity and the environment DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise and land DEV15 Supporting the rural economy DEV16 Providing retail and town centre uses in appropriate locations DEV17 Promoting competitive town centres DEV18 Protecting local shops and services DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment DEV24 Landscape character DEV27 Nationally protected landscapes DEV28 Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation DEV30 Trees, woodlands and hedgerows

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.

Planning Conditions

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents to be listed on the decision notice.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which this approval relates.

3. Prior to installation, samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out only in accordance with the details so approved.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to consider the details of the materials.

4. The farmshop shall not be open to customers other than between the hours of 0900 and 2100, Monday to Sunday inc. bank holidays otherwise agreed to in writing by the LPA’. The ancillary café opening hours will be restricted to 0900 to 1800 Monday to Sunday inc. bank holidays, except for 90 days during the peak holiday months (April to September) when it will operate in accordance with the farmshop opening hours. The sale of plated meals shall be excluded during the extended opening period.

Reason: In the interests of public amenity and to safeguard the vitality of a local facility

5. No less than 60% of products sold for retail (A1) at the Whiddon Down Farmshop shall be produced or reared from within the Council areas of West Devon, Mid-Devon and Dartmoor National Park , not more than 20% of products sold for retail (A1) at the Whiddon Down Farmshop shall be produced or reared from within the county of Devon and not more than 20% of products sold for retail (A1) at the Whiddon Down Farmshop shall be produced or reared from elsewhere

Reason: To ensure compliance with policies SP12 and DEV16 and in the interests of the local economy.

6. There shall be no display or retail of any of the following;

1. Daily newspapers and magazines II. Stationery III. Chemist/ pharmaceutical goods

Reason: To ensure compliance with policy ED20

7. Notwithstanding the provision of the General Permitted Development Order, the premises shall only be used as an A1 retail unit, A3 cafe and associated ancillary uses. ‘The ancillary café area hereby approved shall be used in conjunction with the integral A1 use within the application site and shall not be sold or operated separately.

Reason: To ensure compliance with policies SP12 and DEV16, in the interests of the local economy

8. There shall be no A1 retail use beyond the area as denoted in pink on the approved “Gross Retail Space Plan”

Reason: To ensure compliance with policies SP12 and DEV16, in the interests of the local economy

9. Notwithstanding the submitted information, no development shall be commenced until full details of the most sustainable drainage option has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). Design steps as below:

2. Soakaway to be designed for a 1:100 year event plus 40% for climate change.

3. The permeable paving should be designed in accordance with CIRIA C753. Full design details and sectional drawing showing the specification and make up will be required.

4. A scaled plan showing full drainage scheme, including design dimensions and invert/cover levels, within the private ownership.

5. If the Local Planning Authority concludes that the method of drainage approved as part of this permission is undermined by the results of the percolation tests, a mitigating drainage alternative shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

6. The drainage scheme shall be installed in strict accordance with the approved plans, maintained and retained in accordance with the agreed details for the life of the development.

Reason: To ensure surface water runoff does not increase to the detriment of the public highway or other local properties as a result of the development.

10. Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall be commenced until:

Details of the works for the disposal of sewage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the dwelling shall not be occupied until the approved works have been completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Details to include a completed FDA1 form and justification for private foul system.

If the proposed development results in any changes/replacement to the existing system or the creation of a new system, scale plans of the new foul drainage arrangements will also need to be provided. This will include a location plan, cross sections/elevations, specification and its capacity to hold additional load. Landscape Plan prior to commencement

Reason: To ensure the delivery of an appropriate foul drainage scheme

11. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority an improved scheme of landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the site and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development, and additional planting to assimilate the development into the site when viewed from the Dartmoor National Park.

All planting, seeding, turfing or hardsurfacing comprised in the approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out by the end of the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. The landscaping scheme shall be strictly adhered to during the course of the development and thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscaping scheme in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and to assimilate the development into its surroundings.

12. A traffic signage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Highways England) and the approved signage scheme implemented prior to the development being brought into use.

Reason: In the interests of highways safety

13. Any removal of hedgerow to facilitate access shall proceed in accordance with measures detailed in section 5.3.3 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Blackdown Environmental, v3 1st Aug 2018). In the event that the detailed dormouse survey finds evidence of dormice, no works to the hedgerow shall commence until the LPA has been provided with a copy of the licence for Dormice issued by Natural England pursuant to Regulation 55 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 authorising the works to go ahead.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity

14. All avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measures detailed in Appendix 6 of the Ecological Appraisal (Blackdown Environmental, November 2018) shall be strictly adhered to and implemented in full.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity

15. No works to remove the hedgerows shall commence until the LPA has been provided with a copy of the licence for Dormice issued by Natural England pursuant to Regulation 55 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 authorising the works to go ahead.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity

16. No works or development shall take place until a scheme for the protection of the retained trees has been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall be in accordance British Standard 5837:2012 -Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations and shall include:

b) a schedule of tree works for all the retained trees in the paragraphs above, specifying pruning and other remedial or preventative work, whether for physiological, hazard abatement, aesthetic or operational reasons. All tree works shall be carried out in accordance with BS3998, Recommendations for Tree Work; of drives and paths within the RPAs of retained trees in accordance with the principles of “No-Dig” construction;

c) the details and positions (shown on the plan at paragraph (b) above) of the Tree Protection Barriers (section 6.2 of BS5837:2012), identified separately where required for different phases of construction work (e.g. construction, hard landscaping). The Tree Protection Barriers shall be erected prior to each construction phase commencing and remain in place, and undamaged for the duration of that phase. No works shall take place on the next phase until the Tree Protection Barriers are repositioned for that phase;

Reason: In order to identify, and protect, trees of public amenity value

17. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an investigation and risk assessment and, where necessary, a remediation strategy and verification plan detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation strategy and verification plan and prior to occupation of any part of the permitted development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority.

Reason: No site investigation can completely characterise a site. This condition is required to ensure that any unexpected contamination that is uncovered during remediation or other site works is dealt with appropriately.

18. Notwithstanding the provisions of the General Permitted Development Order, there shall be no external alterations or extension to this approved building without prior formal approval by the LPA

Reason: In order to protect the setting of the National Park and this countryside location

19. There shall be no exterior lighting installed other than that which has already been approved, without the prior approval of the LPA.

Reason: in the interests of the setting of the National Park, the countryside location and biodiversity

20. Prior to the first use of the building the brise soleil as approved shall be installed on the buildings in locations which shall first have been approved by the LPA, and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the setting of the National Park, the countryside location and biodiversity 21. Prior to the building being brought into first use, the applicant shall submit for approval, full details of proposed electric vehicle charging points to be provided, these details shall include the location, number and power rating of the charging points. This shall accord with good practice guidance on mitigating air quality impacts from developments produced by the Institute of Air Quality Management.

This agreed scheme shall be implemented as agreed and available for use prior to first occupation of any building approved by this permission, and retained as such.

Reason: in the interests of the environment, health and air quality management

APPENDIX

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Matt Jones Parish: Drewsteignton Ward: Drewsteignton

Application No: 2701/18/FUL

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr Michael Gordon JW Mann Ltd Rural Solutions Ltd C/O Agent Canalside House Brewery Lane Skipton BD23 1DR

Site Address: Land North Of A30 Junction, Whiddon Down, Drewsteignton, Devon

Development: Development of new farm shop and ancillary cafe with supporting secondary areas consisting of storage, WCs, offices and kitchen space (resubmission of 1255/18/FUL)

Reason taken to Development Management Committee:

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Conditions

Time Accord with Plans Opening Hours Materials samples prior to installation Percentage of sales limited to local produce No selling of convenience items Café to be ancillary, normal daytime opening hours (summer extended opening, no plated meals) Surface water drainage specification prior to commencement Foul water specification prior to commencement Landscape Plan prior to commencement Traffic signage scheme agreed and implemented prior to first use Accord with details of biodiversity report Copy of dormice licence (if applicable) prior to commencement Tree Protection Plan prior to commencement Unsuspected contamination

Key issues for consideration:

The main issues are the principle of the development, access parking and highways safety, landscape impact and ecology, drainage, neighbour amenity and any impact upon village vitality

Site Description:

The application site is a parcel of agricultural land located immediately to the north of the A30 junction at Whiddon Down. Officers understand that the land was used as a storage area when the junction was constructed, and it’s most recent use has been as agricultural ground for the storage of bales.

The site is within designated countryside but is otherwise free of specific planning constraints. The Dartmoor National Park is approximately 250m to the south. The nearest listed buildings are a set of gate posts and Hole Cottages beyond Whiddon Down to the west. There is not intervisibility between the site and these buildings. The grade II Thornbury Farmhouse is to 650m to the north, but the site does not influence its setting.

The Proposal:

Planning permission is sought for the development of a new farm shop and an ancillary cafe with supporting secondary areas consisting of storage, WCs, offices and kitchen space. This scheme is a resubmission of planning application reference 1255/18/FUL which was withdrawn by the applicant in order to conduct further consultation with the local community.

Consultations :

• County Highways Authority

No objection subject to conditions -

• Highways England

No objection subject to condition –

We are therefore satisfied that the SRN can accommodate the level of trips associated with the proposed development and we have no objection in principle to the proposals.

• Landscape/Trees

No objection subject to condition

• Biodiversity Section

No objection subject to condition –

‘The application is supported by a PEA (Blackdown Environmental, v3 1 st Aug 2018) which includes results of desk study, site visit, detailed reptile surveys and ongoing dormouse surveys.

The site is described as comprising two fields, that to the west ‘used for the storage of silage bales and comprises a mosaic of bare ground, vegetated spoil heaps and species poor semi-improved grassland with rushes and the field to the east is used for sheep grazing and is dominated by improved grassland.’ These are bounded in part by species-rich hedgerows.

The report summarises the proposal ‘to develop the western field into a farm shop with associated parking, offices and a dog walking area. It is proposed to use the eastern field to obtain access from the main road into the site. The site plan as proposed includes the removal of approximately 17m of species-rich hedge bank from the eastern and southern field boundaries to enable access.’

New habitat proposals include approximately 38m of species-rich hedgerow, 2,100m2 of tree planting and 750m2 woodland edge planting.

With respect to protected species:

- No evidence of badger was recorded (although it is likely badgers may or could use the site on occasion). Precautions during construction have been recommended. - There is value for foraging and commuting bats in the hedgerows – these will be retained (except for a 17m gap), and the value of the site for bats will be significantly enhanced through new hedgerow, tree and woodland edge planting. - No reptiles were recorded on site during detailed survey. - It is likely that bird species would use the hedgerows for nesting. Precautions before and during construction have been recommended. - Dormice have been assumed presence based on local records and suitable habitat on site. Surveys are ongoing, however for the purposes of the PEA, planning application, and habitat creation they have been assumed present, and implications considered (with recommendations for mitigation and compensation).

Imperative Reason Overriding Public Interest – Establish the public interest (social, economic) which has some imperative nature (i.e. required soon) which overrides the maintenance of the fields as they are at present.

No Satisfactory Alternative – Consider and discount alternatives – e.g. design/layout that would not require loss of any hedgerow – why this is unfeasible.

Maintenance of Favourable Conservation Status – the ecologist has outlined mitigation (either the standard 1 or 2 stage vegetation removal methods used where dormice are present, and ecologist supervision) and compensatory provisions (hedgerow translocation, dormouse boxes, and new habitat creation comprising approximately 38m of species-rich hedgerow, 2,100m2 of tree planting and 750m2 woodland edge planting). These measures would maintain the favourable conservation status of the dormice (the habitat creation measures infact would be expected to significantly enhance available habitat) and accordingly this test is considered met.

If you consider that the 3 tests are met, then it would be reasonable to consider that Natural England would grant a EPS Licence, in which case please apply the condition below.

• Any removal of hedgerow to facilitate access shall proceed in accordance with measures detailed in section 5.3.3 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Blackdown Environmental, v3 1st Aug 2018). In the event that the detailed dormouse survey finds evidence of dormice, no works to the hedgerow shall commence until the LPA has been provided with a copy of the licence for Dormice issued by Natural England pursuant to Regulation 55 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 authorising the works to go ahead.

Additionally, if minded to approve please also apply the following condition:

• Avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measures detailed in Appendix 5 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Blackdown Environmental, v3 1st Aug 2018) shall be strictly adhered to and implemented in full.’

• WDBC Drainage

No objection subject to surface water and foul drainage conditions

• South West Water

No objection

• Dartmoor National Park

No objection subject to landscape condition

• Drewsteignton Parish Council

• No safe pedestrian or cycle access to the site.

Representations:

34 letters of representation have been received at the time of writing this report, 29 objecting and 5 in support. Concerns raised within the submitted objections are summarised as follows:

Comments made in support of the application are summarised as follows:

• Adds additional choice for locals • Will aid the regeneration of Whiddon Down • Provides a Farm Shop facility for users of the A30 • Will promote local produce, as evidenced by the list of interested sellers • Will provide job opportunities, including for young people in the area • The site is an accessible location for a Farm Shop • There is an absence of comparative facilities so close to the A30

Relevant Planning History

1255/18/FUL - Development of new farm shop, with ancillary cafe, supporting secondary areas and a dedicated children's soft play area (class uses A1/A3/D2) - Withdrawn

Analysis

Principle of Development/Sustainability:

West Devon Borough Council has a policy which aids the management of new farm shop enterprises within the countryside, which is policy ED20. Some third parties have asserted that this scheme is not technically a farm shop as it is not tied to an individual business and therefore does not fall for consideration under that policy.

The preamble to the policy ED20 is helpful. It states that ‘ A farmer can sell his own produce from an existing building on his farm without the need to seek planning permission as the use is ancillary to the use of the farm, however, if he wishes to bring in produce from elsewhere to supplement his own farm produce he will require planning permission. Difficulties can arise where it is proposed to sell a product range beyond that grown on the farm, in these situations farm shops can have an impact on the existing shops and services in rural areas. It can also have an impact in terms of traffic generation, highways, access and parking arrangements. In individual cases where the development of an unrestricted retail use on a farm would be likely to result in an adverse effect on a nearby shop, the Borough Council may wish to use planning conditions to limit the broad types of produce sold in the farm shop so as to enable permission to be given.’.

There is therefore a clear inference within the policy preamble that it is not intended to purely focus on the delivery of dedicated, farm specific shops, but allows opportunities for a more broad ranging enterprise incorporating produce from more than one facility. We can certainly conclude that this scheme is for a farm shop in so much as the majority of its produce will only be from local farms. Although it is the case that this will not be tied to a specific farm, it will be closely associated with a collective of local farms, and a planning condition will ensure that the majority of produce is from the surrounding area. The planning condition is recommend to require the following:

• 60% of products sold for retail (A1) at the Whiddon Down Farmshop shall be produced or reared from within the Council areas of West Devon, Mid-Devon and Dartmoor National Park • 20% of products sold for retail (A1) at the Whiddon Down Farmshop shall be produced or reared from within the county of Devon • 20% of products sold for retail (A1) at the Whiddon Down Farmshop shall be produced or reared from elsewhere’

Looking at the scope of the proposal, in combination with the farm shop policy and its supporting preamble, officers are satisfied that this scheme is applicable for consideration under policy ED20 and that this can be secured through planning condition.

Although the policy predates the latest iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework, it seeks to support the local economy, which is entirely consistent with the economic aims of the Framework. A core principle of the Framework is ‘to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy’ (paragraph 8). Paragraph 80 states that ‘ Planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development.’

As such, officers consider policy ED20 to be a Development Plan policy which enjoys a significant degree of consistency with national planning policy, and it continues to have primacy within the decision making process. It supports farm shop development subject to the following:

Proposals for a farm shop will be permitted:

(i) Where is will not lead to a dispersal of activity or uses on such a scale as to prejudice village vitality; (ii) Where existing buildings are used or where a new building is required it has no impact on the character and appearance of the site, settlement and surrounding countryside; (iii) Where there is no significant adverse impact on access, highway safety, and loss of amenity to nearby residential properties.

The policy does not require assessment of existing alternative provision.

Village Vitality

Whiddon Down is the nearest settlement, which is close by immediately to the south. It does benefit from the convenience store associated with the garage, but this facility is not intended to be replicated by this farm shop application and a condition is recommended to ensure that the proposed development does not provide convenience items such as newspapers or medicines.

The village is also served by the pub, the Post Inn, which officers regard to be an important community asset, offering an enclosed, accessible, safe and warm space for the community to socialise and take meals. As such, officers are recommending a condition which ensures that the café facility associated with the farm shop remains ancillary to it, and for the café to maintain only normal daytime opening hours, to avoid drawing away from the social function that the pub, as a community asset, will provide in the evenings. As an exception to this, the café opening hours will be extended into the evening for a three month period in the summer, but will only provide hot drinks and snacks, and not plated meals.

Utilising these conditions, officers can conclude that the proposed development will not prejudice village vitality; they will ensure that the development does not challenge the vitality of the pub in Whiddon Down as community asset nor challenge community shops within Whiddon Down and lying further afield, such as the shop at Spreyton.

Design

The scheme provides a pseudo agricultural design, with the buildings having a simple appearance and seeking to replicate the utilitarian vernacular of agricultural structures seen throughout West Devon. The proposed design is therefore considered to be acceptable subject to the detailed specification of finish materials to be considered within a planning condition.

Landscape:

The application site is within an elevated location. It is viewed from a number of receptors within the surrounding area.

The proposed development will be readily visible from the area immediately to the south and south east, in and around the A30 and the Whiddon Down junction. From areas below the site the development will be seen to rise up and break the skyline. However, it is important to appreciate that simply seeing a development is not analogous with it having a harmful visual impact. On must consider the impact of the development within the context of the prevailing landscape characteristics of the area.

This is an area dominated by the A30 and its various junctions and road spurs, in addition to the service station facility at Whiddon Down Services. Even though the Farm Shop will be visible within these areas, the prevailing character is therefore already heavily engineered, with large scale arterial road engineering, associated retaining walls and banks, cuttings and embankments, spur roads and elevated service buildings. In addition to this, the significant noise pollution emanating from the A30 removes any sense of tranquillity one would normally associate with the countryside. Furthermore, commercial roadside facilities are an accepted element of landscape character at A road junctions and form part of the general kinetic experience along arterial routes, and indeed there are already such facilities along the A30, for example at Sourton junction.

Within this context, officers are satisfied that the proposed development will not alter the existing landscape character nor have a harmful visual impact.

Economic Benefits

The Council’s Farm Shop policy identifies that ‘ Farm shops can serve a vital function in rural areas by helping to meet the demand for fresh produce and providing new sources of jobs and services, in turn this will help contribute to the rural economy.’

In this case, officers consider this site to be very well placed to take advantage of the thousands of people who travel through Devon along the A30; the site will be accessible to the significant number of commuters and tourists visiting both Devon and Cornwall. As such, this is regarded as a significant opportunity and platform from which to retail local produce and to promote the local economy to a far ranging demographic.

Neighbour Amenity:

The scheme is well isolated from neighbouring properties and will not have an unacceptable impact upon neighbour amenity

Highways/Access:

Highways England have stated that:

We are therefore satisfied that the SRN can accommodate the level of trips associated with the proposed development and we have no objection in principle to the proposals.

Officers are satisfied that the parking provision presented within the submission will satisfactorily cater for visits to the facility.

Farm Shops and the Joint Local Plan

Some third parties have questioned the conformance of this scheme with the emerging Joint Local Plan, and its subtly different approach to the management of farm shop developments.

However, the Joint Local Plan is an emerging document which will be liable to modification in the future, and its relevant policies are given moderate weight in this assessment. Overall, officers consider that the policy ED20 has primacy and should be afforded significant weight as an NPPF complaint component of the current Development Plan.

Ecology

The Council’s ecologist has carefully considered the submitted ecological surveys and agrees with the findings. The Council ecologist has found no harm with regard to protected species and notes the additional habit provided by the landscaping scheme.

He also notes that at the time of writing this report dormice surveys are outstanding. However, the worst case scenario for the outcome of these surveys would only require the works to gain a licence from Natural England before they can proceed. The Councils ecologist has made his assessment against the existence of dormice within the hedgerow as the worst case scenario. This triggers the need to carry out the three derogation tests:

No Satisfactory Alternative – It is clear that the design approach, specifically the landscaping, has had to take into account a number of actors, including the need for safe access and the need to assimilate the development into the site. As such, officers are satisfied that there is no satisfactory alternative.

Maintenance of Favourable Conservation Status – the ecologist has outlined mitigation (either the standard 1 or 2 stage vegetation removal methods used where dormice are present, and ecologist supervision) and compensatory provisions (hedgerow translocation, dormouse boxes, and new habitat creation comprising approximately 38m of species-rich hedgerow, 2,100m2 of tree planting and 750m2 woodland edge planting). These measures would maintain the favourable conservation status of the dormice (the habitat creation measures in fact would be expected to significantly enhance available habitat) and accordingly this test is considered met.

Officers also consider the significant enhancement of habitat, delivered through the landscaping scheme, to be an environmental benefit which weighs in favour of this application.

Other Matters:

A degree of third party representation have been received from representatives of existing farm shops within the locality. Although the potential impact of a development upon village vitality or community assets is a legitimate material planning consideration, the commercial impact upon competing businesses as a result of greater commercial competition is not.

Conclusion

Although not tied to a specific local farm, conditions will ensure that the site is tied to a collective of local farms, and that the majority of goods will be delivered from local farms. As such, officers are satisfied that the scheme is appropriate for consideration under policy ED20.

Conditions will ensure that the scheme does not damage village vitality nor challenge the viability of any community assets. Although the site is within an elevated and prominent location, for the reasons outlined above it is not considered by officers to render a harmful impact within the landscape. The scheme and the various third party comments have been carefully considered by both the Highways Authority and Highways England, both of whom raise no objection with regard to the highways implications of the development.

The scheme provides a significant opportunity to provide a platform for the marketing of local goods to the significant tourist and general public movements which utilise the A30 each year from around Devon, Cornwall and beyond. This, combined with forecast employment, leads officers to conclude that the scheme provides a significant economic benefit to the local economy, which weighs in favour of this scheme.

For the reasons outlined above this application is considered acceptable and in accordance with the relevant development plan policies. This application is therefore recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions.

This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and with Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Planning Policy

The relevant development plan policies are set out below:

West Devon Borough Council Core Strategy 2011

SP1 – Sustainable Development SP10 – Supporting the Growth of the Economy SP11 – Rural Regeneration SP 12 – Retailing SP13 – Community Services and Facilities SP17 – Landscape Character SP18 – The Heritage and Historical Character of West Devon SP19 – Biodiversity SP20 – Promoting High Quality Design SP21 – Flooding

West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review 2005(as amended 2011)

NE10 – Protection of the Countryside and Other Open Spaces BE13 – Landscaping and Boundary Treatment ED20 – Farm Shops T8 – Car Parking T9 – The Highway Network PS2 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PS3 – Sewage Disposal PS4 – Private Water Supply

Emerging Joint Local Plan

The Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (the JLP) will replace the above as the statutory development plan once it is formally adopted.

Annex 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides guidance on determining the weight in relation to existing and emerging development plan policies.

• For current development plan documents, due weight should be given to relevant policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

• For the JLP, which is an emerging development plan, the weight is to be determined by the stage of its preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections, and its degree of consistency with the Framework.

The JLP is at a relatively advanced stage of preparation. The precise weight to be given to policies within the JLP will need to be determined on a case by case basis, having regard to all of the material considerations as set out on the analysis above.

PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017)

SPT2 Sustainable linked neighbourhoods and sustainable rural communities TTV31 Development in the Countryside DEV1 Protecting amenity and the environment DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise and land DEV15 Supporting the rural economy DEV16 Providing retail and town centre uses in appropriate locations DEV17 Promoting competitive town centres DEV18 Protecting local shops and services DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment DEV24 Landscape character DEV27 Nationally protected landscapes DEV30 Trees, woodlands and hedgerows

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.

Planning Conditions

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents to be listed on the decision notice.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which this approval relates.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to consider the details of the materials.

Reason: In the interests of public amenity and to safeguard the vitality of a local facility

5. 60% of products sold for retail (A1) at the Whiddon Down Farmshop shall be produced or reared from within the Council areas of West Devon, Mid-Devon and Dartmoor National Park , 20% of products sold for retail (A1) at the Whiddon Down Farmshop shall be produced or reared from within the county of Devon and 20% of products sold for retail (A1) at the Whiddon Down Farmshop shall be produced or reared from elsewhere

Reason: To ensure compliance with policy ED20 and in the interests of the local economy

6. There shall be no display for retail of any of the following;

1. Daily newspapers and magazines II. Stationary III. Chemist/ pharmaceutical goods

Reason: To ensure compliance with policy ED20

7. The premises shall only be used as a farmshop and associated ancillary uses, and for no other purpose including any other use within Class A1. ‘The ancillary café area hereby approved shall be used in conjunction with the integral A1 use within the application site and shall not be sold or operated separately.

Reason: To ensure compliance with policy ED20, in the interests of the local economy

8. Notwithstanding the submitted information, no development shall be commenced until full details of the most sustainable drainage option has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). Design steps as below:

1. Soakaway testing to DG 365 to confirm the use of soakaways or to support an alternative option. Three full tests must be carried out and the depth must be representative of the proposed soakaway. Test results and the infiltration rate to be included in the report. 2. Soakaway to be designed for a 1:100 year event plus 40% for climate change. 3. The permeable paving should be designed in accordance with CIRIA C753. Full design details and sectional drawing showing the specification and make up will be required. 4. A scaled plan showing full drainage scheme, including design dimensions and invert/cover levels, within the private ownership. 5. If the Local Planning Authority concludes that the method of drainage approved as part of this permission is undermined by the results of the percolation tests, a mitigating drainage alternative shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. 6. The drainage scheme shall be installed in strict accordance with the approved plans, maintained and retained in accordance with the agreed details for the life of the development.

Reason: To ensure surface water runoff does not increase to the detriment of the public highway or other local properties as a result of the development.

9. Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall be commenced until:

1. Details of the works for the disposal of sewage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the dwelling shall not be occupied until the approved works have been completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Details to include a completed FDA1 form and justification for private foul system.

Reason: To ensure the delivery of an appropriate foul drainage scheme

10. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority an improved scheme of landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the site and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development, and additional planting to assimilate the development into the site when viewed from the Dartmoor National Park.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscaping scheme in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and to assimilate the development into its surroundings.

11. A traffic signage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Highways England) and the approved signage scheme implemented prior to the development being brought into use.

Reason: In the interests of highways safety

12. Any removal of hedgerow to facilitate access shall proceed in accordance with measures detailed in section 5.3.3 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Blackdown Environmental, v3 1st Aug 2018). In the event that the detailed dormouse survey finds evidence of dormice, no works to the hedgerow shall commence until the LPA has been provided with a copy of the licence for Dormice issued by Natural England pursuant to Regulation 55 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 authorising the works to go ahead.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity

13. All avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measures detailed in Appendix 5 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Blackdown Environmental, v3 1 st Aug 2018) shall be strictly adhered to and implemented in full.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity

14. No works or development shall take place until a scheme for the protection of the retained trees has been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall be in accordance British Standard 5837:2012 -Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations and shall include:

a) a plan to a scale and level of accuracy appropriate to the proposal that shows the position, crown spread and Root Protection Area (paragraph 4.6 of BS5837) of every retained tree and hedge on site and on neighbouring or nearby ground to the site in relation to the approved plans and particulars. The positions of all trees to be removed shall be indicated on this plan; b) a schedule of tree works for all the retained trees in the paragraphs above, specifying pruning and other remedial or preventative work, whether for physiological, hazard abatement, aesthetic or operational reasons. All tree works shall be carried out in accordance with BS3998, Recommendations for Tree Work; of drives and paths within the RPAs of retained trees in accordance with the principles of “No-Dig” construction; c) the details and positions (shown on the plan at paragraph (b) above) of the Tree Protection Barriers (section 6.2 of BS5837:2012), identified separately where required for different phases of construction work (e.g. construction, hard landscaping). The Tree Protection Barriers shall be erected prior to each construction phase commencing and remain in place, and undamaged for the duration of that phase. No works shall take place on the next phase until the Tree Protection Barriers are repositioned for that phase;

Reason: In order to identify, and protect, trees of public amenity value

15. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an investigation and risk assessment and, where necessary, a remediation strategy and verification plan detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Ben Dancer Parish: Tavistock Ward: Tavistock South West

Application No: 2780/18/ARM

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr Ian Jewson Mr D Russell - Bovis Homes Ltd Walsingham Planning C/O Agent 1 Gas Ferry Road Bristol BS1 6UN

Site Address: Land Adjacent To Callington Road, Tavistock

Development: READVERTISEMENT (Additional documents received) Application for approval of reserved matters for details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for residential development comprising 157no. dwellings with associated landscaping and drainage infrastructure following outline approval 00554/2013

Reason item is being put before Committee

Cllr. Parker and Cllr Evans have confirmed that the application has been brought before the Committee given the sensitivities that have been a factor since the allocation for 750 homes within the Core Strategy 2011 and in the interests of transparency.

Recommendation:

Conditional Approval - subject to no material planning considerations being received by 28 February 2019, which in the opinion of the Head of Practice in consultation with the Chairman, may lead the Committee to reach a different decision.

Conditions

1. Time limit 2. Accord with plans 3. Details of facing and roof materials 4. Details of eaves and verges 5. Retaining walls final finish details 6. Details of canopies, porches and chimneys 7. Zone of Influence mitigation 8. Details of parking court lighting 9. Details of rear/security gates 10. Electric vehicle charging points

Key issues for consideration:

This is a reserved matters application following outline planning consent 00554/2013/TAV which granted consent for a mixed use development comprising up to 750 dwellings (Use Class C3), a primary school site (Use Class D1), a local convenience store (Use Class A1), railway station related development (Sui Generis) and associated infrastructure; including detailed drawings for a new vehicular and pedestrian access from the A390.The outline consent has agreed the principle of development as per the allocation within the Core Strategy under Strategic Policy SP23A. This current reserved matters application for an initial phase comprising 157 dwellings seeks agreement on the following matters; Appearance Landscaping Layout Scale The outline planning consent was also subject of a range of planning obligations secured via a section 106 agreement some of which would be triggered by this first phase (see main body of report for details).

Site Description:

The application site is located to the southwest of Tavistock being located on the southern side of the Callington Road (A390) from which access is to be derived in accordance with the details as approved via the outline planning consent granted under application 00554/2013.

The site consists of agricultural land bounded to the east by the railway cutting and embankment. To the northeast at the site’s northernmost extent there is a small section of woodland and on the opposite side of the road to the site are the dwellings forming Abbotsfield Crescent.

The Proposal:

As previously noted this is a reserved matters application seeking consent for the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of this first phase of development.

It should be noted that the following applications are also currently under consideration by the Local Planning Authority (LPA);

2807/18/ARC - Application for approval of details reserved by conditions 1, 6, 7, 13, 16, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26 following grant of planning consent 00554/2013

3345/18/ARM - Application for approval of reserved matters for details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for a residential development comprising 241no. dwellings with associated landscaping and drainage infrastructure following outline approval 00554/2013

The first of these is a discharge of conditions application seeking approval of matters that were subject of conditions attached to the original outline application. Some of these conditions are directly related to aspects of the reserved matters application. Most relevant are the conditions.

Condition 6 of the outline consent (00554/2013) requires that prior to commencement of each phase a landscaping scheme shall have been submitted to the LPA for its approval and implemented in tandem with each phase.

Condition 13 requires that prior to commencement of each phase of development a scheme for the disposal of both surface and foul water shall have been submitted to the LPA for its approval and implemented prior to the occupancy of the dwellings within that phase.

Condition 20 requires that prior to commencement a detailed Green Infrastructure Plan relating to phase 1 of the development shall have been submitted to the LPA for its approval.

At the present time the application to discharge these and other relevant conditions is the subject of assessment under application 2807/18/ARC.

Consultations :

Members are asked to note that this application has been subject to 2 full periods of consultation due to the need to revise the original submission in light of consultation responses received in response to the first consultation period.

Members are also asked to note that, where appropriate, both the original and further comments of the consultees are set out below for ease of reference.

• County Highways Authority – No objection

Original consultation response (original Further consultation res ponse (revised scheme) scheme) “The application is for approval of reserved The application is for approval of reserved matters following the grant of outline matters following the grant of outline planning permission and therefore the planning permission and therefore the principle has already been determined as principle has already been determined as acceptable. The acceptable. The highway authority has therefore no highway authority has therefore no objection in principle, but there are some objection in principle. The highway authority issues that will require amendment and / or has previously recommended the further clarification that are outlined below amendment to some details in the former Some of this items are general in nature formal response dated 2 October 2018. and some are related to a specific submitted plan (the comments follow the The applicant has now satisfactorily plan reference number in that instance). addressed all of the matters raised and the plans are now acceptable to the highway General items authority as details of the first phase of the 1. There are verges between the footway development, which is subject to the and the carriageway which is not an conditions imposed on the outline planning acceptable solution as they will become an permission unnecessary maintenance liability for the highway authority. Informative Note for the applicant:- 2. There is a square entry to all 6 metre The Highway Authority has no objection to long bays. Bays at the end need 45 degree the proposed development, subject to the splays. above conditions but, if it is the applicant’s intention to offer any of the road works 3. There should generally be no white lines included in the application for adoption as / give way markings in a development or maintainable highways, permission under they should certainly be kept to a minimum. the Town and Country This detail can easily be agreed / amended Planning Act should not be construed as at the approval to the highway engineering details adoption agreement stage. necessary for inclusion in an Agreement under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980. 4. Details of the 'Feature Band' shown in red on the plans?

Plan 2101 P01 1. The first cul-de-sac on the left, between 9 and 13 is not eligible for adoption as a highway as it serves fewer than three units. It should be a private drive.

2. Parking for deliveries to plot 1 is very remote and may give rise to unsafe parking on the carriageway.

3. The verge opposite plot 37 should be omitted.

4. The visibility for plots 48 and 49 needs consideration - hedges may obstruct

5. Strange alignment of parking space outside Plot 81

6 Visibility for garages 96 / 98 needs consideration.

Plan 2102 P02 1. Cul-de-sac between plots has no entry radii - does turning movement work?

2. Private access to plots 45 - 38 should be less than three from either end.

3. There should be no 'Feature Bands' on the main access road.

4. Access to plots 146 and 147 seems to be across a parking bay?

Plans 2201 P01 / 2106 P01 Road 2 is 1 in 10

Plans 2202 P01 / 2105 P01 Road 4 is very steep for a shared surface - 1 in 10

Plans 2203 P01 / 2107 P01 Roads 8 and 9 are very steep for a shared surface - 1 in 10

The highway authority reserve the right to comment further upon the receipt of amended plans or further information and will be prepared to discuss the content of this response with the applicant at a meeting if necessary.”

• Environmental Health Section – Comments

“Condition: Provision of Electric Vehicle Charging Points

Prior to commencement of development the applicant shall submit for approval, full details of proposed electric vehicle charging points to be provided, these details shall include the location, number and power rating of the charging points. This shall accord with good practice guidance on mitigating air quality impacts from developments produced by the Institute of Air Quality Management.

This agreed scheme shall be implemented as agreed and available for use prior to first occupation of any building approved by this permission, and retained as such.”

• Tavistock Town Council – Neutral View

Original consultation response (original Further consultation response (revised scheme) scheme) “Neutral View however the “Please refer to previous comments” following points were raised; “Neutral View – would wish to 1. That wherever see a properly drafted map, possible the existing hedges and details of the proposed are retained, where this is changes, in order that a view can be not possible they should be reached. replaced with traditional Devon hedges; It was felt a poor standard of paperwork had been submitted for 2. That wherever consideration. possible existing trees are retained, where this is not possible they should be replaced with at least semimature trees;

3. Concerns were raised regarding the lack of a crossing point on such a busy road, to take pedestrians to the wider pavement on the far side of the development;

4. Concern that this phase does not include the provision of the school or shop, which will be required early on for the initial residents;

5. The preference would be that house sales/social housing should be available to those with a ‘local connection’ only;

6. The preference would be for a higher % of affordable housing, it is felt that the current provision”

• Gulworthy Parish Council – Objection

Original consultation response (original Further consultation response (revised scheme) scheme) “This is a contaminated site and the water “With reference to planning application runoff will go into the canal. 2780/18/ARM, it was resolved at the Gulworthy Parish Council meeting on 7th There are no public footpaths. January to make the following comments :- The consultation process should urgently The density of 40 dwellings per hectare be suspended because of the incoherent exceeds the density of other parts of documentation provided. Many Tavistock. inaccuracies have been identified, Gulworthy Parish Council recommend that The executive housing is in the worst place a review of the application takes place with with no view. greater attention to the details it provides.”

The private right of way is blocked and “With reference to planning application construction traffic for phases 2 and 3 will 2780/18/ARM, Gulworthy Parish Council need to go through the housing estate. wishes to include to its earlier response the attached document.” Council request a site meeting/open day to discuss matters further.”

• Devon County Strategic Planning – Children’s Services

“Many thanks for your email below. Devon County Council Education has no request to make as education section 106 contributions have been secured and education land secured through the signed section 106 agreement linked to the outline planning application 00554/2013.”

• Drainage – Comments

“Thank you for consulting us on the above application. As an internal consultee we advise the LPA on foul and surface water drainage matters to ensure the development complies with the relevant legislation and guidance, including but not limited to, the NPPF and Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

We are no longer proving formal responses for Major applications. Instead we will be liaising with Devon County Council (DCC) as the Lead Local Flood Authority and they will provide a single combined response.

Please ensure DCC have be informed of this application.”

• Devon County Flood and Coastal Risk Engineer – No objection

Original consultation response Further consultation resp onse Recommendation: Recommendation: Although we have no in-principle objection to We have no in-principle objections to the the above planning application at this stage, above planning application, from a surface the applicant must submit additional water drainage perspective, at this stage. information, as outlined below, in order to demonstrate that all aspects of the proposed Observations: surface water drainage management system The applicant has provided updated Micro have been considered. Drainage calculations, Callington Road Tavistock 06/02/2018 File D04, indicating Observations: that the 30 year discharge rate is restricted Following my previous consultation response to below equivalent greenfield rates. FRM/WD/2807/2018, dated 02/11/2018, the applicant has It is acknowledged that high groundwater at submitted additional information in relation to the site precludes the use of infiltration the surface water drainage aspects of the based drainage devices and that long term above planning storage is not required due to the application, for which I am grateful. requirements at the time of the previous • Drainage Strategy Plan Sheet 1 dated application. August 2018 Drawing Number 2501 Rev P04 It is recommended that there should be no • Drainage Strategy Plan Sheet 2 dated amendments or adjustments to boundary August 2018 Drawing Number 2502 Rev treatments which have been design to P04 accommodate exceedance flows. • Proposed Impermeable Areas Plan 3511 P03 The underdrained permeable paving, • Micro Drainage ICP SUDS 06/02/2019 indicated on the two Drainage Strategy • Overland Flow Plan 2510 P03 dated Plans, should be taken forward to provide an August 2018 element of source control and treatment to • Micro Drainage Output Surface Water the surface water runoff in line with Devon Drainage Strategy dated 06/02/2018 County Council SuDS Guidance (2017). Pages 1-15 • Tavistock Construction Phase Drainage Plan

The Micro Drainage network output for the 30 year event indicates flow of 30.4 l/s whereas the 30 year greenfield runoff rate is 24.5 l/s. The applicant should revise the model/calculation or provide justification as to why the rate exceeds the greenfield runoff rate for the equivalent rainfall event.

It is acknowledged that high groundwater at the site precludes the use of infiltration based drainage devices and that long term storage is not required due to the requirements at the time of the previous application.

It is recommended that there should be no amendments or adjustments to boundary treatments which have been design to accommodate exceedance flows.

The underdrained permeable paving, indicated on the two Drainage Strategy Plans, should be taken forward to provide an element of source control and treatment to the surface water runoff in line with Devon County Council SuDS Guidance (2017)

• Biodiversity Specialist – No objection subject to the imposition of condition

Original consultation response Further consultation response (revised (original scheme) scheme) I am responding in bullet form only at Having reviewed the further information this stage as further detail will be submitted relating to 2780/18/ARM (namely required and I would anticipate a further Ecological Statement and CEMP), I am comment upon receipt of information. I largely satisfied that my points have been have also reviewed the comment of addressed. Katherine and Alexis, and there are points they have made that are The one outstanding point which on the consistent with my own thoughts – face of it appears minor but I consider it accordingly some of this will look important given that the hedgerows are key familiar but I have tried not to repeat to retaining ecological value at this site (and their comments as much as possible. accordingly meeting policy requirements Given the nature of the site (namely that relating to biodiversity) that still requires the entire 750 was in outline in 2013) I clarification relates to the ownership and have dealt with the 3 separate maintenance of the northern half of the applications as one, unless specified eastern Phase 1 boundary tree otherwise. line/hedgerow bordering residential gardens. 2807/18/ARC, 2780/18/ARM, 3345/18/ARM - Callington Rd - I accept that H7 can be cut in accordance Biodiversity with the schedule in 4.59 of the GI Plan, and for H8 one side only of the hedgerow Survey information will be cut according to 4.59 for hedgerow (with the other side of H8 cut in accordance Each of the applications relies on with 4.60 by residents), but what remains surveys carried out in and around 2013 unclear is the tree/hedge line on Ph1 as would have been summarised within eastern boundary. The ecological value of an Ecology chapter of the this hedgerow is evident but it remains Environmental Statement related to unclear how its management can be 00554/2013. achieved in accordance with that referenced in 4.59 (passed below for No updated survey information has reference). been submitted with the 3 applications – there is no meaningful reference to this in the DAS associated with 2780/18/ARM, however the closest to an update being within section 5.8 of the DAS associated with 3345/18/ARM, which notes: - Updated bat activity, badger and dormice surveys undertaken in Further to 4.59 of the GI Plan, the recently 2015 submitted Ecological Statement (filed as - Updated Ext Ph1 Habitat and 31 st Jan 2019 on our website) states that badger survey undertaken in ‘Where gardens back onto hedgerows, Sept 2018. hedgerow not included in ownership of adjacent house. Access for maintenance None of these updated surveys have available from at least one side of retained been submitted, and it is reasonable to hedgerows.’ assume their findings have informed none of the 3 applications given timings Given this eastern treeline/hedgerow of the submissions, and dates of appears only accessible via residential documents included within the gardens only (i.e. there is no submissions (e.g. the DAS associated buffer/maintenance strip shown for access with 2780/18/ARM is dated August 2018 by a management company if their which is before the updated ExPh1 ownership is excluded from residential survey). curtilages?) clarity is required in terms of this ARM application (as it may impact on 5 years have elapsed since the Ecology layout). chapter of the ES was written. This chapter was also written in advance of NB – the Tamar EMS condition remains as detailed layout, design and knowledge per my earlier email – we are yet to of impacts/implications and mitigation formalise the SAMMS list and amended was known. It is clear that an updated costings. Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) is required taking into account updated survey information, and benefitting from a full knowledge of the level of impact, and necessary measures needed to avoid and mitigate impacts.

I note documents such as the GI Plan, and Street Lighting Plan but cannot be confident that these are informed by the results of the updated ecology surveys, and accordingly cannot draw any conclusions as to their suitability (noting for example that greater and lesser horseshoe, and barbastelle bats were recorded on site – all particularly light sensitive species).

With respect to whether 2015 surveys are valid for a 2018 application, this is border line – there are no hard and fast rules, albeit that the gov.uk website references that: ‘Surveys should be up to date and ideally from the most recent survey season (this can vary depending on the species).’

National Planning Practice Guidance with respect considering biodiversity in planning decsions noting: ‘Local planning authorities should only require ecological surveys where clearly justified, for example if they consider there is a reasonable likelihood of a protected species being present and affected by development. Assessments should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development proposed and the likely impact on biodiversity.’

Accordingly, survey validity is somewhat open to interpretation – essentially there needs to be sound information on which to consider the presence of and implications upon protected species – i.e. we need to know what is there, how they are using the site, and the impacts of the proposal. For example, in some cases a validation survey may suffice if it shows that site conditions are unchanged. It is not uncommon for references to surveys of more than 3 years old being out of date.

So, I would be interested in an update, and the consultant ecologists rationale as to the validity of survey information that has been gathered. I will then be in a better place to identify and issues with survey effort.

GI Plan

I have reviewed the GI Plan submitted to discharge condition 20 of the outline permission – the GI Plan noting itself that the GI Plans for subsequent phases ‘will be based on up-to-date surveys for protected species, where required’ – it is not evident however that this Phase 1 GI Plan was based on such, not least given the document is dated Aug 2018, and would predate the updated Ext Ph1 Habitat survey and badger survey undertaken in Sept 2018. It is noted that the GI Plan covers Phase 1 of the development only – a further GI Plan would be required for Phase 2 prior to commencement, and so on for further phases.

I entirely support Katherine’s comments with respect hedgerows backing onto residential gardens – it needs to be clear whether the hedgerows fall into curtilages, or whether they will be retained and managed by a Management Company and accordingly fall under the specification within the LEMP. As these hedgerows will be critical for protected species, we need confidence that appropriate management will be secured and achievable. I note the reference in 4.60 to an expectation that residents will trim hedges back to the boundary where hedges abut gardens. I would suggest a map should be submitted clearly showing which hedgerows will be managed by a Management Company, and those that will be managed by residents. For example: - H7 appears to fall under the management spec in the GI plan, but also abuts residential gardens, - will it be managed according to GI Plan specification or under the residents management referenced in 4.60 - H8 and tree/hedge line on Ph1 eastern boundary – referenced with respect spec in GI Plan but for the most part abuts residential gardens – so is it residents management referenced in 4.6 or the preferred cutting method avoiding interference and securing wildlife benefit. If in accordance to the GI Plan spec, how is access going to be achieved (as per Katherine’s query).

This is critical with respect bats – presently I am unclear which are the key foraging/commuting corridors for light sensitive bat species (this will be clear from the updated survey information), and one would expect that these corridors would not be managed/interfered with by new residents, but must be retained and managed in accordance with specification in the GI Plan – e.g. I anticipate that H8 and tree/hedge line on Ph1 eastern boundary are both features of importance to bats (subject to what the updated bat activity survey recorded) – we need confidence that these hedgerows can and will be managed for wildlife in accordance with specification, and not cut at the whim of new residents.

In general the approach to hedge management is commendable and to be welcomed, however I do not have confidence that it will be applied to the extent of hedgerows that we will require to safeguard the important features for wildlife.

As yet we have nothing for Phase 2, however exactly the same will apply.

Lighting

I note a Phase 1 Street Lighting Concept Plan has been submitted with both 2807/18/ARC with respect condition 7 of 00554/2013, and with 2780/18/ARM (although seemingly nothing for 3345/18/ARM unless I have missed it).

The purpose of condition 7 of 00554/2013 amongst no doubt others was to ensure the lighting design would not result in unacceptable impacts on protected species use of the site, of principal importance being bats, not least the greater and lesser horseshoe bats, and barbastelle – as previously indicated these being particularly light sensitive species.

All that has been submitted is a proposed adoptable street lighting plan. There is no information about the levels of light spillage, and this has not been cross referenced to corridors/hedgerow features that the ecologists will have identified as requiring maintaining as dark features (albeit I don’t have that information either currently).

I would expect light modelling of these street lights, any other external lighting, and most probably internal lighting, if there is potential for it to have impact on features identified as important for bats.

There is much to be done to improve the lighting plan/strategy, and more information required, and it must cross reference to the updated ecology information. Accordingly as well as being an issue for the RM application, the condition could not be discharged for Phase 1 yet. We would also of course require the information for Phase 2.

Tamar European Marine Site

The site falls within the Zone of Influence for new residents have a recreational impact on the Tamar European Marine Site (comprising the Plymouth Sound and Estuaries SAC and Tamar Estuaries Complex SPA). This Zone of Influence has recently been updated as part of the evidence base gathering and Duty to Cooperate relating to the Joint Local Plan, namely the study completed to consider recreational pressure of residents from new development upon the Tamar European Marine Site ( EMS Recreation Study Document 04. Survey of recreational use within the Plymouth Sound and Estuaries European Marine Site: Scoping report and survey results, MBA, March 2017).

The Study clarified and confirmed a 12.3km ZOI around the Tamar EMS. The proposed development site within this ZOI for the Tamar EMS, and accordingly the recreational pressure of new residents associated with the development will require mitigating to ensure they do not have a significant effect on the Tamar EMS (as without mitigation the new residents in combination with other development could have a significant effect on the Tamar EMS).

This is considered in more detail in the Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Joint Local Plan (July 2017) which notes that: ‘In order to address the impacts arising from the increased recreational pressure, a single mitigation strategy will be agreed with Plymouth City Council, South Hams District Council and West Devon Borough Council and also with Cornwall Council and a mechanism for securing the funding through planning obligations will be set out and agreed in a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Using evidence from the Plymouth Sound and Tamar Estuaries Recreation Study (Marine Biological Association, 2017), a single mitigation strategy will identify the interventions required and the SPD will then set out the charge that will be applied to all new dwellings and tourist developments within a ‘Zone of Charging’ as set out in Policy SPT13 ‘European Protected Sites – mitigation of recreational impacts from development’.

The Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS) list is currently being finalised, with a view to being agreed through Duty to Cooperate and Natural England (and will ultimately inform the JLP SPD) – this being a costed list of management actions that are required to mitigate impacts of new residents, and towards which commuted sums from development are required to contribute towards delivering.

This is considered in full within the attached HRA Screening and Appropriate Assessment, and the following condition would be required for both of the Reserved Matters applications to ensure the proposals do not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Tamar EMS in combination with other applications:

Condition: Prior to first occupation of any residential unit, a scheme to secure mitigation of the additional recreational pressures upon the Tamar European Marine Site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation.

Informative: This condition can be satisfactorily addressed by means of a pre-occupation contribution towards improved management within the Tamar European Marine Site (informed by the SAMMS list) calculated in accordance with the following table (or any subsequent SPD approved at the time the contribution is triggered). At that time the Applicant should contact the Council's Development Management team to arrange payment of the contribution

Reason: The development lies in the Zone Of Influence of the Tamar European Marine Site (comprising the Plymouth Sound and Estuaries SAC and Tamar Estuaries Complex SPA) where it is considered there would be a likely significant effect from this development, when taken in combination with other plans and projects, upon these European designated sites. To ensure that the proposal may proceed as sustainable development, there is a duty upon the Local Planning Authority to provide sufficient mitigation for any recreational impacts which might arise upon the European designated sites. In coming to this decision, the Council has had regard to Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the requirements of WDBC adopted policy SP19 and policies SPT11, SPT13 and DEV28 of the proposed JLP.

Happy to discuss any of this further as required

• Natural England – No objection

“Thank you for consulting Natural England on the Appropriate Assessment for the above development in accordance with Paragraph 63 (3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Please be advised that, on the basis of the appropriate financial contributions being secured to the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan SAMMS list, Natural England concurs with your authority’s conclusion that the proposed developments will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of Plymouth Sound and Estuaries SAC and the Tamar Estuaries Complex SPA European sites.”

• Historic England – No objection

“Thank you for your letter of 4 September 2018 regarding the above application for planning permission. This application forms the first of several reserved matter applications that will be coming forward for the above site. On the basis of the information available to date, we do not wish to offer any comments on phase one of the development but would suggest that you seek the views of your specialist conservation and archaeological advisers, as relevant. However, Historic England would request that we are consulted on any further applications for the next phases of development as we may wish to offer more detailed comments in those instances.

It is not necessary for us to be consulted on this application again, unless there are material changes to the proposals. However, if you would like detailed advice from us, please contact us to explain your request.”

• Conservation Specialist – No objection subject to imposition of suitable conditions

Original consultation response Further consultation response (revised (original scheme) scheme) I agree with the observations offered There is certainly improvement. The bottom by our Landscape colleagues so I will line is that if you choose to go down a try not to duplicate too much. historicised design route you must do it in an informed way and see it through with some 2780/18/ARM and 3345/18/ARM – rigour. I hope these comments on design types The heritage considerations for this will help. part of the overall site are quite limited. The railway CA is a distinct feature Paddock Green / Boundary Cottages: with a very specific character which is Designs show some promise but this is evidenced by cuttings and dependent on attention to detail. A few embankments. It is not part of its comments:- setting to be passing through agricultural land. The WHS is some - Materials are so important especially where distance away and we have accepted stone is concerned, but also render finishes that there is no likelihood of significant (variety of texture and application). Stone must harm to setting here. Having said that be local – Yennadon, Trevillet (t/a Mill Hill) and there are elements worthy of comment granite. Brick choices need careful thought. in that they may set low standards for future phases. A few points I have - Roof materials? Clearly grey natural slate is noted are:- preferred as that is the Tavistock material and this site is very close to Mill Hill where it all - Tavistock is a slate roof town. came from. Whilst some flat grey slim profile tiles may be acceptable on some - Windows – balanced casements are shown less prominent buildings I would which is welcome and needs to translate into say that decent blue grey natural actual build, ideally flush fitting types eg: slate ought to be the norm. The https://www.residencecollection.co.uk/planning- lack of natural slate is a problem. and-conservation/ Mode of opening should be This issue is compounded by the indicated. Sadly all of the windows are proposed use of profiled cement casements. Tavi is a primarily sash window tiles and some that are red/brown – town and there are plenty of decent sliding this I consider completely PVCu sashes available eg: unacceptable. I would also https://www.sashwindowsuk.com/sash- discourage the use of blue/black windows/charisma-rose/ Some of these artificial slate. designs are screaming out for sashes, especially those with Georgian type frontages - A high proportion of roofs have and where there are bays I would say they are very steep pitches of 45, 50 essential to be sash windows to achieve any degrees or more. Whilst Tavistock sense of authenticity. does have roofs of this pitch they are associated mostly with - Slate hanging is nearly always of a smaller particular architectural styles – slate size and was traditionally fixed back to Victorian gothic or medieval. When front so that the riven edge forms a natural applied to what are standard mass drip. See attached pic. housing designs the effect is top heavy. If the roofing material is not - Details of eaves, verges and sills very good quality natural slate then such important and again some variety is essential compositions appear inappropriate. between different designs. Rainwater goods More roofs in the town are in the are not shown and should be. 30-35 degree range and this ought to be the case on more buildings - I note chunky sills are shown on front here. elevations (suggesting granite or recon stone?) but none on the rear – seems a false economy - Brick is rare in Tavistock – and somewhat fake design approach. Some featuring mostly as lintols and sills look like brick? No real precedent for that jambs on stone buildings. It’s use in Tavi. Cut slate is appropriate and would be must be very occasional. welcome.

- Slate hanging is a local material - Hints towards Bedford Cottage type eaves but is found mainly on ancient dormers would be ok, but if windows are set timber frame buildings or on below eaves height they are a token and futile exposed locations where render or gesture – an architectural untruth. Please make stone is the main material. If the them ‘real’ ie with windows that cross the buildings are of solid construction it eaves line into the ‘dormer’ as per the real is only appropriate for use on south Bedford’s. How will rainwater goods be or west facing elevations I would affected by these? Always a design challenge. say. - Porches / canopies and bay windows – full detail needed. - There are a lot of detached dwellings with tiny gaps between. - Detached garages could have corrugated iron This ‘could be anywhere’ style of roofs to reflect industrial past and save costs development is both unsustainable for better detailing on houses? and fails to reflect local character. I would advocate strongly that more Callington Road: of these should be terraces of the Most of the above applies but a few additional kind that are found all over comments. The precedent images don’t seem Tavistock CA. to have much influenced design. In particular the windows are mostly casements. More - Allowance must be made for the sashes please. tree clearance that will occur when the railway is installed and the - The affordable apartments need more screening of the site presently in thought as to detailing such as render place will be lost. There must be quoins and string courses. Rainwater compensatory planting on both goods need to be integrated into the design sides of the railway line. as a feature not an afterthought – they can, for example, disguise expansion joints. - Should we be looking for some - If you are going to have a chimney at least interpretive work in the POS close make it a good one! to the Crowndale mine site? - The central porch feature should be more - Lighting design should be of an authentic architectural statement considered now to limit the impact following historical precedents. of development on the locality at night. - The use of sashes (at least I hope they are – mode of opening isn’t indicated) on the I hope these comments help – they front and casements on the back is reflect what I have been saying all nonsensical. along and it is disappointing that more effort is not being made to reflect local The hard boundary treatments are mostly character. It appears to me that little good, subject to details. I’d suggest perhaps meaningful acknowledgement of rounded stone piers rather than square. I’m still previous discussions, held in the spirit unconvinced by brick and render walls – I’d of the aims of the NPPF, is being suggest these be removed and replaced with delivered here – in particular para’s stone. Timber fences should be only between 127 and 128. gardens and perhaps no more than 1500mm high. Planted boundaries should be favoured I will be happy to participate in further wherever appropriate – ie abutting public design discussions if that is wanted. spaces etc. I have not had time to look at where each are being used and that is not a heritage matter.

With some amendments and annotations clarifying materials I can see an acceptable approach here to this early phase.

Let me know if any queries – always happy to meet designers to talk details if you wish.

• Landscape – No objection subject to imposition of conditions

Original consultation response (original Further consultation response (revised scheme) scheme) Procedural matters: “Landscape and Visual Impact of the I note that the GI plan and detailed development proposals landscape proposals for the Open Space/Green Infrastructure areas are In relation to condition 25 and the provision intended to be considered through of a building heights plan, the adopted SPD Condition 6 (Landscape Scheme) & states: On SP23A, buildings along the A390 Condition 20 (Green Infrastructure and further into the development on higher Management) (application 2807/18/ARC). ground should be no more than two storeys Whilst I would agree that the management in height and avoid the ridgeline to protect proposals could be later discharged under the residential amenity of nearby properties this condition, the detailed proposals for the and lessen the visual impact of the open spaces form a key element of Phase development. 1, which would need to be approved under the ‘landscape’ reserved matter for this The proposed building height parameters phase. I believe that the detailed plan was not an approved plan at outline landscape proposals contained on RPS stage, and the proposals now include areas drawing JPW1242/307 should be carried of three storey development (and some 2.5 across to this application. storey which is incorrectly marked as two storey on the heights plan). I would suggest Landscape comments: that the three storey units are not In respect of responses to my earlier appropriate for settlement edge given the comments, I note that some have been rural edge location of the site, and the lack taken on board and generally I’m satisfied of any context for three storey built form in that the scheme and layout is now this area. acceptable.

In relation to the building types and Site Levels character areas, with the exception of the In respect of the levels plan now provided, three storey buildings for the reasons whilst we would expect a number of outline above, the proposed building types retaining walls, some of those necessary in ‘Paddock Green’, ‘Callington Road’, and are very substantial (to 4.7m high) over ‘Boundary Cottages’ present no landscape long stretches. With 1.8m high close impact problems in terms of character and boarded fence or walls proposed above appearance, though a greater use of these, they have the potential to be quite chimneys would be welcomed to better monolithic, blank structures. They are reflect local vernacular. However, most of shown as brick or stone, but I feel we the building types in the ‘Eastern Copse’ should seek a greater variety (to include character area are not well proportioned, criblock etc.) on those that are going to be looking unbalanced in roof and glazing clearly visible within the public realm. It is proportions, and do not relate well to local also not acceptable to show indicative built form in Tavistock. heights of walls at this stage; with detailed finished floor levels being approved, the Minimal examples of this form of details of retaining walls and any underbuild fenestrations are present in Tavistock, but should be fixed. I would suggest that if this are not used extensively as proposed here, information is not available now, we and are generally not present in single condition full details (height, extent and dwelling-houses. I would suggest that this facing material) of all retaining structures to style of built form is not relevant for be approved, in the interests of visual Tavistock. If different characters areas are amenity. required, the use of façade materials, frontage boundary treatments, density or With the levels information now more hard and soft landscaping can successfully detailed, there is significant concern over distinguish between different areas without the open space adjacent to plots 37-46. so significantly departing from local The level plan shows the need to lose built character. between 4m and 7m in height from the road edge to the existing open space level over Whilst the FFLs on the levels plans are a short distance. The levels plan shows a useful, please can the applicant provide “reinforced slope or similar”. We would details of underbuild and retaining walls need to see details of this level change; across site and include these in the material partly to consider whether any railings specification. would be necessary along the top from a public safety point of view, and also to There are some potential areas of conflict consider the impact on the trees and which we would need to be convinced that hedgerow immediately adjacent. Much of the most appropriate solution is being the ‘reinforced slope’ outline lies within the proposed; plots 22-26 lie substantially Construction Exclusion Zone, which above the adjacent boundary ground level. presents potential problems in respect of Plot 20 lies well above the adjacent road retaining the trees and hedgerow along this and may be overly prominent in the street edge, and the ‘Landscape & Ecology scene. The relationship between plots 155, Mitigation Strategy’ shows a footpath 156 and 157 is very tight and awkward (Plot traversing this slope; again a detail which 157 has a FFL of >2m above adjacent we would need to be satisfied would plots; I would suggest that it is lowered). actually be accessible on the ground.

Please can the finished levels across the Similarly, the gardens of plots 26-35 need areas of open space/green infrastructure to lose c. 5m of elevation again against a also be provided, with the aim being not to retained hedgerow boundary. Detail of change the existing ground profile in these whether this is to be through underbuild, areas. terraced gardens, sloping ground etc. should be provided to allow a proper A clear plan showing boundary treatments assessment of impact upon the existing to the plots should be provided. The vegetation and upon amenity. materials plan shows that close boarded fence is generally kept out of the public Boundary treatments realm and this is supported, however it isn’t No principle issues, noting the conflict with clear how the boundary treatments relate to the landscape scheme set out below in the existing and retained hedgerow and respect of the main site frontage. 1.2m tree boundaries. railing should be changed to hedgebank as detailed on the soft landscape proposals. Detailed Soft Landscape Proposals (on plot) Landscape scheme The detailed soft landscape proposals The detailed on plot soft landscape represent an improvement on the earlier proposals I think need more work, and scheme. However, there are some certainly need some refinement. There are amendments and clarification still required some large masses of single-species shrub as set out below. planting which form the whole front gardens of plots. For example, the front garden of The principle site frontage hedge bank is plot 93 is formed entirely of a 9.5m2 block fine, but should be mixed native shrubs of lavender. There are several solid blocks rather than single species beech to better of >5m2 single planting species. reflect the character of the area.

Please can these be broken up with mixed There are some discrepancies across shrub planting. The screen wall mixes are drawings; notably with the boundary fine, but please update the schedule text to treatments shown on the materials plan. …random species groups of not more than Railing is shown along the site frontage, 3 or 5… whereas the landscape scheme shows a hedgebank. The latter is most appropriate The only grass schedule is for ‘’High Quality here, so the railings should be omitted. and Hard Wearing Lawn’ seed, but the specification includes turfing. Please can In addition, H63 (boundary to plots 20 & 21) this be clarified? Grass treatment should is shown to be removed in the arboricultrual also be proposed for rear gardens. submission, but is shown as retained on the soft landscape proposals. Given the Whilst some continuity is positive, some of proximity of the plots and the level changes the street frontages are entirely beech to their FFL, it is likely that this hedge will hedging with no other soft landscaping. need to be removed. This will need to be This is a bit monotonous and would benefit replaced with mixed native hedge and bank from being broken up with some of the and a temporary fence inside this line to other planting mixes. provide security for owners. This cannot be timber close boarded fence in such a Green Infrastructure (GI) Plan prominent street scene location. In the GI landscape proposals, please replace less substantial trees on western I don’t believe the public open space boundary (Betula, Carpinus, Corylus) with landscape details have changed, so my robust native stock: Acer campestre, earlier comments would remain. In Quercus, Fagus, Tilia. particular:

There are some discrepancies between the - Please replace less substantial trees landscape maintenance proposals on the on western boundary (Betula, drawings (JPW1242/310A and 308A) and in Carpinus, Corylus) with robust the Green Infrastructure Plan. For clarity I’d native stock: Acer campestre, suggest that the drawings refer to just one Quercus, Fagus, Tilia. set of maintenance proposals within the GI Plan, and that these are updated to include I don’t believe the specifications (either any establishment maintenance drawing) have changed, so my earlier proscriptions that are currently shown on comments would remain. In particular, the drawings. please include:

The GI Long term management operations - Specification for strimmer guards for should include existing and proposed all trees planted in grassland. hedgerows (in the schedules as well as the - Specification for canes and spiral or supporting text). It is not clear how this tube guards for all native shrub and management will be controlled and carried tree planting (hedgerow mixes and out where private rear gardens back on to thicket mix) the retained existing hedgerows, particularly H7 and H8 which are identified Conclusion: as ‘important’ hedgerows, with Whilst the scheme has improved and detailed management operations. This overall the layout and provision of should be clarified. properties is acceptable, there are a number of detailed changes and further The planting specifications (both drawings) information required as set out above. I’m should include the specification of happy for these to either be provided at this appropriate stakes and strimmer guards for stage or secured through a ‘notwithstanding new trees in grassland, and tube guards the information submitted…’ condition, and stakes for all new native trees and requiring full details prior to the shrubs (hedgerows and mixes). commencement of development for the retaining walls details, and prior to the Conclusion commencement of development above slab For the above reasons, at present I’m not level for the landscape details. able to support the applications for the discharge of conditions, or the Reserved Matters application. Please ensure that you receive comments from the open space and biodiversity specialists on the Green Infrastructure Plan as I have only reviewed the landscape elements.”

• Trees – Objection to certain aspects of scheme

Original consultation response Further consultation response (revised (original scheme) scheme) “Please find below our response in “Please find below our response in respect of the above noted Reserved respect of the above noted Application. Matters Application in respect of Outline Our response has been has been Approval 00554/2013. Our response has prepared following review of the following been has been prepared following review documents/ plans of the following documents/ plans • Arboricultural Impact Assessment • Arboricultural Assessment Plans & Plan & Method Statement: 4th Dec report: 13118 Constraints, Phase 2 2018 13118-AA-Phase1-CA CA • Tree Protection Plan: 13118-BT4 • Phase 1, Site layout: 1623/101 • Phase 1 & 2 Combined layouts: 02- 227 Dated 27.11.18 Appraisal 1. The submitted information has been Appraisal reviewed in accordance with the relevant 1. The submitted information has been Policies of the West Devon Borough reviewed in accordance with the relevant Council LDF Core Strategy Development Policies of the South Hams District Plan (2006-2026) and the emerging Council Local Development Framework Plymouth and South West Devon Joint December (2006), West Devon Borough Local Plan (2014-2034) and relevant Council LDF Core Strategy Development industry British Standards/ Acts as Plan (2006-2026) and the emerging appropriate. Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (2014-2034) and relevant 2. Agreement is found with the industry British Standards/ Acts as conclusions and general content of the appropriate. supporting arboricultural information and the level of constraint posed by the trees/ 2. Previous arboricultural comments hedges and tree groups on site. raised concerns in respect of the relationship between units 11, 34 & 35. 3. The retention of the Northern and These concerns remain given the internal wedge shaped open tree group continued proximity to the adjacent trees. significantly reduces pressure on a large proportion of the significant 3. Further concerns arise in respect of the arboricultural site features. relationship between units 22-25 and the mature beech trees to their North. It is 4. Of immediate concern is the noted that pruning is required to mature relationship between units 34, 35 and 11 Beech trees 57, 58 & 60 irrespective of and their immediately adjacent tree the application. This is not agreed given groups. If approved as is the proximal the trees have grown as full canopied relationship would be such that it is woodland edge trees. The species inevitable that inappropriate pruning or responds poorly to pruning as a mono- felling requests would, that would be layered canopy type (all the foliage on the difficult to resist based on the merits at outside of the crown) and any pruning is that future point. likely to open the crown up to potential wind damage and commence a cycle of 5. Several incursion into RPA’s are decline contrary to the amenities of the proposed to form the highways which will area. Easement of the noted units to the require speciality methodology from their South by the specified amount would supporting arborist for review. provide a longer term and more sustainable solution, additionally Please note that this review may not find increasing the rear garden areas. agreement, but offers the applicant opportunity to advise as to whether the 4. Target notes detailing no dig solution harm is avoidable, minor or in fact not an for footways within RPA’s is welcomed actuality. and should be supported by a site specific plan and method statement including Conclusions sections. 1. The majority of principal arboricultural features are set within POS or are given 5. Incursion into the RPA’s of small trees due regard to relationship with units, with and the hedge forming the western the exception of those noted above. boundary is noted but considered minor and of limited detriment given the species 2. Further tree protection plans and composition and age. detailed method statement will be 6. The removal of the entirety of the whole required for review, prepared to address of H1 is proposed for the new access to comments included in this response and the site. Given the prominence to the the wider need for tree protection plans, adjacent A road this will lead to immediate etc. and significant reduction to local visual and varied amenities for which significant Recommendation mitigation planting will be required That the submitted information is not including standard trees planted within suitable to recommendation approval any reformed hedge. Further opinion from given the absence of tree protection plans the landscape specialist may expand and methodologies and the requirement upon this concern. for layout easement away from trees as noted.” 7. The supporting tree protection plan and methodologies only deal with Phase 1 therefore tree protection matters in relation to Phase 2 would need further submission prior to comment.

Conclusions 1. The majority of the proposed units and their associated infrastructure avoid impact upon arboricultural features present on site.

2. Matters discussed above will require either further detail to be submitted or variance of layout to achieve the best possible outcome on planning balance or the main constraining features.

Recommendation Given the continued poor relationship in respect of earlier comments and additional points made above following review of the AIA, we would reiterate our objection on arboricultural merit.”

• Police Designing Out Crime Officer – Objection

Original consultation response (original Further consultation response (revised scheme) scheme) “Thank you for requesting consultation on No further comments received at time of the above application. From a designing out report. crime, fear of crime , antisocial behaviour (ASB) and conflict perspective please find the following comments:-

A new development of 157 dwellings has the potential to impact on crime and disorder in some capacity, as such despite a very early invite to meet with the architects, it is disappointing that the Police Designing out Crime Officer (DOCO) was not consulted by the applicant prior to the application being submitted.

Due to concerns over some aspects of the design and layout, which could have a negative impact on quality of life issues for residents, the police are unable to support the application in its current form for the following reasons:-

Relationship between parking and some dwellings Plot 1 - parked vehicle/s and garage access will be out of view from the owner with access having to be gained via public footpaths. This is likely to remove ownership and control over property and vehicle/s, increase the fear of crime and the potential for unsafe parking on the highway.

Parking spaces for many plots e.g. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 37, 39, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 55, 59, 68, 71, 76, 78, 79, 82, 83, 85, 95, 96, 97, 98, 104, 122, 127, 134 and 135 are considered too remote from the associated dwelling, some more so than others, and as plot 1 this is likely to remove ownership and control over property and prove impractical, unsafe and inconvenient to use, especially when considering the transferring of children, bags etc. from the vehicle to the dwelling or vice versa.

Owners will generally want to be able to park their vehicle/s as close to the home as possible or so vehicles/s can be seen from the dwelling but when neither apply it is likely that vehicle/s will be parked elsewhere e.g. in front gardens, on nearby roads, pavements or any available and accessible space just to make life as easy and as safe and secure as possible but this can create vehicle related problems and complaints as a result of unsightly, chaotic street scenes where inconsiderate and obstructive parking is rife, which is and always has been a source of upset and conflict amongst residents.

It may be considered that the proposed parking provision for the development will be adequate balanced against the accommodation schedule but if some elements of the parking is not practical, safe or secure to use, ‘unplanned’ parking will occur and thus much reduce the number of spaces intended to be utilised which is likely to have a negative impact on the development, future phases and existing residential and business areas.

With regard to parking provision when balanced against the accommodation schedule this must be considered to be generously sufficient given that even a one bedroom flat has the potential to attract 2 vehicles.

Rear Parking Court From a designing out crime, fear of crime and disorder perspective rear parking courts are discouraged by the police as they have been proven to experience a higher rate of vehicle crime, burglary and ASB generally due to a lack of natural surveillance from active rooms.

Secured by Design (SBD) provide the following guidance:- Where communal car parking areas are necessary they should be in small groups, close and adjacent to homes and must be within view of the active rooms within these homes. It may be necessary to provide additional windows to provide the opportunity for overlooking of the parking facility.

Note: The word ‘active ’ in this sense means rooms in building elevations from which there is direct and regular visual connection between the room and the street or parking court. Such visual connection can be expected from rooms such as kitchens and living rooms, but not from more private rooms, such as bedrooms and bathrooms. Ideally rear parking courts should be secure with access controlled to residents only.

The vehicular gates should be electronic and capable of being operated from within the vehicle with automatic closing to prevent from being left open. Once secure the rear parking court should be lit to assist residents gain access to the rear of their dwelling during the hours of darkness and reduce the fear of crime.

If a rear parking court is left insecure it should only have one route in and out with a good level of surveillance over the one entrance. All gates that lead to rear gardens from an insecure rear parking court must be capable of being locked from both sides to ensure that rear gardens can be secure regardless of access or egress.

To assist, when rear parking courts are left insecure they can provide easy access to the rear of several dwellings. The majority of burglaries are perpetrated by gaining access to the rear aspect of dwellings as these are generally designed to be the least overlooked areas for privacy reasons, as such rear parking courts, footpaths or public open space that are designed to sit to the rear or side of dwellings can exacerbate such activity by providing a legitimate excuse for those with criminal intent to be in the area without fear of being challenged.

The responsibility of policing an otherwise poorly overlooked rear parking court should not be left to the occupants of a lone dwelling e.g. plots 5 & 155. In reality it is likely that the occupants will only have regard for their own property and be reluctant to intervene or report any incidents not related to them in fear of reprisals. The compromise for an insecure rear parking court would be when there is a communal ‘rear’ entrance for multi- occupancy buildings, as this naturally increases legitimate footfall and activities and likely to provide the required level of overlooking from active rooms.

To increase surveillance opportunities for owners and their parked vehicles a 1.5m solid boundary treatment for dwellings backing (and siding) onto rear parking courts could be considered with a .3m or .5m trellis or ironwork topping. Carefully positioned and designed lighting in rear parking courts will only be supported if the rear parking court is secure or the level of natural surveillance from active rooms is acceptable.

Surveillance The footpath to the side of plots 11, 88 & 104, to the front of plot 50 and the paths between the garages and parking for plots 1 & 11 & 3 & 4 appear that they will be poorly overlooked which should be addressed.

Plots 5, 50, 88, 93 &155 for example appear that the main entrance door will have no neighbourly overlooking which has the potential to attract unscrupulous cold callers or provide cover for criminal activity. Also this can increase the fear of crime when returning or leaving the dwelling or having to answer the door during the dark hours.

The responsibility of policing public open space should not be left to the occupants of just one dwelling e.g. plot 50.

Safety It appears that the occupants of plot 154 will exit into the drive of the rear parking court? Will vehicles accessing this rear parking court not encroach on the footpath?

Security It is noted in the Design and Access Statement (DAS) that all rear accesses will have gates but all these gates must be capable of being locked from both sides. The gates must also match the same height and robust construction as the adjoining boundary treatment (1.8m minimum).

I have been unable to locate detail of the proposed rear boundary treatments, dividing garden treatments or rear access/garden gates.

Please refer to the police’s response submitted under planning ref 2807/18/ARC for a generic explanation with regard to the physical security requirements for dwellings and bin and cycle storage.

It is respectfully requested that the design and layout for the proposed development is reviewed in conjunction with the concerns raised above and the following attributes of crime prevention through environmental design (CPtED) to ensure a consistent level of security throughout and opportunity for crime, fear of crime and disorder are minimised:-

• Access and movement : Places with well-defined and well used routes, with spaces and entrances that provide for convenient movement without compromising security

• Structure : Places that are structured so that different uses do not cause conflict

• Surveillance: Places where all publicly accessible spaces are overlooked; have a purpose and are well managed to prevent creating areas which could attract criminal activity, the antisocial to gather or for unacceptable behaviour such as dumping and dog fouling etc. to go unnoticed.

• Ownership : Places that promote a sense of ownership, respect, territorial responsibility and community

• Physical protection : Places that include necessary, well-designed security features as laid out in SBD Homes 2016

• Activity - Places where the level of human activity is appropriate to the location and creates a reduced risk of crime, fear of crime and a sense of safety at all times

• Management and maintenance - Places that are designed with management and maintenance in mind to discourage crime, fear of crime and ASB

The above is submitted in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraphs:- 91 - Promoting healthy and safe communities:- Planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which: b. are safe and accessible, so that crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion – for example through the use of clear and legible pedestrian routes, and high quality public space, which encourage the active and continual use of public areas; and

108 c. Create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and respond to local character and design standards;

127 - Achieving well-designed places - Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: f. create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and wellbeing, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

I hope the above is constructive but please do not hesitate to contact me should there be anything else I can assist with at this stage as I would be happy to oblige.”

• Cornwall & West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site – No objection

“Thank you for consulting the Cornish Mining World Heritage Site Office. We have reviewed the submitted information with this reserved matters application and do not consider the details as submitted for this first phase will impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site.

While no further comment is deemed necessary in this instance, it should be noted that World Heritage Sites are designated by the United Nations, Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as places of significance to the whole of humanity. This puts the Cornish Mining World Heritage Site on a par with international treasures such as the Taj Mahal, the Pyramids, Stonehenge, and the Great Wall of China. Harm to any attributes of Outstanding Universal Value (international significance) within the World Heritage Site risks the loss of this status for the entire designated property across Cornwall and west Devon.”

• Tamar Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – No objection

“Thank you for consulting the Tamar Valley AONB. We have reviewed the submitted information with this reserved matters application and do not consider the details as submitted for this first phase will impact on the setting of the AONB.

The proposed works will not harm the special qualities or features for which the AONB landscape was designated.

It will not result in a landscape visual or character impact that would harm the AONB.

Given the above the TVAONB does not object to this phase of the proposed development.”

• Affordable Housing – No objection

“3345/18 is providing 41 units and I am happy with the split in size and layout of the units. I understand that the RP is happy with what is being proposed.

2780/18 is providing 27 units. Again the comments above apply.

This application is providing well below policy but a clawback mechanism has been secure in the outline s106 to provide a top up to affordable housing if the railway does not come forward.

If you need anything further if the plans change, please do not hesitate to come back to me for a re-consultation request”

• Open Space, Sport & Recreation – No objection

“Outline application 00554/2013 gave conditional approval for “a mixed use development comprising up to 750 dwellings (Use Class C3), a primary school site (Use Class D1), a local convenience store (Use Class A1), railway station related development (Sui Generis) and associated infrastructure; including detailed drawings for a new vehicular and pedestrian access from the A390” Three planning applications have now been submitted for the following:

• 2780/18/ARM – Reserved matters application for the approval of details for Phase 1 of the development, comprising 157 dwellings. • 3345/18/ARM – Reserved matters application for the approval of Phase 2 of the development comprising 241 dwellings. • 2987/18/ARC – Discharge of conditions application relating to conditions 1, 6, 7, 13, 16, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the outline application. In respect of Open Space, Sport and Recreation, the following were secured via planning condition or s106 agreement for the outline application: Planning Condition:

• 20 - “Prior to commencement of the Development, the Green Infrastructure Plan must be submitted to the Council for approval in detail for Phase 1 of the Development and in outline for all subsequent phases. The Owners shall not cause or permit the Commencement of the Development of any subsequent phase of Development unless and until the Council has approved as part of the Green Infrastructure Plan the details for that phase of Development. "Green Infrastructure Plan" means a detailed scheme (including a plan) setting out the management and maintenance of public open space and green infrastructure to be managed for biodiversity, ecology, landscape, informal recreation and community purposes. For the avoidance of doubt the plan shall include all existing boundary hedgerows and trees, paths and LEAP/NEAP.”

A Green Infrastructure Plan has been submitted for approval under the associated discharge of condition application (2087/2018/ARC).

S106 agreement

• The s106 agreement includes the following provisions: o Informal Amenity Land comprising a minimum 1.035ha which shall be laid out as informal recreation space for public use. o Locally Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) of minimum 0.645ha with minimum 5 pieces of play equipment for children of early school age. o LEAP to be upgraded to a Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play (NEAP) by including a minimum 8 additional pieces of equipment designed to be suitable for children up to 14 years of age (unless otherwise agreed). o LEAP or NEAP (at Owners written election to the Council) to be provided before the occupation of the 50 th dwelling in Phase 1. o Upgrade of LEAP to NEAP before the occupation of the 1st dwelling in the third phase of development or if different at the time stated in the Phasing Plan (if NEAP not provided at Phase 1). o Playing pitches contribution of £1,340 per dwelling towards off-site sports provision (£335,000 prior to occupation of 250 th dwelling. Thereafter £1,340 per dwelling to be paid on occupation of first dwelling to be occupied in each phase or if smaller the part of the land comprised in each reserved matters application). o Off-site play contribution of up to £137,750 (£183.67 per dwelling) for enhancements and maintenance of destination play facilities (to be paid on date of occupation of first dwelling to be occupied in each phase or if smaller the part of the land comprised in each reserved matters application).

The comments below relate to the whole site with reference to specific applications where relevant. Open Space provision Phase 1 (2780/18/ARM) There are two small areas of public open space with associated play provision in the north of the site and these are discussed further below with regard to play provision. There is a larger area of public open space/green infrastructure in the south-east of the site, providing some opportunities for informal recreation as well as ecological habitat. Orchard tree planting is proposed in the south of this area. The quantity of pubic open space appears to be in line with the outline application and s106 requirements and the proposals show that appropriate consideration has been given to the laying out of the public open space through the provision of bins, benches, footpaths, wayfinding and interpretation etc. It would be useful if the quantity of useable public open space in ha (as defined as informal amenity space in the s106 agreement) could be clarified so that Officers can ensure the requirements of the s106 agreement are being met. It should be noted that the key on Drawing 302 A: Green Infrastructure Detail Soft and Hard Landscape Proposals includes hibernaculum but these do not appear to be shown on the plan and should be added (they are shown on the On-Plot Landscape Proposal Drawings, specifically Drawings 303A, 305A and 306A and on the Landscape and Ecology Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy (Drawing 307B) within the Green Infrastructure Plan). One interpretation board is shown on Drawing 302A alongside the proposed path within the orchard. The Landscape and Ecology Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy (Drawing 307B) within the Green Infrastructure Plan shows a further board in the western end of the orchard and this should also be added to drawing 302A.

Play provision Phase 1 (2780/18/ARM) Prior to the submission of the application the agent advised WDBC that the requirement to deliver a LEAP by the 50 th occupation was not practical since the most suitable location for the LEAP, which also needs to be capable of being upgraded to a NEAP as development proceeds, would be in Phase 2 to the south of the school. An alternative landscape and open space strategy has thus been developed providing some areas of play until the LEAP/NEAP can be provided later in the development. The Green Infrastructure Plan states that incidental open spaces incorporating informal play have been created throughout the parcel (paragraph 2.25). The detail is shown on drawing 302A – Green Infrastructure Detail Soft and Hard landscape proposals, which shows the following play provision: Northernmost POS: 3 mounds and provision of the following equipment: wooden toadstools, log walk, embankment rope ramp (2 No.) and scramble net with associated bin and benches (2 No.). Drawing 302A appears to show a slide in this area. This is not marked on the key and should be added. There also appears to be a structure (timber log or similar?) linking two of the proposed mounds. Again this is not specified on the key and should be added. It is not clear whether fencing is proposed in this area and this needs to be clarified. POS on western boundary: climbing boulders (2 sets), net bridge, log walk (2 sets), inclined twine and swinging steps with associated safety surfacing, bin and benches (2 No.). Railings and gates are proposed in this area which is welcomed. The current proposal is for black railings with a red gate – the preference would be for green railings and gate. It should be noted that the key on Drawing 302A references a Playdale Log Walk stating ‘23 required for informal play around the large western attenuation basin’. Although a log walk is proposed it is thought that the reference to 23 is a mistake and should be deleted. Similarly with respect to the climbing boulders reference is given to these being locally sourced to ‘reflect geology of Somerset (carboniferous Limestone)’. It is assumed that this is a mistake and reference to the local geology of Tavistock should be specified. As acknowledged by the agent prior to submission, the play proposals for Phase 1 are an under provision compared to that secured through the s106 agreement which required a LEAP of minimum 0.645ha before the occupation of the 50 th dwelling. In order to improve the play provision in Phase 1 it is recommended that a swing set, including one toddler and one standard seat swing, is added to the design. There appears to be space for this within the POS on the western boundary, to the north of the existing proposals. With respect to the current proposals (with the addition of a swing set as recommended) and taking into account the off site play contribution for this phase (which will amount to £28,836.19 based on the provision of 157 dwellings) the proposals are considered adequate subject to a NEAP being provided in Phase 2, to the south of the school, with a pedestrian link to the future phases to the east. The play provision in Phase 1 should be provided prior to occupation of the 50 th dwelling. Discussions with the Case Officer will be had to ascertain if a formal variation to the s106 is required. It is reassuring to see that plans for Phase 2 are being progressed through a current planning application and include NEAP equivalent play provision (see discussion below). Conclusion The general principles of open space and play provision for both phases 1 and 2 are supported. Updates to and clarifications regarding the drawings in line with the comments above, as well as clarifications regarding the amount of useable public open space for both phases are required prior to any planning approval being given. The views of the Landscape Officer need to be sought in relation to the visual impact of the play provision in Phase 2. The Green Infrastructure Plan requires updating in respect of the comments above. It is suggested that the first part of this condition will not be able to be discharged until the addendum referred to at paragraph 4.166 is provided prior to commencement. In addition, further detail will be required prior to the commencement of each subsequent phase.”

Representations:

Representations from Residents

As has been noted previously this application has been subject to 2 full periods of consultation totalling 42 days. The first period of consultation yielded 34 letters of representation from 16 respondents with 32 raising objections to the scheme and 2 stating they were undecided but raising queries/concerns. The following issues were raised;

- Impact upon the highway - Harm to and loss of existing trees and hedgerows - Ecological impacts not defined - Information in relation to ecology is missing or incorrect - Lack of information as to foul and surface water drainage arrangements - Poor design - Poor layout - Lack of connectivity to the town - Overshadowing and over-dominance to neighbouring dwellings - Lack of employment opportunities for future occupiers - Lack of community facilities such as community/meeting hall, allotments, etc. - Plans and drawings of poor quality and lacking specific details or containing errors - Historic milestone to be saved and repositioned

At the time of writing this report and following the second period of consultation which ended on 28/01/19 a further 3 letters of representation raising objections have been received which queried the following;

- Clarity of the consultation process - Clarity of plans - Lack of confirmation as to what plans were current - Error relating to the OS map base - No confirmation as to status of original plans - Signage should not be erected in proximity to Callington Road

Relevant Planning History

00554/2013 - Outline application for a mixed use development comprising up to 750 dwellings (Use Class C3), a primary school site (Use Class D1), a local convenience store (Use Class A1), railway station related development (Sui Generis) and associated infrastructure; including detailed drawings for a new vehicular and pedestrian access from the A390. Condition consent 22/10/15.

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development/Sustainability:

As is noted earlier in this report the principle of development on this site has been approved by the LPA via the granting of planning consent under outline application 00554/2013 for a mixed use development comprising up to 750 dwellings (Use Class C3), a primary school site (Use Class D1), a local convenience store (Use Class A1), railway station related development (Sui Generis) and associated infrastructure; including detailed drawings for a new vehicular and pedestrian access from the A390.

The current application is concerned with the details for the initial phase of development comprising 157 with associated works. The application has been revised since its original submission in response to matters raised during the consultation process.

Design/Appearance/Layout:

As per Members’ previous request, which was translated into an informative on the outline planning permission, a Design Review Panel was undertaken in spring/summer 2018 whereby independent professionals from disciplines including architecture, landscape, conservation and urban design, commented upon the applicant’s early iterations of this first phase scheme. This feedback was provided to the applicant prior to the submission of this current scheme and informed the subsequent submission

Whilst not all matters raised by the Panel have been addressed the development does seek to respond to key aspects that have been raised as follows;

1. The Panel noted that there was a need to try and lower the large variance of house types and avoid creating a discordant street scene. In response the use of the character areas approach has provided a more cohesive design language and in nucleating these areas where appropriate they provide their own sense of place.

The Callington Road character area is more sinuous as it follows the main spine road for the site and so the designs can be read as more unified before entering the other character areas, reducing the perception of a “discordant” development.

2. The Panel also suggested the use of 2.5 – 3 storey dwellings to create a greater sense of enclosure, but to avoid skylines. In response the layout of this initial phase has utilised the core formed by Callington Road to introduce height into the development and to seek to minimise the visual impact through setting it along the spine road as it traverses down into the site.

The Panel also expressed views on how the “hub” area formed by the primary school, store and rail station should provide a civic space. Whilst these elements of the outline scheme are yet to come forward in more detail the development of this initial phase will provide access to the school site.

There are a number of proposed designs for the dwellings which form character areas within the development being the “Boundary Cottages”, “Paddocks Green” “Eastern Copse” and “Callington Road”.

The Callington Road character area follows the alignment of the proposed main spine road from the entrance to the site from the A390 forming the central core to the site.

The Boundary Cottages character area is formed of two parcels that sit to the west and southeast of the Callington Road character area.

The Paddocks Green character area is located to the northeast of the application site being closest to the existing area of woodland that bounds the site at this location as it abuts Callington Road.

The dwellings are, in the main, of a more traditional design that seek to reflect the various styles found within Tavistock. The Eastern Copse is the exception being of a more modern design more reflective of recent developments within Tavistock where these have been juxtaposed against the more historic development within the town. This character area, as the name implies, is located to the east of the application site

The proposed layout is cellular in nature consisting largely of semi-detached and terraced forms with the boundary cottages being mainly terraced and two storey. The detached dwellings predominate in the Paddocks green character area. There are three storey elements within the scheme being located within the Callington Road core of the development.

As has been noted the Conservation Specialist reviewed the revisions to the original scheme and noted further minor issues that could be addressed. In response the applicant has provided a further set of drawings in response to those comments that include the following revisions.

• Sash Type windows added to house type 24 adjacent to the three storey apartments • Brick Cills replaced with stone Cills where requested. • False Dormers to terrace units omitted. • Central porch on 3 storey apartments amended to respond to architectural statement request. • Rainwater downpipes indicated on the street elevation to allow a realistic perspective on the dwellings appearances.

Overall and as noted within the comments provided by the Conservation Specialist and the Landscape Specialist the revised designs are acceptable subject to further final detailing being agreed. Conditions relating to this detailing are as set out in the relevant section of this report.

Landscape:

The comments received in respect of landscape have confirmed that the revised scheme is acceptable, but that there are areas of further detailing that need to be agreed before certain aspects of the development are built.

As has been noted in the comments these aspects can be dealt with via suitable conditions. The aspects relating to the alterations to landscaping would need to be dealt with as part of the discharge of conditions 6 and 20 as is being sought under the current application (2807/18/ARC) as previously noted within this report. These conditions are prior to commencement conditions and so no development can take place until the LPA has given its written approval.

Those aspects relating to the details of final finish of the retaining walls would need to also be agreed through a condition requiring such detail as set out within the further conditions proposed to be attached to any consent as may be issued under this reserved matters application.

The design of the scheme has taken on board some of the recommendations of the design panel; notably the inclusion of more strategic and usable greenspaces within the site, the use of orchards and structural planting, and robust, large specimen trees; particularly at the entrance to the site. The LPA would expect more reference to the design panel recommendations in later phases, where structural woodland planting on upper slopes and measures to avoid skyline development on the upper reaches of the site will be more pertinent.

Drainage:

As has been noted earlier within this report full drainage details are to be agreed under condition 13 as attached to the outline planning consent. This requires that the drainage for each phase to be agreed.

Whilst this is the case the matter of drainage is relevant to the consideration of layout and to a degree landscaping. The LPA has requested Devon County Council (DCC) as the Lead Local Flood Authority to advise on the proposed drainage for this scheme as is normal for major applications.

The response from DCC confirms that they have reviewed the drainage details and that they are acceptable.

Designing Out Crime:

It is understood that the issues raised by the Police Designing Out Crime Officer have been the subject of further discussion between them and the developer. At the current time it is understood that there are possible solutions relating to parking court lighting and rear security gates that may well address these concerns if dealt with via suitable planning conditions.

The LPA is currently awaiting confirmation from the Police Designing Out Crime Officer that this is the case.

Biodiversity:

Since the granting of the Outline application, as part of the evidence base gathering and Duty to Cooperate relating to the Joint Local Plan, a study was undertaken with respect the recreational pressure of residents from new development upon the Tamar European Marine Site (EMS Recreation Study Document 04. Survey of recreational use within the Plymouth Sound and Estuaries European Marine Site: Scoping report and survey results, MBA, March 2017). One result of this being that the Zone of Influence around the Tamar EMS has been clarified and confirmed.

The proposed development site now falls within this ZOI for the Tamar EMS – comprising both the SAC (Special Area of Conservation) and SPA (Special Protection Area) components of the Tamar EMS, and accordingly the recreational pressure of new residents associated with the development will require mitigating to ensure they do not have a significant effect on the Tamar EMS (put another way, without mitigation the new residents in combination with other development could have a likely significant effect on the Tamar EMS, and without mitigation it would not be able to positively conclude a Habitats Regulations Assessment - HRA). As such a condition securing appropriate mitigation is proposed to be attached to any consent as may be issued and its principle has been agreed with the applicant/agent.

The HRA has been undertaken and the conclusions are that the proposal in conjunction with that adjacent will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Tamar EMS subject to the mitigation measures being secured by condition.

Amenity:

The proposed development is separated from the dwellings located to the the north and northwest of Callington Road, many being located along Abbotsfield Crescent. The road as well as he proposed roundabout pushes the envelope of the development further to the southeast. Equally suitable boundary planting is proposed to lower the visual presence of the peripheral dwellings when passing the site from the road.

The site is well screened from areas such as Deacons Green and Canons Way to the northeast and east due to the presence of the mature landscaping that bounds the site.

Overall it is not envisaged that there will be undue overlooking or over-dominance to neighbouring properties as a result of the layout as proposed.

Other Matters:

A number of objections have been received some of which have raised concerns with regard to matters such as traffic generation, access, the possibility of non-delivery of the railway, lack of connectivity to the town and lack of employment opportunities for future occupiers.

The above issues were factors in the LPA’s assessment of the outline planning application and related to the principle of development. Those issues cannot now be re-visited under this reserved matters application.

Other concerns in relation to landscape and ecology have been raised and it is noted that the relevant consultees have not raised objections in respect of these matters. As noted under landscape there are elements of harm that will arise due to the loss of some of the trees and where hedgerows and landscape character will alter, but overall those impacts are not considered in themselves to be of sufficient weight to refuse the development as proposed.

As previously noted at the head of this report this first phase would trigger certain planning obligations as set out within the s.106 agreement that is bound to the original outline planning consent.

• Provision of a LEAP or a NEAP at the Owner’s written election to the council (prior to 50 th occupation) • LEAP upgraded to a NEAP before occupation of the first dwelling in the third phase of development or if different at the time stated in the phasing scheme (if a NEAP is not provided at phase 1). • Off-site pitch contribution to be paid on occupation of first dwelling to be occupied in each phase of development (calculated as £183.67 x number of dwellings approved in each phase or as applicable in each reserved matters application) • Green infrastructure plan (before development commences). • Provision of 27 affordable homes of the following mix;

Affordable Housing (type) Amount 1 bed apartments/coach 6 houses 2 bed apartments/coach 5 houses 2 bed houses 8 3 bed houses 8

• Railway contribution £1.53m per 100 houses • Construction of emergency access route prior to occupation of 100 th dwelling • Prior to commencement of development details of spine road and section 38 and 278 required as well as TRO. • Bus shelters – provision of first on 50 th occupation. • Bus services contribution is also required as follows; £100,000 on occupation of 50 th dwelling and the same amount on the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd and 4 th anniversary of that occupation. Total payments = £500,000

Conclusions:

The proposed development is, in officer opinion, compliant with the parameters as set out within the outline planning approval and will provide the initial phase of development for the overall mixed-use development as was approved in 2015.

It is noted that the proposed mix of housing is not fully in conformity with the terms of the s.106 in that there is an over-provision of 3 bedroom units and a lower amount of 2 bedroom units within this phase. This is partly due to the design response whereby larger units have been located along the first section of the spine road into the site which responds to the comments made by the DRP as noted previously in this report. Equally a hierarchy that places the smaller units site further into the site within phase 2 will enable for the visual impact to be somewhat lessened as was again noted in the DRP comments relating to this more open part of the overall allocated site.

The proposed development is on part of the wider allocated site being the subject of policy SP23A within the adopted Core Strategy 2011.

Whilst there have been concerns raised regarding highways impacts and connectivity it is noted that the principle of both the highways access provisions and quantum of development for up to 750 dwellings has already been approved in 2015. This issue has therefore already formed the basis for consideration within the previous outline consent and is not for re- consideration under the parameters of this reserved matters application. Improved connectivity achieved through adjacent fields has been explored however these are not currently within the applicant’s control.

The proposed development will have a number of landscape impacts and it is evident that the landscape character will alter as a result. Again the principle of development for this development was both set out within policy SP23A and subsequently approved in 2015, therefore the alteration to landscape character to an urban form is not for consideration at this time. The proposal will result in alterations to the sites character and visual appearance and as noted in the comments of the Tree Specialist there are some specific harmful elements in relation to trees on specific plots. Overall a balance has to be struck between these impacts and the delivery of the 157 homes as well as the benefits to be derived via the s.106 agreement obligations. It is officer view that in balancing the harm on the landscape and specific trees against the wider benefits of the scheme as will be derived from its construction phase through to final occupancy, the harm is outweighed by these benefits.

The delivery of the railway has been questioned and it is evident that current political and economic circumstances are such that there is a great deal of uncertainty as to how and if projects of such a nature can be delivered going forward. Should circumstances alter to the extent that delivery of the railway not be viable then the existing s.106 agreement incorporates a clawback mechanism to ensure that those funds are diverted to further highways improvements, green infrastructure and affordable housing.

The proposed development is considered to deliver a suitable mix and quality of houses that, along with the existing conditions relating to landscape as attached to the outline consent, as well as suitable conditions as proposed to finalise small points of detail, will result in suitable quality of development in this location.

As has been noted there are issues in relation to finalising matters such as drainage, green infrastructure and off-plot landscaping that will be required to be fully assessed by the LPA under the relevant discharge of conditions application as currently being considered. Again these conditions were attached to the outline planning consent and are required to be approved prior to any commencement and implemented in the phased manner described in those conditions.

In light of balancing the benefits of the scheme against the elements of harm that will result, it is evident that the delivery of 157 dwellings as well as the associated obligations within the s.106 weighs heavily in favour of granting consent to the scheme as proposed and subject to the agreement of minor elements of landscaping and final finish of the dwellings. Should Members be minded to grant consent then further conditions are considered necessary to ensure that minor elements of the overall design are finished to a suitable standard, hence their inclusion at the head of this report.

This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and, with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Planning Policy

The relevant development plan policies are set out below:

West Devon Borough Council Core Strategy 2011 SP1 – Sustainable Development SP2 – Decentralised and Renewable Low Carbon energy to Supply New Developments SP3 – Renewable Energy SP4 – Infrastructure Provision SP5 – Spatial Strategy SP6 –Density of Housing Development SP7 – Strategic Distribution of Housing SP8 – Inclusive Communities SP9 – Meeting Housing Needs SP14 – Accessibility Planning SP15 – Traffic Management SP16 – Safer Communities SP17 – Landscape Character SP18 – The Heritage and Historical Character of West Devon SP19 – Biodiversity SP20 – Promoting High Quality Design SP21 – Flooding SP23 – Tavistock

West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review 2005(as amended 2011) BE13 – Landscaping and Boundary Treatment BE16 – Potentially Polluting Activity BE17 – Potentially Polluting Activity BE19 – Development on Contaminated Land H26 – Open Space Provision in New Residential Developments H28 – Settlements with Defined Limits T1 – Walking and Cycling T2 – Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety T3 – Protection of Existing Footways, Cycleways and Bridleways T5 – Public Transport T7 – Railways T8 – Car Parking T9 – The Highway Network PS2 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PS3 – Sewage Disposal

Emerging Joint Local Plan The Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan has undergone a main modifications consultation (22 Oct – 03 Dec 2018) as part of the examination in public to determine the soundness of the plan. The joint councils are waiting to hear from the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) regarding the next steps. Until PINS provide an update, the JLP councils are unable to commit to a timetable for adoption.

The National Planning Policy Framework provides guidance on the weight that can be given to policies in emerging local plans in paragraph 48:

The JLP is nearing the conclusion of the examination process, and can be considered to be at an advanced stage of preparation.

PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017)

SPT1 Delivering sustainable development SPT2 Sustainable linked neighbourhoods and sustainable rural communities SPT3 Provision for new homes SPT11 Strategic approach to the natural environment SPT12 Strategic infrastructure measures to deliver the spatial strategy SPT13 European Protected Sites – mitigation of recreational impacts from development TTV1 Prioritising growth through a hierarchy of sustainable settlements TTV2 Delivering sustainable development in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area TTV3 Strategic infrastructure measures for the Main Towns TTV20 Spatial priorities for development in Tavistock. TTV21 Callington Road, Tavistock DEV1 Protecting amenity and the environment DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise and land DEV4 Playing pitches DEV5 Community food growing and allotments DEV8 Meeting local housing need in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area DEV9 Accessible housing DEV10 Delivering high quality housing DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment DEV21 Conserving the historic environment DEV22 Development affecting the historic environment DEV23 Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site DEV24 Landscape character DEV27 Nationally protected landscapes DEV28 Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation DEV29 Green and play spaces (including Strategic Green Spaces, Local Green Spaces and undesignated green spaces) DEV30 Trees, woodlands and hedgerows DEV32 Meeting the community infrastructure needs of new homes DEV33 Waste management DEV34 Delivering low carbon development DEV35 Renewable and low carbon energy (including heat) DEV36 Community energy DEV37 Managing flood risk and Water Quality Impacts DEL1 Approach to development delivery and viability, planning obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy

Neighbourhood Plan

The Tavistock Neighbourhood plan area was approved by delegated authority on 27 September 2017 and follows the parish boundary of Tavistock. The plan has not progressed to the next formal stage in the process.

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.

Conditions

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates (i) the expiration of three years from the date of grant of outline planning permission or (ii) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters pertaining to this current planning application site, or in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last matter to be approved. do we want to remove this bit on the basis they can submit the final reserved matters form the outline whenever due to open ended time permission?

Reason: To comply with section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended) and to ensure delivery of phase one in a timely manner to meet housing requirements

2. The development hereby approved shall in all respects accord strictly with drawing number(s)

Site Location Plan - received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 August 2018

1623 -101 B (Phase 1 Site Layout) received by the Local Planning Authority on 04 February 2019.

02-217 (Phase 1 Affordable Housing Layout) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 December 2018

1623-103A (Sheet 1 street elevations Sheet 1) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 December 2018

1623-104A (Sheet 1 street elevations Sheet 2) - received by the Local Planning Authority on18 December 2018

1623 -106 – (Bin and Cycle Plan) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 August 2018

1623 -51B (Paddock Green Character Area) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 6 February 2019

1623 - 52B (Boundary Cottages Character Area) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 6 February 2019

1623 - 53A (Callington Road Character Area) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 December 2018

1623 – 54 (East Copse Character Area) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 August 2018

1623 – 105B (Materials) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 December 2018

JPW1242_302_A_(Green Infrastructure Detail and Hard Landscaping Proposals) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 06 February 2019

JPW1242_303_B_ (On-plot Landscape Proposals sheet 1 of 4) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 December 2018

JPW1242_304_B__ (On-plot Landscape Proposals sheet 2 of 4) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 December 2018

JPW1242_305_B_ (On-plot Landscape Proposals sheet 3 of 4) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 December 2018 JPW1242_306_B_ (On-plot Landscape Proposals sheet 4 of 4) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 December 2018 JPW1242_307_C_(Landscape & Ecology Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy) on 06 February 2019

JPW1242_308_B_ (Plant Schedule) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 December 2018 JPW1242_310_B_ (On-plot Plant Schedule) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 December 2018 2105 P01 (Highway Layout – Sheet 1) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 August 2018

2106 P01 (Highway Layout – Sheet 2) - received by the Local Planning Authority on17 August 2018

2107 P01 (Highway Layout – Sheet 3) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 August 2018

2201 P01 (Highway Long Sections – Sheet 1) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 August 2018

2202 P01 (Highway Long Sections – Sheet 2) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 August 2018

2203 P01 (Highway Long Sections – Sheet 2) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 August 2018

2301 P01 (Highway Construction Details) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 August 2018

2401 P03 (External Levels Plan – Sheet 1) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 December 2018 2402 P03 (External Levels Plan – Sheet 2) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 December 2018 2501 P04 (Drainage Strategy - Sheet 1) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 06 February 2019 2502 P04 (Drainage Strategy - Sheet 2) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 06 February 2019 2511 P03 (Impermeable Area Plan) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 06 February 2019

2510 P03 (Overland Flow Plan) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 06 February 2019 Tavistock Construction Phase Drainage Plan - received by the Local Planning Authority on 06 February 2019 0135_s38_001 (Street Lighting) - received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 December 2018 Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which this approval relates.

3. Notwithstanding the approved details and prior to their installation, details / samples of facing materials, render colours and of roofing materials to be used in the construction of the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with those details / samples as approved.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

4. Prior to their installation, details of the eaves and verges including cross-sectional drawings at a minimum scale of 1:20, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development carried out in accordance with these details and retained as such.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

5. Notwithstanding the approved details and prior to their erection, details of the height, extent and facing material of all retaining structures, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with those details as approved.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

6. Notwithstanding the approved details and prior to their installation, details of the proposed porches/canopies, chimneys and bay windows shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with those details as approved.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

7. Prior to first occupation of any residential unit, a scheme to secure mitigation of the additional recreational pressures upon the Tamar European Marine Site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation.

Reason: to ensure adequate mitigation of the impact of the development upon the Tamar European Marine Site.

8. Prior to construction beyond slab level the applicant shall submit for approval, full details of proposed electric vehicle charging points to be provided, these details shall include the location, number and power rating of the charging points. This shall accord with good practice guidance on mitigating air quality impacts from developments produced by the Institute of Air Quality Management. This agreed scheme shall be implemented as agreed and available for use prior to first occupation of any building approved by this permission, and retained as such.

Reason: In the interests of the environment, health and air quality management.

9. Notwithstanding the approved details and prior to first occupation of any residential unit full details of parking court lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation and retained as such.

Reason: In the interests of providing a safe and secure development for future occupiers

10. Prior to first occupation of any residential unit full details of details of rear/security gates shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation.

Reason: In the interests of providing a safe and secure development for future occupiers

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Kate Cantwell Parish: Inwardleigh Ward: Okehampton North

Application No: 3441/17/OPA

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Edward Persse Kim Hawkins-Sampson 49 Bannawell Street Rambles Tavistock North Tawton PL19 0DP EX20 2BZ

Site Address: Proposed development site at SX573976, Folly Gate, Okehampton

Development: Outline application with some matters reserved for the construction of 23 dwellings, associated car parking, access and estate road, private amenity space and public open space.

Reason item is being put before Committee: At the request of Cllr Leech and Cllr Davies in response to the level of local objection.

Recommendation: Delegate to CoP lead Development Management, in conjunction with Chairman to conditionally grant planning permission, subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.

However, in the event that the Section 106 legal Agreement remains unsigned six months after this resolution, that the application is reviewed by the CoP Lead Development Management, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, and if no progress is being made delegated authority is given to the CoP to refuse to application in the absence of an agreed S106 Agreement.

The Section 106 would secure the following: • 30% affordable housing • £80,000 toward education - to be allocated to Devon County Council to be apportioned between the funding requests made which were: o £92,109 towards the new Okehampton Primary School o £16,100 to repay DCC costs to secure primary school land o £75,627 towards secondary infrastructure o £22,024 for primary school transport o £10,488 for secondary school transport o £ 5,750 towards early years provision o £ 500 toward legal costs £211,610 Total • £15,000 toward the village hall community facility for projects to be identified where £46,000 was requested. Clause to include a sliding scale such that if funds are not spent within an agreed timeframe they can be allocated instead to Devon County Council to go toward the outstanding education funding requests. • Clause to secure agreement that the Council shall be entitled to use up to 5% of the total payments and contributions payable to the Council pursuant to the provisions of this Deed hereto towards the costs to be reasonably and properly incurred by the Council in monitoring compliance with this Deed and in assessing the details to be submitted to the Council for approval pursuant to this Deed.

Conditions: 1. Reserved Matters submission timeframes 2. Reserved Matters to include 3. Prior to submission of reserved matters, the applicant shall agree with the LPA an appropriate housing mix 4. Accord with plans 5. Heritage Impact Assessment 6. Full hard and soft landscape details and a 5 year maintenance schedule 7. Tree and hedgerow protection 8. CMP 9. Unexpected contamination 10. Scheme for electric car vehicle charging points 11. CEMP 12. No development before implementation of scheme of archaeological works 13. No development before results of ground water impact assessment and implementation of necessary remediation works 14. No development before full details of surface water drainage management scheme are agreed with LPA 15. No development before full results of 12 month groundwater monitoring programme are submitted. 16. No development before full details of surface water drainage management for construction period is agreed with LPA. 17. No development before full details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent surface water drainage management are agreed with LPA. 18. Foul drainage connection 19. Completion of footpaths and visibility splays 20. Estate roads and other details required 21. Access road and other details required 22. No occupation before submission of further details to Highways Authority 23. The existing access to be closed off 24. Submission of a LEMP at Reserved Matters stage detailing ongoing management and maintenance of retained and created public open space/boundary features. 25. Submission of an Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy at Reserved Matters (to include impact avoidance, mitigation and enhancement proposals for construction and operational phases. The EMES should be fully integrated with the Landscape Details/Scheme and should demonstrate net gain in biodiversity). 26. Control of vegetation clearance.

Key issues for consideration: The principle of development in the context of West Devon Borough Council (WDBC) not being able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.

Viability and impact on planning obligations which can be secured by the development.

Environmental Impacts: contamination, drainage (surface water, flooding, foul drainage and private water supplies), biodiversity, heritage, highways and landscape impacts.

Financial Implications (Potential New Homes Bonus for major applications): It is estimated that this development has the potential to attract New Homes Bonus of £30,572 per annum, payable for a period of 4 years. Members are advised that this is provided on an information basis only and is not a material planning consideration in the determination of this application.

Site Description: The application site is located at the village of Folly Gate, which is located approximately 1 ¾ miles to the north west of Okehampton, 4 ½ miles south east of Hatherleigh and approximately 2 ½ miles south west of Jacobstowe.

The site occupies a relatively central location in terms of the built extent of the village, and between the two parts of the village which are centred around New Road and Chapel Lane (the historic core of the village) respectively. The southern part of the eastern boundary of the site adjoins the A386, and the northern part of the eastern boundary borders existing residential properties. To the north are agricultural fields which beyond which are more residential properties in the northern core of the village. To the west of the site are agricultural fields, and to the south is further residential development and the village hall. The site is outside the settlement boundary and is therefore classed as a countryside location.

The site is roughly square in shape and is part of a field measuring approximately 125m from the western most point to the eastern most point and 130m from north to south. This gives an approximate site area of 1.14ha. The site is bordered by an existing mature Devon hedgebank on the west north, south and west and there are a number of trees which are located on the boundary hedges. There is currently no means of enclosure to demarcate the western boundary of the application site.

The Proposal:

The indicative layout shows 23 dwellings, where 30% of the units will be affordable. This site will also deliver some public open space, estate roads and suitable access.

Consultations:

• WDBC Environmental Health Section: No objection. Suggested conditions relating to unsuspected contamination, submission of a Construction Environment Management Plan and a scheme for provision of electric vehicle charging points.

Further to our conversation the nearest private water supply we have recorded is at Farleigh Farm and is a well, due to the distance from the site to this well and the type of abstraction it is highly unlikely in my opinion that a development in this location would cause a significant impact on the water supply.

Later correspondence (8/2/19) stated “The impact on ground water by the development is a little outside of my expertise, there will be a risk, in reality probably a low risk of an impact as an average borehole draws water from 30m deep. A ground water impact assessment is a sensible way forward.”

• WDBC Biodiversity Specialist: Recommendation: No objection subject to conditions - Submission of a LEMP at Reserved Matters stage detailing ongoing management and maintenance of retained and created public open space/boundary features. - Submission of an Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy at Reserved Matters (to include impact avoidance, mitigation and enhancement proposals for construction and operational phases. The EMES should be fully integrated with the Landscape Details/Scheme and should demonstrate net gain in biodiversity).

• WDBC Open Space Sports and Recreation Specialist: 12/2/19: Assessment against CIL tests for s106 contributions

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms

WDBC Core Strategy Policy SP4 sets out the rationale for ensuring new development is supported by appropriate on and/or off-site infrastructure. With regard to Open Space, Sport and Recreation, levels of reasonable contributions are detailed within retained policy H26 of the Local Plan, and within the West Devon Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study (2007).

The development does not include any provision of play, sports or recreation facilities. However, the additional 54 residents (based on 23 dwellings with occupancy of 2.36 per dwelling) are considered likely to increase pressure on local offsite facilities. The Parish Council has indicated that the main sport and recreation project in the village is the replacement of the village hall, which provides an important community facility including opportunities for indoor sports such as yoga, skittles and darts.

The current village hall is in a poor state of repair and the Parish Council has identified the need for its replacement so that it can continue to sustain the existing activities, as well as accommodate new activities.

The additional 54 residents will increase pressure on the village hall, which has already been identified as in need of replacement and thus a financial contribution is considered justified to mitigate this impact, and help to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

(b) directly related to the development

The village hall is in very close proximity to the proposed development (c. 100m walking distance), and thus it is reasonable to assume that new residents would make use of this community facility. As stated above, the additional 54 residents will add pressure to the facility which has already been identified as being in need of replacement. The contribution is therefore considered to be directly related to the development.

Although the project is not for standard play and sport provision, the contribution has been calculated based on levels of reasonable contributions set out within the West Devon Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study (2007) and is thus considered to be reasonable in relation to the scale and kind of development proposed.

22/3/18: Green Space The outline proposal is for 23 dwellings. Whilst only indicative at this stage, the illustrative layout shows the provision of public open space (village green) along the eastern edge of the site. This is in line with comments received by the forward planning team that this would help to create a space that can be enjoyed by the whole village rather than an area experienced once within the development itself. It is considered that the public open space will provide some opportunities for informal play and recreation and the size of the space meets the policy requirements set out in the table above.

Sports and Play: Clearly the site does not include provision of playing pitches in line with policy, and is unlikely to include a space sufficient for meaningful ‘kick-about.’

The size of the development warrants a Local Area for Play (LAP) and this could be incorporated into the area of Public Open Space. In accordance with Fields in Trust guidance a LAP would normally require an activity area of 100m2 and a minimum distance from the boundary of the nearest dwelling of 5m.

However, it should be noted that the Council does not normally promote the provision of small, isolated LAPs. In addition, liaison with the Parish Council has indicated that the key priority for Folly Gate is refurbishment/replacement of the existing Village Hall. The Village Hall provides opportunities for both play and sports and refurbishment/replacement would enhance these opportunities. Given the additional pressures that the new residents will bring on the existing village hall, a financial contribution towards its refurbishment/replacement is thus required to help mitigate this pressure and make the development acceptable in planning terms.

It is therefore recommended that the sum of £49,815 is secured through a s106 agreement towards the refurbishment/replacement of Folly Gate Village Hall. The s106 should also secure public access and on-going management and maintenance of the on-site public open space in perpetuity. Full details of the on-site public open space will be required at the reserved matters stage.

NB – later enquiries made to the Parish Council to try and identify specific projects and associated costings did not elicit a response.

• WDBC Affordable Housing Specialist: No objection subject to delivery of the states 30% affordable housing provision.

• WDBC Landscape Specialist: Conclusions: The development proposals are considered to comply with development plan policies on landscape character (Strategic Policy 17), conserving the key characteristics of the area and respecting the existing settlement pattern. To secure an enhancement to landscape character in accordance with Policy 17 criteria (c), the boundary hedgerows should be retained outside of private rear gardens to secure their retention, and the western boundary appropriately designed and instated as a Devon Hedge boundary. If you were minded to recommend approval of the application, please condition the submission and implementation of full hard and soft landscape details and a 5 year maintenance schedule to accompany a Reserved Matters application. In addition, conditions should be attached to secure the submission and implementation of a Tree and Hedgerow survey, Tree and Hedgerow Protection Plan, and Arboricultural Method Statement for any works in close proximity to the retained trees and hedgerows.

Subject to the above conditions being imposed, I would raise no objection on landscape or arboricultural grounds to this outline application.

• WDBC Conservation Specialist: Having looked at the locality I would say that there are three potential non-designated heritage assets (NDHA) here. As well as Myrtle Cottage there is Cottles Cottage and the small stone building in the apex of the garden of Myrtle Cottage. These do not appear to have been considered as part of the site assessment provided by the applicants.

My brief assessment of these is that Cottles Cottage appears the oldest building based on its form, roof pitch and the large gable stack at the northern end. Although modernised it retains significant character by virtue of its form and materials.

Myrtle Cottage may have early origins but reads as a 19th century dwelling. It has been substantially altered with PVCu windows and the roof is dominated by PV panels. These alterations are reversible but do diminish the weight that can be accorded to this building as a NDHA.

The stone building is of interest. Given its location and orientation to the road it could be that this was a toll booth? It may also have been a donkey shed or other such? Whatever its purpose I would accord it some value as a NDHA and if it were a toll booth I would accord it greater weight as a feature associated with the 18th or 19th century improvements in road infrastructure. The highway arrangement shown does appear to impinge rather tightly upon the shed so the details of that need thought. The bench here suggests a level of community adoption which should inform design decisions.

I agree with your assessment that potential effect on the setting of these NDHA’s would not preclude development but must be a consideration when it comes to detailed design of the reserved matters. If the layout presented is taken as indicative rather than definitive then I would see no heritage reason to object to the development in principle.

• Inwardleigh Parish Council: In summary: o Concern that foul water system will not cope with added load as currently excess is removed by tanker. o Site has never been identified for development by WDBC o Outisde settlement boundary o Layout shown separates dwellings from rest of Follygate – concern it will be a ‘gated community’ o There are brownfield sites in the village which are more sustainable and available for development o Development of this site will result in loss of Grade 3 agricultural land and may therefore jeopardise development on the brownfield sites. o Development will remove good topsoil to clay below causing drainage problems in particular local private wells. o Previous tests may have shown the site drains adequately but it is known that run off from the clay creates springs which can change position with adverse impacts for properties in the village.

• South West Water: 4 th December 2017 In making our response South West Water assess the impact of the proposed development on our assets and assess the capacity within South West Water’s waste water network to accommodate and treat the anticipated flows arising from the development. We do not offer comment on aspects of planning applications that are outside of our area of control.

Foul Sewerage Services The modelling work we have undertaken has identified that the existing public combined sewerage network in the vicinity of this site are currently able to accommodate this proposal.

The proposed point of connection for this development is manhole 3702 which is located on the 150mm diameter combined public sewer located

Please find enclosed a plan to show the location of the sewers in the vicinity of the site. The information indicated on the plan is only as a guide and no assurance as to the accuracy is given or implied. The Company accepts no liability whatsoever for any error or omission in the information.

This response is not an approval of your sewer connection. Prior to making the connection you must submit a completed application form along with the necessary supporting documents for the connection to be approved. Further details regarding making a new sewer connections along with the relevant application forms can be found on our website: http://www.southwestwater.co.uk/sewerconnections.

Surface Water Services Having reviewed your current information as to proposed surface water disposal for this development, please note that method proposed to discharge into the ground (infiltration) is acceptable and meets with the Run-off Destination Hierarchy. However, should this method be amended, SWWL will require clear evidence to demonstrate why the preferred methods listed within the Run-off Destination Hierarchy have been discounted by the applicant.

Your LPA will be mindful of Local Plan policy to limit the adverse (including cumulative) effect of proposed development such that sustainability is paramount and flooding risk is not increased elsewhere, together with Paragraphs 162 of the NPPF, and Paragraphs 109 and 120 of PPG (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment).

Asset Protection Please find enclosed a plan showing the approximate location of a public sewer in the vicinity. Please note that no development will be permitted within 3 metres of the sewer, and ground cover should not be substantially altered.

Should the development encroach on the 3 metre easement, the sewer will need to be diverted at the expense of the applicant. The applicant/agent is advised to contact the Developer Services Planning Team to discuss the matter further.

If planning permission for this site has not been granted, the permission to connect to clean water and/or foul sewerage services is valid for a period no longer than twelve months. To extend this timescale, please contact the Development Planning Team.

• Lead Local Flood Authority At this stage, we have no in-principle objections to the above planning application, from a surface water drainage perspective, assuming that the following pre-commencement planning conditions are imposed on any approved permission:

1. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system will be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (Report Ref. 17014, Rev A, dated September 2017). Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the Principles of sustainable drainage systems. Advice: Refer to Devon County Council’s Sustainable Drainage Guidance.

2. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the full results of a groundwater monitoring programme, undertaken over a period of 12 months, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This monitoring should be conducted to provide adequate coverage of the site, with particular focus placed on the locations and depths of the proposed infiltration devices. Reason: To ensure that the use of infiltration devices on the site is an appropriate means of surface water drainage management.

3. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for the full period of its construction has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system must satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site. Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area. Advice: Refer to Devon County Council’s Sustainable Drainage Guidance.

4. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the full details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development’s permanent surface water drainage management systems will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development.

Observations The applicant has outlined two acceptable methods of surface water management and discharge; infiltration via crate soakaway and underground attenuation with discharge to combined sewer or nearby watercourses. In accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, our preferred method would be for infiltration, provided the groundwater monitoring shows no groundwater within 1m of the base of the proposed soakaway.

• DCC Education 23 dwellings results in financial contribution request of: £92,109 towards the new Okehampton Primary School £16,100 to repay DCC costs to secure primary school land £75,627 towards secondary infrastructure £22,024 for primary school transport £10,488 for secondary school transport £ 5,750 towards early years provision £ 500 toward legal costs Total: £211,610

• Devon County Council Chief Planner The application site is within the Okehampton catchment for both primary and secondary education where there is an identified shortfall of school places. Where there is a shortfall, Devon County Council, as education authority, requests contributions towards the provision of education infrastructure.

Folly Gate is some distance from Okehampton and is not within safe walking distance of the nearest primary or secondary school and as such has a direct impact on home to school transport. In such cases Devon County Council requests a contribution to school transport. The development proposal at Folly Gate consists of 23 dwellings, for which a total contribution of £222,098 is requested. This figure is based on Devon county Council’s agreed education Section 106 policy and the breakdown is as follows:

Primary School Infrastructure (new build) £92,109.00 Primary School Land £16,100.00 Secondary School Infrastructure £75,627.00 Secondary School Transport £10,488.00 Primary School Transport £22,024.00 Early Years Provision £5,750.00

£222,098.00

In January 2019, Devon County Council were informed the applicant had provided a viability report which had been reviewed and accepted. The conclusion of the viability report is that the full policy compliant Section 106 is not achievable, and the modelled maximum viable package is the provision of 30% affordable housing and £95,000 contribution to infrastructure. It is suggested in the viability report that this is apportioned to £49,000 for Community/Play Space and £46,000 toward education.

West Devon Borough Council has an SPD on viability, which states at para 5.2: There may be occasions where the viability of a development is so marginal that a contribution may be enough to stop a development from going ahead. In these circumstances and following submission of audited or certified figures to substantiate this, the planning authority will, in consultation with any relevant service providers, consider whether the benefits arising from the development are sufficient to justify a review of the contributions sought.

Devon County Council has not been consulted on the viability issues although has offered to review the application to reach a fair and equitable position in line with the WDBC policy above. It is of great concern that Devon County Council forward funded the new primary school in Okehampton in the expectation that it would be reimbursed as and when future residential development in the school’s catchment area secured planning consent. This is reflected in West Devon Borough Council’s adopted East of Okehampton Masterplan which states at para 4.37:

To ensure that new primary school provision can be brought forward in a timely manner, the Education Authority has agreed the means to forward fund a site large enough to accommodate the existing and planned development. The Education Authority is able to forward fund the cost of the larger site on the basis that it will be reimbursed as and when future residential development secures planning consent. The Borough Council supports this approach and will endeavour to secure fair and proportionate contributions from future development commensurate with the development impact in order to reimburse the County Council’s upfront investment.

The shortfall between the suggested contribution for education infrastructure (£46,000) and the amount needed (£222,098) is £176,098.

In determining planning applications great weight should be attached to the Joint Local Plan which has been through the examination process. Policy SPT2 relates to sustainable rural communities and policy TTV30 relates to small scale local development needs in sustainable villages, Folly Gate being identified as one such village.

Devon County Council does not object to the principle of development at Folly Gate and we accept that there is a balanced judgement to be made about infrastructure funding and affordable housing numbers and this needs to be based on viability.

Notwithstanding this we have significant concerns that without adequate contributions to education infrastructure the development is not sustainable and potentially leads to a situation where the educational needs of children are compromised. As I mention above, I am willing to consider the issue of viability and education funding further but given the large shortfall of education funding Devon County Council, as Education Authority, object to this planning application.

• DCC Historic Environment Service: The proposal is sited in an area with some potential for medieval archaeology too be encountered. For this reason and in accordance with paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) I would advise that any consent your Authority may be minded to issue should carry the condition as worded below, based on model Condition 55 as set out in Appendix A of Circular 11/95, whereby:

‘No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.’ The development shall be carried out at all times in strict accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure, in accordance with paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development.

I would envisage a staged programme of archaeological work with desk-based study and geophysical survey informing any further mitigation that may be needed. The results of the fieldwork and any post-excavation analysis undertaken would need to be presented in an appropriately detailed and illustrated report.

• DCC Highways Authority: 17 th January: Observations The application is submitted in outline with 'means of access' to be considered in detail at the outline stage. An internal layout has been shown on the application drawings but this is for illustrative purposes only. It is noted that the internal does not show adequate provision for turning a refuse vehicle / pantechnicon within the site, but this oversight can be easily rectified at the detailed stage.

The proposed estate street access complies with contemporary design guidance with respect to geometry and visibility. There are some signs, a street light and a bench that may be affected by the construction of the estate street access, but these are also matters that can easily be addressed at the detailed stage.

Suitable conditions are recommended to be imposed on any planning permission granted, including a recommendation to close the existing field access following the construction of the new estate street.

• Police Designing Out Crime: Acknowledged that at outline stage there is no detailed design to asses and made the following recommendations reflecting the Secured by Design (SBD) crime prevention initiative owned by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) on behalf of the UK police services. SBD aims to reduce crime, the fear of crime and opportunities for antisocial and unacceptable behaviour and conflict within new development by applying the following attributes of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPtED):-

• Access and movement: Places with well-defined and well used routes, with spaces and entrances that provide for convenient movement without compromising security • Structure: Places that are structured so that different uses do not cause conflict • Surveillance: Places where all publicly accessible spaces are overlooked; have a purpose and are well managed to prevent creating areas which could attract criminal activity, the antisocial to gather or for unacceptable behaviour such as dumping and dog fouling etc. to go unnoticed • Ownership: Places that promote a sense of ownership, respect, territorial responsibility and community • Physical protection: Places that include necessary, well-designed security features as laid out in SBD • Activity - Places where the level of human activity is appropriate to the location and creates a reduced risk of crime, fear of crime and a sense of safety at all times. • Management and maintenance - Places that are designed with management and maintenance in mind to discourage crime, fear of crime and ASB.

Representations: Representations from Residents 10 letters of objection have been received which cover the following matters: • As the owners of fields, Parcel ID’s 2876 and 2276, on the northern boundary of the proposed development, we wish to summarise our objections as follows. • Access - The planning application details 60 potential parking places for vehicles which will require access and egress onto the A386 at a particularly dangerous location. The existing entrance at this point is not used by the farmer but currently access and egress is by the second entrance more safely sited at the opposite end of the field. • Drainage - The drawings on which the drainage system is based have been superseded by a revised site layout. Given that the attenuation tank cannot be sighted closer than 5m from any dwelling it is not clear where it is intended to be constructed. Are the drainage calculations also based on an out of date layout? Item 1.8 of the EJFP report shows an aerial view of the village but the red coloured area is only half of the proposed development! Concern from local experience that soakaway will not work in a clay ground area where land is often saturated and flooding already occurs on neighbouring land. Outfall connections are problematic - connecting to SWW combined sewer system has been discounted. The second, Option 2, to run a pipe in a northerly direction will require permissions from several land owners, man holes at changes in direction and a road crossing, all involving considerable expense and uncertainty. The third, Option 3, not mentioned in the report from EJFP but is shown on Drawing No. 201/A prepared by Infra Design, is to discharge the surface water in a westerly direction. The route shown leads eventually to unmade green lane known as Bearlands lane which provides access to other fields in our ownership. Surface water currently crosses under the lane through a 150mm diameter pipe and continues underground for another 100m. The head wall to this pipe is regularly blocked by twigs and gravel which causes water to flood down the lane causing damage and disruption, regular maintenance required. In discussion with Infra Design they explained that the attenuation tank would reduce the rate of run off from approx. 10l/s to 4.3l/s however the current run off flows across open fields and through Devon hedges on its way to the tributaries of the Medland Brook in contrast to a positive drainage system direct to Bearlands Lane which would inundate the 150mm pipe. Amongst the drainage objectives of the FRA is to “ensure flooding to 3rd parties is not increased by the proposed development” this scheme fails to address this objective. • Sustainability - Other than the Crossways Inn there are no facilities in the village, necessitating the use of public or private transport to Okehampton or Hatherleigh, although the bus service exists it is unlikely to be sufficiently regular for most residents which is presumably why so many parking places are to be provided. Our land boarders part of the northern extent of the proposed development the applicant provides no explanation of the long ‐term ownership and maintenance of the 5m ecology strip corridor adjacent to the hedge or indeed the hedge. • Parish Survey - The last housing survey showed a stable population of 10 years or more, on the assumption that this is still the case there would be overwhelming support for use of one of brown field sites in the village for a new development in preference to taking up agricultural land. • Future Development - Without a hammer head at the end of the estate road the layout suggests that there is an intention to extend the development into our field due north of the development we would make clear that we certainly have no intentions to allow building on our land. • Unused brownfield sites are available in the village. • Does not accord with development plan. • Local housing needs are being met by other developments and are more sustainable. • Development would encroach on setting and privacy of Myrtle Cottage (400 years old). • Concern over flooding • The existing gate access on the plans is shown in the wrong place and is rarely used. • Lack of local services and employment opportunities for occupants of new housing resulting in need to travel and Okehampton already has traffic problems. • Bus service is poorly timed and not adequate for commuting to Okehampton. • The revised plans appear to indicate minor alteration from the original with an uplift in value of the mix of housing. In particular the high value 'gated' housing. This type of housing is inappropriate in an open village such as ours and we believe will be detrimental to community cohesion. • Revised layout and the relocated village green close to the A386 road is inappropriate – particularly for children - by a busy main road with pollution, noise and traffic hazards. Also seems an unsuitable place for a community open space and unlikely to be attractive to either the existing village community or new estate dwellers. • Document ref 3580670 received in response to location of existing local water supplies (wells). This alleges there are none nearer than Farleigh Farm. This is incorrect as we are aware of wells in existence and use far nearer the site. We have an operational well on our property which is less than 2 metres away. • Cottles Cottage advised they have a well which they use but it is not their only supply of potable water to the premises. It is positioned approximately 20 metres from the boundary of the outline application. • Other wells and bore holes in the area are at: Myrtle Cottage, Cottles Cottage, Shobrook, Newcombe, The Old Post Office, Roseanne, Grays Padson, West View and Padson. Also a a well in Chapel Lane. All these properties are within 100 metres of the boundary of the field of the application. • Concern over potential for groundwater contamination especially for properties with a groundwater supply – Myrtle Cottage in particular. • Design is not in keeping with the rest of the properties in this small rural village. It is of a scale way above the needs of the community. The local plan focuses major new housing in Okehampton. • The last needs survey by the Parish council identified the need for only six homes in the next ten years for local people. The majority of properties are not in line with either the local needs or affordability of this village which has no local facilities except a village pub. • The proposed site is on a bend on a 40 mile per hour road which has frequent speeding which is recognised by the highways authority and has experienced numerous accidents over the years. Visibility is not in accordance with highway guidelines and any proposed widening of the existing small agricultural entrance that has not been used for many years due to poor visibility as the field has a southern entrance that has been used for the past ten years. • Loss of an historic Devon hedge and encroach on existing properties. • Traffic generation will be excessive • Loss of some of the best agricultural land in the parish which is a regular hunting ground for the local barn owls and bats. Also an over wintering and migration ground for several bird species. • The total hedge frontage is 33 meters, so allowing for 22 meters for the new entrance and the blocking of 2.4 meter existing entrance only a total of 7.5 meters of existing hedge remains. As is stated in paragraph 6.10 page 21 no hedge banks are to be removed this does not follow. The entrance has to cross existing pedestrian footpath and this is incorrectly drawn on plan. From the new entrance heading north towards Hatherleigh the pedestrian footpath is shown wider by the new entrance and narrows slowly over the 25 meters running alongside Myrtle Cottage garden. This makes it appear much safer when exiting the new entrance. In fact the existing pedestrian footpath is exactly the same width all along on 1.6 meters. • Concern that policy H31 is incorrectly being considered as out of date. • Myrtle Cottage - To the north, our hedge alongside the road is actually equidistant and parallel at 1.6m and not wider at the south end as shown on the plan. This will materially affect the angle of visibility. • Not right for the area as it may create a couple of jobs for a year or two for a couple of people who don't even live here but then what’s everybody who lives there going to do for work because Okehampton unfortunately isn't brimming with opportunity currently. • This is too many homes being built in a small village where people chose to live to get peace and quiet and be away from estates and living on top each other.

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development/Sustainability: Since the supporting Planning Statement was written, the policy context has changed somewhat. In July 2018 the revised National Planning Policy Framework was published. While many of the core principles remain the same, it is helpful to set out the updated national policy which is now relevant for this application.

The NPPF retains (at paragraph 2) the principle that “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” And restates the three overarching obejctives which support delivery of sustainable development (at paragraph 8): the economic, social and environmental objectives. Importantly, “at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.” (paragraph 10) which is detailed in paragraph 11 which instructs that “Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development … For decision-taking this means: c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.”

In December 2018, WDBC published a Housing Position Statement which confirmed that it cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply in the Borough. As such the strategic housing policies which are ‘most important for determining the application’ must be considered out of date, and so the ‘tilted balance’ is applied to the decision making process which requires therefore that permission is granted unless “any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.” Accordingly, this planning application must be assessed against the Framework and local plan policies, including the emerging Joint Local Plan (JLP) with a focus on assessment against the three objectives of sustainable development and identifying clearly any and impacts and the benefits of the development so that it can be determined whether any adverse impacts ‘significantly and demonstrably’ outweigh the benefits of the scheme.

Design/Landscape: This is an outline application with all matters reserved except for access. While an indicative layout has been provided, there is no detailed design or layout to agree at this stage. The indicative layout is useful in that is demonstrates that 23 dwellings can be achieved on this site with adequate garden space, open space and access to serve them and that the site can therefore achieve a suitable form and layout that is suitable in the locality. More detailed aspects of the highway design and impact of the build on boundary hedges is contained in the sections below.

The Council’s Landscape Specialist assessed the site context as follows:

“Landscape Character and Visual Impact Within Landscape Character Type 1A: Open Inland Planned Plateau, the site forms part of a relatively large scale landscape formed principally of regular medium-large sized pastoral fields. The proposed development area is a consistent element of this landscape, and is relatively flat and visually well- contained by existing development and boundary vegetation. It lies between two areas of Folly Gate with residential development to the north and south, and an open boundary to the west.

As an outline application with all matters except access reserved, the principle of residential development at this site would not conflict with the existing pattern of development in this location, and would not result in visual intrusion in the wider landscape. The flat plateau landform also limits wider impacts the National Park some 3.5km to the south. The existing pattern of development and visual containment of the area (with additional planting proposed to the western boundary) would appropriately mitigate the landscape and visual effects of the proposals.

Arboricultural Impact In respect of arboricultural matters, there are no principle objections to the proposals, and the submitted Tree Constraints Plan provides a fair indication of the categorisation of the trees within the southern boundary. However, I note the potential for future conflict with dwellings immediately to the north of the southern boundary if the gardens are small. The trees on this boundary would create shade to the gardens, and increase the threat of their removal in the longer term. If approved, the site layout should take full account of these trees, allowing sufficient room between them and the adjacent dwellings, and retaining them outside of private curtilage to reduce the risk of their removal. The existing vegetation to the east and north has not been included in the constraints plan, however does not pose an in principle constraint to development.”

The Landscape specialist concludes that “The development proposals are considered to comply with development plan policies on landscape character (Strategic Policy 17), conserving the key characteristics of the area and respecting the existing settlement pattern ” and suggests that a planning condition is used to secure full hard and soft landscape details and a 5 year maintenance schedule to accompany a Reserved Matters application, as well as conditions to secure the submission and implementation of a Tree and Hedgerow survey, Tree and Hedgerow Protection Plan, and Arboricultural Method Statement for any works in close proximity to the retained trees and hedgerows.

No harm to landscape character has been identified and the inclusion of the suggested conditions in the recommendation of this report satisfactorily secures the necessary details to protect the important landscape features of the site and ensure a suitable site layout and site management to retain them thereafter. Overall then the landscape impact of the development is acceptable.

Agricultural land classification: The Council’s mapping data indicates that the site is divided roughly in half along a north/south axis with the western portion of the site as Grade 4 agricultural land and the eastern section being Grade 3 agricultural land. Some of the letters of representation state they believe that the land is entirely Grade 3 agricultural land, and the map itself identifies that site specific analysis is needed to establish if a site is Grade 3 or 4. As such and upon request by WDBC, the applicant provided a supplementary report on this matter. It concludes that “the land falls perfectly within the Grade 4 definition” that is, the land is of poor quality and is inflexible with limited arable cropping results. Notwithstanding the above, the site itself is not large and so the loss of even the whole site, if it were Grade 3 land would not be significant in terms of the amount of such land available across the Borough. Taking into account the conclusions of the Kivells Land Classification Survey, there is no impact of the development on the availability of Grade 3 land in West Devon and only a small loss of Grade 4 / poor quality arable land.

Neighbour Amenity: The site is located adjacent to some existing residential development and adjacent to the A386 to the east and agricultural land to the west. This presents no amenity conflict in terms of compatible land uses. The indicative layout on the revised plans provided indicates that adequate separation distances can be achieved along with open space and hedgerow maintenance strips to preserve amenity at an acceptable level for existing residential properties. It is recognised that there will of course be a change in character from a greenfield countryside site to a residential development, but the layout and density of development proposed is not discordant with the existing properties. Exact separation distances cannot be established from the level of detail available for this outline application but would necessarily form part of a reserved matters application where amenity is considered in more detail.

Highways/Access: DCC Highways have considered the submitted plans and raised no objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of a number of standard planning conditions requiring the submission of details regarding the details, implementation and adoption of the necessary highways infrastructure.

Neighbours have raised concerns about the speed of traffic on the adjoining road and the safety of the proposed junction. The Highways Authority has raised no safety concerns in relation to the access and the appropriate visibility splays can be achieved. No adverse highways safety or capacity impacts are identified and so the proposal accords with Policies T1, 2, 3, 8, & 9 of the Local Plan. Amenity impacts relating to effects on private groundwater supplies are considered in the drainage section to follow.

Drainage: The application is accompanied by information outlining two methods of surface water management and discharge which the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) says are acceptable. Those are infiltration via crate soakaway and underground attenuation with discharge to combined sewer or nearby watercourses. In accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems the preferred method is infiltration, provided the groundwater monitoring shows no groundwater within 1m of the base of the proposed soakaway. Accordingly the LLFA recommends a planning condition requiring 12 months of groundwater monitoring to take place and the results to be reported the LPA and used to inform the final detailed surface water drainage schemes proposed for the site. In addition a condition requires full details for the adoption and maintenance to be agreed with the LPA. This approach accords with the requirements of Section 14 of the NPPF and policy PS2 of the Local Plan.

Should the groundwater monitoring results indicate that infiltration on the site is not possible, then the alterative option for a pipe to dispose of the water in a nearby watercourse would be necessary. Although one of the owners of the land through which such a pipe would need to be laid has objected to the development and indicated they would not be willing to allow these works, South West Water (SWW) have confirmed that they can ‘requisition’ the necessary infrastructure. This involves SWW undertaking the necessary consultations and negotiations with landowners, including agreeing a reasonable fee for use of the land, and implementing the necessary infrastructure. Therefore, the applicant has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that there is a deliverable surface water drainage solution that is acceptable to the Lead Local Flood Authority and is capable of being implemented if not on site, then off site.

A number of the letters of representations have raised concern about impacts on foul and surface water drainage and described perceived capacity issues with the local foul sewerage network as well as localised surface water flooding. South West Water have raised no objection to the development in view of the information provided to deal with foul and surface water. The public reports of poorly drained soils accords with the information provided in the agricultural land assessment. However, it should be noted that while the development will introduce impermeable surfacing to the site where it is currently greenfield, an engineered sustainable urban drainage systems would be designed to achieve discharge rates that the local ground conditions can manage, accounting for climate change and without adverse offsite effects. For this reason a planning condition is recommended by the LLFA to require groundwater monitoring and full details of a suitably engineered solution to be provided before development can commence.

There was also particular local concern expressed in letters of objection regarding the impact of the development on local private groundwater supplies. Following these comments, Environmental Health Specialist was further consulted to check for records of private water supplies recorded with the Council (which undertakes monitoring) and advised that the nearest private water supply the Council has recorded is at Farleigh Farm. This property has a well, but due to the distance from the site to this well the Environmental Health Specialist advised “it is highly unlikely in my opinion that a development in this location would cause a significant impact on the water supply.”

Another letter of representation and advice from the Parish Council advised that there are a number of other properties served by wells and boreholes in the area and concern was raised regarding impacts of the development on that supply and its quality. Myrtle Cottage, Cottles Cottage and Shobrook are adjacent to the site. Occupants of Cottles Cottage have confirmed that the well on their land is not their only source of potable water. Myrtle Cottage have not responded to requests for confirmation on this point. As such, on the basis of the information available at the time of writing this report, it cannot be known for certain whether the proposed development might have an amenity impact on occupants of Myrtle Cottage or Shobrook which may rely on their wells as a sole source of potable water. Other properties Newcombe, The Old Post Office, Roseann and Chapel Lane are all approximately 100 – 150m north of the site. The Council has no detail about private water supply at those properties and so a planning condition is suggested to require, before development commences, a groundwater impact assessment to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and securing the implementation of any additional investigation, modelling or remediation works the report advises are necessary to protect amenity of these neighbouring properties. This approach is supported by National Planning Policy Guidance (Paragraph: 016 Reference ID: 34-016-20140306 Revision date: 06 03 2014).

Grays Padson, West View and Padson are a similar distance east of the site as Farleigh Farm though the Council has no further detail regarding those private water supplies and as such, the Council’s Environmental Health Specialist has advised that “there will be a risk, in reality probably a low risk of an impact as an average borehole draws water from 30m deep. A ground water impact assessment is a sensible way forward.”

With the recommended conditions applied, then the development will accord with the relevant planning policies to protect water quality and public amenity and prevent pollution and flooding.

Biodiversity: The application is supported by an Extended Phase 1 survey (JL Ecology, April 2017) and Phase 2 bat activity surveys (JL Ecology, July 2017), undertaken in accordance with BCT Bat Survey Good Practice Guidelines (equivalent to a low suitability habitat for bats). The Biodiveristy Specialist identifies the following key findings from the survey report: - The c.1ha site comprises an improved and semi-improved grassland with species-rich hedgebanks on the northern, eastern and southern boundaries - Boundary hedgerows are likely to be used by nesting birds, and provide suitable dormouse habitat. No hedgerows are proposed for removal, but a small section will require realignment to enable access and mitigation (timing and supervision) has been recommended accordingly. - The habitat within the field was not favourable for reptiles. - There is potential to secure biodiversity net gain through a proposed western boundary species-rich native Devon hedgebank. - Bat activity surveys recorded five species, none of which were the particularly light averse Annex II species [lesser and greater horseshoe and barbastelle]. Bat activity levels throughout the site were considered low; all linear hedgebank features were used by foraging common pipistrelles. Mitigation has been proposed including: - Timing of any limited vegetation removal outside of bird nesting season. - Any works to the vegetation associated with the hedgebank for access to be undertaken by hand in either late Autumn [October] or Spring [March] under the supervision of a licensed dormouse ecologist or in winter [December - February inclusive] - after which the hedgebank will be left until April before earthworks commence. - Existing boundary hedgebanks will be retained and a new western boundary hedgebank created retaining foraging and commuting habitat for bats (as well as other wildlife). In addition it is proposed to include a small buffer adjacent to existing hedgebanks to ensure these features fall outside of residential curtilages, reduce interference and enable management as a retained wildlife corridor (under the auspices of a LEMP). Some of the letters of representation express concern that the application states the boundary hedges will be unaffected by the development, when in fact a new access needs to be created. Concern is also expressed that a very long section of hedge would need to be removed to create necessary visibility splays. The submitted drawing Proposed Highway Layout 100 Rev A shows the visibility splays which are in fact entirely outside of the application site boundary and do not include the boundary hedge. However, allowing for the re-aligned pavement, it appears that more hedge than has been shown would need to be removed. A more detailed plan to clarify this point has been requested form the applicant but is not available at the time of writing. While the creation of the access would require loss of a small section of hedgebank, the Biodiversity Specialist has concluded that the submission of a LEMP and EMMS will create the opportunity for a net biodiversity gain as a result of the development. The recommended conditions relating to the submission of a LEMP and Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy at Reserved Matters stage are included in the recommendation of this report. Overall, it is considered that proposed mitigation will avoid/minimise potential for impacts on protected species or important habitats, and the proposal has potential to deliver a meaningful net gain for biodiversity (and accordingly is in accordance with policy, NPPF Para 18, Core Strategy SP19, proposed JLP policies SPT11 and DEV28). Historic Environment: The owners of Myrtle Cottage which is located between the western boundary of the site and the adjacent road, are concerned about the impact of the development on the setting of their property which is 400 years old. The property is not listed building and is not in a Conservation Area, but is shown on the Ordinance Survey historic map of 1880s. Consultation with the Conservation Specialist then revealed there may be 2 other buildings near the site which could also be considered as Non Designated Heritage Assets (NDHA).

With specific respect to Myrtle Cottage which was the subject of a letter of objection, whilst it is acknowledged that the building is of a significant age, it is also noted that the building has been altered over the years. It is positioned perpendicularly to the road and the site, and the structure bordering the development site is a largely blank wall with one small first floor window facing toward the site. The wall provides a clear boundary for the cottage and the cottage with it curtilage does not principally address the site. These factors create some limits to the potential for impact on setting of that building.

The application is outline only and as such there is opportunity for the site arrangement, including the position of open space, landscaping and the orientation of new buildings, to be designed to respond appropriately to the character and significance of Myrtle cottage and the two other NDHAs that the Conservation Specialist has identified nearby. The Specialist agrees with my assessment that the potential effect on the setting of these NDHA’s would not preclude development but must be a consideration when it comes to detailed design of the reserved matters and sees “no heritage reason to object to the development in principle.” A planning condition is therefore recommended requiring a heritage impact assessment to be form part of any reserved matters application for this site which ensures heritage impacts are properly considered and policies BE4 and Section 16 of the NPPF are satisfactorily addressed.

The DCC Historic Environment Service has recommended a condition requiring a scheme of archaeological investigation. This is included in the recommendation of this report, and satisfies the requirement of Local Plan policies BE7-10 and Section 16 of the NPPF. Overall therefore, no harm is to the historic environment is identified as a result of the proposed development which can be adequately controlled through the proposed planning conditions.

Environmental Health: Further to the consideration of impacts on private water supply which are discussed earlier in this report, the Environmental Health Specialist has considered the submitted Contaminated Land Assessment which identified no known risks, and in response recommended a planning condition which would apply in the event that unexpected contamination is found during construction. This adequately addresses the related human health considerations for the purposes of this outline planning application. And the requirements of policy BE16 are met.

Planning Obligations – Community facilities and Education funding The applicant has submitted a viability assessment which has been reviewed by the Council’s Specialist and the conclusions have been agreed. The information provided evidences that the development would not be deliverable if it were required to meet all the planning obligations requested (namely education and village hall/community facility requests). Therefore, the Council must determine how to allocate the £95,000 available for planning obligations.

The WDBC Specialist has responded to the application noting that the site is not sufficiently large to accommodate provision of playing pitches and is unlikely to include a space sufficient for meaningful ‘kick-about.’ The size of the development does warrant a Local Area for Play (LAP) which could be incorporated into the area of Public Open Space. However, it should be noted that the Council does not normally promote the provision of small, isolated LAPs which would be the case if one were required in this location. Full details of the on-site public open space will be required at the reserved matters stage.

Liaison with the Parish Council has indicated that the key priority for Folly Gate is the refurbishment or replacement of the existing Village Hall which provides opportunities for both play and sports. Given the additional pressures that the new residents will bring on the existing village hall, a financial contribution towards its refurbishment or replacement was considered to help mitigate this pressure and make the development acceptable in planning terms. The suggested allocation of funds for the village hall are just £15,000 which reflects the current absence of identifiable projects from the Parish Council on which funds would be spent. It is understood that quotes are being secured and project planning is underway to include costs.

In addition, it is recognised that there is a significant shortfall in funds available for the education contributions requested by Devon County Council which has prompted an objection from the Chief Planner. It should be noted that even if all the £95,000 available for planning obligations were allocated to education, there would remain a shortfall of £116,610. While it is accepted that provision of educational infrastructure is a key component of the consideration of the sustainability of the development, similarly community facilities for leisure and recreation are also an important factor in sustainability. For that reason, it is recommended that a small contribution is made to the village hall, for projects to be identified and agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Should those projects not be agreed or not come forward, then a clause in the s106 can be used to ensure funds are repaid to be allocated to the outstanding education contribution requests. The majority of the funds available, being £80,000 are suggested to be paid to DCC to be distributed between the costs it identifies.

Taking this recommendation into account, the proposal accords with policy H26 of the Local Plan, Section 8 of the NPPF and in particular, within the financial (viability) constraints of this development, also makes a positive contribution to the sustainability of Follygate.

Other matters: • A condition requiring a scheme to provide electric car vehicle charging points is included on the recommendation of the Environmental Health team. Implementation of such infrastructure provision will make a positive contribution to the sustainability of the scheme.

• It is noted that policy BE14 suggests that a contribution to Local Art will be appropriate in some schemes. In view of the viability evidence provided, which concludes that the applicant’s conclusions that the full s106 contributions requested cannot reasonably be met by this development, an additional public art contribution is not appropriate or necessary for the success of this scheme.

• In response to recent caselaw (APP/T2405/A/14/2227076), it is considered appropriate to require by planning condition, agreement of an appropriate mix of housing at the reserved matters stage. This will enable the Council to ensure the housing mix delivered on this site meets an evidenced local need and will not adversely skew the housing market.

• Some letter express concern that this appears to be a ‘gated community’, but it should be noted this is an outline application only and the layout on the indicative plan is for illustration purposes only. Design and detailed layout will be determined through reserved matters applications.

Conclusion: The proposal for residential development in this location is considered compatible with the adjacent residential development which exists along parts of its boundaries. While the site is located in the countryside, it is immediately adjacent to and relates well to the settlement limits being located between the established southern and northern parts of the village with both being within easy walking distance. Policy NE10 of the Local Plan states that:

“Development within the countryside outside settlement limits or not otherwise in accordance with policies or allocations in the Plan will not be permitted unless: (i) It provides an overriding economic or community benefit and cannot be reasonably located within an existing settlement; (ii) It does not cause unacceptable harm to the distinctive landscape character of the area and the important natural and made features that contribute to that character including views; (iii) Where the development is not associated with agriculture the best and most versatile land is only developed if sufficient lower grade land is not available or that available lower grade land has an environmental value that outweighs agricultural considerations.”

WDBC cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and so the delivery of new housing including affordable housing for which there is an identifiable need within the Borough, is a material planning consideration and an important community and economic benefit. The number of dwellings proposed is not out of scale with the size of the settlement. Heritage, highways, biodiversity, landscape, drainage and amenity impacts can be satisfactorily addressed through use of planning conditions as recommended above.

The applicant submitted a viability report to address the assertion the application made, that the total planning obligation amounts requested could not be provided. Officers are satisfied that the data provided supports that case and recommend that the reduced education contribution is acceptable in order to also support the village hall community facility and to retain the level of affordable housing and contribute to overall housing delivery in the Borough.

The site is in a sustainable location, well served by a level public footpath with lighting. The pavement connects with both the southern and northern parts of the village making the pub and village hall accessible on foot. The site is served by frequent public transport bus service and the A386 provides a direct route into Okehampton and Exeter which both provide employment opportunities for future occupants. Provision of electric car vehicle charging points and planning obligations for education and village hall will further enhance this site as a sustainable location to locate housing development.

In conclusion, there are no identified adverse impacts as a result of the proposed development, the suggested planning conditions secure the additional information required to account for unresolved heritage, and drainage impacts, and there is nothing which significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the proposal which are set out in this report. Accordingly, in the absence of a 5 year housing land supply and in line with the NPPF paragraph 11, the application is recommended for approval subject to the suggested conditions and s106 agreement.

This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Planning Policy

The relevant development plan policies are set out below:

West Devon Borough Council Core Strategy 2011 SP1 – Sustainable Development SP4 – Infrastructure Provision SP5 – Spatial Strategy SP6 –Density of Housing Development SP7 – Strategic Distribution of Housing SP8 – Inclusive Communities SP9 – Meeting Housing Needs SP10 – Supporting the Growth of the Economy SP11 – Rural Regeneration SP13 – Community Services and Facilities SP14 – Accessibility Planning SP15 – Traffic Management SP16 – Safer Communities SP17 – Landscape Character SP18 – The Heritage and Historical Character of West Devon SP19 – Biodiversity SP20 – Promoting High Quality Design SP21 – Flooding SP24 – Sustainable Rural Communities

West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review 2005 (as amended 2011) NE10 – Protection of the Countryside and Other Open Spaces BE4 – Features and Artefacts of Local Importance BE5 – Important Open Space within Settlements BE7 – Archaeology and Sites of Local Importance BE8 – Archaeology and Sites of Local Importance BE9 – Archaeology and Sites of Local Importance BE10 – Archaeology and Sites of Local Importance BE13 – Landscaping and Boundary Treatment BE14 – Public Art BE16 – Potentially Polluting Activity BE17 – Potentially Polluting Activity BE18 – Potentially Polluting Activity BE19 – Development on Contaminated Land H26 – Open Space Provision in New Residential Developments H31 – Residential Development in the Countryside H32 - Residential Development in the Countryside H33 - Residential Development in the Countryside H37 – Meeting Local Housing Needs in Rural Areas H42 – Disabled and Those with Mobility Issues T1 – Walking and Cycling T2 – Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety T3 – Protection of Existing Footways, Cycleways and Bridleways T8 – Car Parking T9 – The Highway Network PS2 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PS3 – Sewage Disposal PS4 – Private Water Supply PS9 – Transmission and Distribution of Electricity

Emerging Joint Local Plan

Status of emerging JLP policies for decision makers The Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan has undergone a main modifications consultation (22 Oct – 03 Dec 2018) as part of the examination in public to determine the soundness of the plan. The joint councils are waiting to hear from the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) regarding the next steps. Until PINS provide an update, the JLP councils are unable to commit to a timetable for adoption.

The National Planning Policy Framework provides guidance on the weight that can be given to policies in emerging local plans in paragraph 48:

The JLP is nearing the conclusion of the examination process, and can be considered to be at an advanced stage of preparation.

PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017)

SPT2 Sustainable linked neighbourhoods and sustainable rural communities SPT3 Provision for new homes SPT13 European Protected Sites – mitigation of recreational impacts from development TTV1 Prioritising growth through a hierarchy of sustainable settlements TTV2 Delivering sustainable development in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area TTV30 Empowering local residents to create strong and sustainable communities TTV31 Development in the Countryside DEV1 Protecting amenity and the environment DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise and land DEV3 Sport and recreation DEV4 Playing pitches DEV8 Meeting local housing need in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area DEV9 Accessible housing DEV10 Delivering high quality housing DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment DEV21 Conserving the historic environment DEV22 Development affecting the historic environment DEV24 Landscape character DEV28 Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation DEV29 Green and play spaces (including Strategic Green Spaces, Local Green Spaces and undesignated green spaces) DEV30 Trees, woodlands and hedgerows DEV31 Specific provisions relating to transport DEV32 Meeting the community infrastructure needs of new homes DEV33 Waste management DEV37 Managing flood risk and Water Quality Impacts

Conditions in full:

1. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of grant of outline planning permission. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates: (I) the expiration of three years from the date of the grant of outline planning permission; or if later (II) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended).

2. The development hereby authorised shall be carried out in accordance with detailed drawings which shall previously have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These detailed drawings shall show the following: i) the design and external appearance of the proposed buildings; ii) their siting; iii) existing and proposed site levels together with proposed slab levels; iv) the materials for construction; v) The arrangements for the disposal of foul and surface water; vi) the areas for (i) parking (ii) and turning of vehicles in accordance with Devon County Council's Highways Development Management Advice for the Determination of Planning Applications; vii) all other works including walls, fences means of enclosure and screening; viii) the location, extent and layout of open spaces and play spaces; ix) the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials, drainage, lighting and method of construction of all new roads and connection with existing roads. x) full detail of all play areas xi) provision of ducting for high speed broadband xii) provision of electric vehicle charging

Reason: To ensure that adequate information is available for the proper consideration of the detailed proposals and to protect the appearance and character of the area.

3. Prior to the submission of reserved matters, the applicant shall agree with the Local Planning Authority the proposed housing mix.

Reason: To ensure the housing delivered meets evidenced local need and accords with Core Strategy Strategic Policy 1: Sustainable Development, Strategic Policy 8: Inclusive Communities.

4. The development hereby approved shall accord with the drawing 170502 L 01 01 Location Plan (red line) dated May 2017, and with respect to the site access only, development shall accord with the drawing Proposed Highway Layout 100 Rev A received by the Local Planning Authority 20 December 2017.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which this approval relates.

5. The Reserved Matters application(s) shall be accompanied by a Heritage Impact Assessment, carried out by a suitably qualified professional, which assesses the effect of the development on the significance and setting of nearby non-designated heritage assets. The reserved matters detailed design of the development shall respond to the findings of the Heritage Impact Assessment and apply the recommendations therein.

Reason: To protect heritage interests and in accordance with NPPF paragraph 197. 6. Before development proceeds above slab level, full details of a hard and soft Landscape Scheme have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Landscape Scheme shall be prepared by an appropriately qualified professional and shall include:

• details of ground preparation prior to importation of topsoil, including decompaction of material and removal of any debris including plastic, wood, rock and stone greater in size than 50mm in any dimension; • materials, heights, levels and extent of hard landscape treatment, including access and hardstanding areas; • details, including design and materials, of ancillary structures such as bin stores and signage; • details of lighting including function, location, design and intensity; • details of new ground profiles including retaining bunds and banks; • materials, heights and details of fencing and other boundary treatments; • materials, heights, levels and extent of hard landscape treatment, including access points, tracks, roads and any hardstanding areas; • the location, number, species, density, form and size of proposed tree, hedge and shrub planting; • the method of planting, establishment and protection of tree, hedge and shrub planting; • maintenance schedules for the establishment of new planting and its ongoing management; • all planting shall be implemented within the first planting season following substantial completion of the development.

In accordance with the advice in the submitted Extended Phase 1 Survey April 2017, the proposed planting of species-rich Devon hedgebanks along the western boundary of site should comprise of native species of local provenance. Landscape planting should include native wildflower and grass mixes.

All elements of the Landscape Scheme shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. All work shall be completed in accordance with the timetable agreed in writing. Any tree or plant which dies, fails to thrive or is removed within a minimum period of 5 years from implementation shall be replaced with the same species unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of public amenity and the conservation and enhancement of the local landscape character and biodiversity.

7. No works or development shall take place until a scheme for the protection of the retained trees has been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall be in accordance British Standard 5837:2012 -Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations and shall include: • an arboricultural method statement • a plan to a scale and level of accuracy appropriate to the proposal that shows the position, crown spread and Root Protection Area of every retained tree on site and on neighbouring or nearby ground to the site in relation to the approved plans and particulars (section 4 of BS5837:2012). The positions of all trees to be removed shall be indicated on this plan. • the details of each retained tree in a separate schedule (section 4 of BS5837:2012). • a schedule of tree works for all the retained trees in the paragraphs above, specifying pruning and other remedial or preventative work, whether for physiological, hazard abatement, aesthetic or operational reasons. All tree works shall be carried out in accordance with BS3998: Recommendations for Tree Work. • written proof of the credentials of the arboricultural contractor authorised to carry out the scheduled tree works • the details and positions (shown on the plan at paragraph (a) above) of the Root Protection Zone and Construction Exclusion Zones (section 6.2 of BS5837:2012) • the details and positions (shown on the plan at paragraph (a) above) of the Tree Protection Barriers (section 6.2 of BS5837:2012), identified separately where required for different phases of construction work (e.g. demolition, construction, hard landscaping). The Tree Protection Barriers must be erected prior to each construction phase commencing and remain in place, and undamaged for the duration of that phase. No works shall take place on the next phase until the Tree Protection Barriers are repositioned for that phase. • the details and positions (shown on the plan at paragraph (a) above) of any Construction Exclusion Zones (section 6.2 of BS5837:2012) • the details and positions (shown on the plan at paragraph (a) above) of the underground service runs (section 11.7 of BS5837:2012) • the details of any changes in levels or the position of any proposed excavations within 5 metres of the Root Protection Area of any retained tree, including those on neighbouring or nearby ground • the details of any special engineering required to accommodate the protection of retained trees (section 7 of BS5837:2012), (e.g. in connection with foundations, bridging, water features, surfacing) • the details of the working methods to be employed for the installation of any drives and paths within the RPAs of retained trees in accordance with the principles of “No-Dig” construction • the details of the working methods to be employed with regard to the access for and use of heavy, large, difficult to manoeuvre plant (including cranes and their loads, dredging machinery, concrete pumps, piling rigs, etc) on site • the details of the working methods to be employed with regard to site logistics and storage, including an allowance for enclosures, with particular regard to ground compaction and phytotoxicity • the details of the method to be employed for the stationing, use and removal of site cabins within any RPA (para. 5.5 of BS5837:2012) • the details of tree protection measures for the hard landscaping phase • the timing of the various phases of the works or development in the context of the tree protection measures

Reason: In the interest of public amenity and the conservation of trees.

8. Prior to commencement of any part of the site the Planning Authority shall have received and approved a Construction Management Plan (CMP) including: (a) the timetable of the works; (b) daily hours of construction; (c) any road closure; (d) hours during which delivery and construction traffic will travel to and from the site, with such vehicular movements being restricted to between 8:00am and 6pm Mondays to Fridays inc.; 9.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays, and no such vehicular movements taking place on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays unless agreed by the planning Authority in advance; (e) the number and sizes of vehicles visiting the site in connection with the development and the frequency of their visits; (f) the compound/location where all building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste will be stored during the demolition and construction phases; (g) areas on-site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will load or unload building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery vehicles will park on the County highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by the Local Planning Authority; (h) hours during which no construction traffic will be present at the site; (i) the means of enclosure of the site during construction works; (j) details of proposals to promote car sharing amongst construction staff in order to limit construction staff vehicles parking off-site (k) details of wheel washing facilities and obligations (l) The proposed route of all construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes. (m) Details of the amount and location of construction worker parking. (n) Photographic evidence of the condition of adjacent public highway prior to commencement of any work; (o) site management arrangements, including the site office and developer contact number in the event of any construction/demolition related problems, and site security information. This CMP shall be strictly adhered to during the construction of the development hereby permitted, unless variation is approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity, public convenience and highway safety and preventing inconvenient obstruction and delays to public transport and service vehicles and to emergency vehicles.

9. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an investigation and risk assessment and, where necessary, a remediation strategy and verification plan detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation strategy and verification plan and prior to occupation of any part of the permitted development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority.

10. Prior to commencement of development the applicant shall submit for approval, full details of proposed electric vehicle charging points to be provided, these details shall include the location, number and power rating of the charging points. This shall accord with good practice guidance on mitigating air quality impacts from developments produced by the Institute of Air Quality Management. This agreed scheme shall be implemented as agreed and available for use prior to first occupation of any building approved by this permission, and retained as such.

Reason: To protect air quality and support sustainable development in accordance with emerging Joint Local Plan policy DEV2 and NPPF paragraph 148.

11. Prior to commencement of development the following components of a scheme to deal with the environmental impacts of the construction phase of the development shall be submitted and approved by the local planning authority in writing. That scheme shall include details of noise impacts and controls, hours of operation, and dust impact assessment and proposed control in accordance with the Institute of Air Quality Management guidance for dust assessment from construction sites.

Reason: To protect air quality and amenity.

12. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out at all times in strict accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure, in accordance with paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development.

13. Prior to commencement of development, a Groundwater Impact Assessment undertaken by a suitably qualified professional shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority, when considering reserved matters application(s) to properly consider impacts on amenity, water quality and water supply to local properties which have private groundwater supplies.

14. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system will be in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems, and those set out in the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (Report Ref. 17014, Rev A, dated September 2017).

Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems.

Advice: Refer to Devon County Council’s Sustainable Drainage Guidance.

15. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the full results of a groundwater monitoring programme, undertaken over a period of 12 months, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This monitoring should be conducted to provide adequate coverage of the site, with particular focus placed on the locations and depths of the proposed infiltration devices.

Reason: To ensure that the use of infiltration devices on the site is an appropriate means of surface water drainage management.

16. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for the full period of its construction has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system must satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site.

Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area. Advice: Refer to Devon County Council’s Sustainable Drainage Guidance.

17. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the full details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development’s permanent surface water drainage management systems will remain fully operational throughout the lifetime of the development.

18. No development shall commence until: The owner has submitted an application to the relevant Sewerage Undertaker for a public foul sewer requisition under 598 of the water Industry Act 1991 (which shall include the provision of public sewerage improvement works identified as necessary). No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied or brought into use and there shall be no discharge to the public foul sewerage network, unless approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (as in accordance with the scheme of improvement works identified by the sewerage Undertaker as necessary to accommodate the discharge of foul sewage from the development).

Reason: To ensure adequate foul water infrastructure will serve the development.

19. The proposed estate road, cycleways, footways, footpaths, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, road maintenance/vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, car parking and street furniture shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before their construction begins, For this purpose, plans and sections indicating, as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that adequate information is available for the proper consideration of the detailed proposals.

20. No part of the development hereby approved shall be commenced until:

A) The access road has been laid out, kerbed, drained and constructed up to base course level for the first 20 metres back from its junction with the public highway B) The ironwork has been set to base course level and the visibility splays required by this permission laid out C) A site compound and car park have been constructed to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority Reason: To ensure that adequate on site facilities are available for all traffic attracted to the site during the construction period, in the interest of the safety of all users of the adjoining public highway and to protect the amenities of the adjoining residents

21. The occupation of any dwelling in an agreed phase of the development shall not take place until the following works have been carried out to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority:

A) The cul-de-sac carriageway including the vehicle turning head within that phase shall have been laid out, kerbed, drained and constructed up to and including base course level, the ironwork set to base course level and the sewers, manholes and service crossings completed; B) The cul-de-sac footways and footpaths which provide that dwelling with direct pedestrian routes to an existing highway maintainable at public expense have been constructed up to and including base course level; C) The cul-de-sac visibility splays have been laid out to their final level; D) The street lighting for the spine road and cul-de-sac and footpaths has been erected and is operational; E) The car parking and any other vehicular access facility required for the dwelling by this permission has/have been completed; F) The verge and service margin and vehicle crossing on the road frontage of the dwelling have been completed with the highway boundary properly defined; G) The street nameplates for the spine road and cul-de-sac have been provided and erected.

Reason: To ensure that adequate access and associated facilities are available for the traffic attracted to the site

22. When once constructed and provided in accordance with conditions 1 - 3 above, the carriageway, vehicle turning head, footways and footpaths shall be maintained free of obstruction to the free movement of vehicular traffic and pedestrians and the street lighting and nameplates maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that these highway provisions remain available

23. The existing access shall be effectively and permanently closed in accordance with details which shall previously have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority as soon as the new access is capable of use

Reason: To prevent the use of a substandard access and to minimise the number of accesses on to the public highway.

24. No works or development shall take place until a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The LEMP shall provide for the management and maintenance of public open space and green infrastructure for biodiversity, landscape and informal recreation purposes. The LEMP shall include: (i) All existing boundary hedgerows, trees and tree belts; (ii) Details of the proposed Village Green area shown on the drawings Illustrative Layout 170502 L 02 01 Rev C; (iii) Submission of a lighting strategy for during and post construction (to show avoidance of light spill onto boundary and internal hedgerows, to be informed by bat survey results); (iv) Details of inbuilt provision for birds and bats. All elements of the LEMP shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All work shall be completed in accordance with the timetable agreed.

Reason: In the interests of ecological and visual amenity.

25. Accompanying the submission of Reserved Matters, an Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy shall be provided which shall include impact avoidance mitigation and enhancement proposals for construction and operational phases. The Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy shall be fully integrated with the Landscape Details/Scheme and shall demonstrate a net gain in biodiversity across the site.

Reason: In the interests of ecological amenity.

26. Any vegetation clearance necessary shall be undertaken outside the bird breeding season (March – August inclusive). If this is not possible works shall be preceded by a breeding bird survey which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval before the vegetation clearance can take place.

Any hedge bank vegetation clearance will be undertaken by hand in i) late Autumn (October) or Spring (March) under the supervision of a licensed dormouse ecologist or ii) in winter (December – February inclusive) – after which the hedge bank shall be left until April before earthworks commence.

Reason: In the interests of ecological amenity and species protection.

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Jacqueline Houslander Parish: Buckland Monachorum Ward: Buckland Monachorum

Application No: 3194/18/FUL

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr Dan Stewart - Architects Design Group Mr G Liesching Floor 4, Studio 5-11 Midway 5 Millbay Road 30 Caradon Close Plymouth Plymouth PL1 3LF PL6 6BW

Site Address: Axtown Lodge, Green Lane, Yelverton, Devon,

Development: Erection of two storey residential dwelling with associated parking.

Reason item is being put before Committee: Pre application advice was received from the AONB unit which conflicts with the current advice on the planning application

Recommendation: Refusal

Reasons for refusal 1. The proposed dwelling is located in an area where new dwellings would only be justified on the basis of agricultural, horticultural or forestry need. Such a justification has not been provided for this proposal and so the proposal results in a new dwelling in the countryside contrary to Policies SP2 in the West Devon Core Strategy, H31 in the West Devon Local Plan 2005 and Policy TTV31 of the emerging Plymouth and South West Devon Joint local Plan.

2. The proposed dwelling is located within the Tamar Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and if it were to be constructed would have a negative impact on the landscape quality and scenic beauty, detrimental to the intrinsic qualities of the AONB and contrary to the objectives set out in the AONB Management Plan and Policies SP17 of the West Devon Core Strategy; Policy DEV27 of the emerging Joint Local Plan for Plymouth and South West Devon and Paragraph 172 of the NPPF 2018.

3. The proposed dwelling is a substantial dwelling in a large plot, of which there is an abundance in the immediate and wider locality and does not meet the identified local need (as described in the SHMNA) which is for smaller, 2 and 3 bedroom houses. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy NE10 of the West Devon Local Plan 2005, Policy SP8 of the West Devon Core Strategy, Policy DEV 8 in the emerging Joint Local Plan for Plymouth and South West Devon, as well as para. 61 of the NPPF 2018.

Key issues for consideration: Location of development; Previous appeals on the site and surrounding sites Impact on AONB Housing need

Financial Implications (Potential New Homes Bonus for major applications): It is estimated that this development has the potential to attract New Homes Bonus of £1187.00 per annum, payable for a period of 5 years. Members are advised that this is provided on an information basis only and is not a material planning consideration in the determination of this application.

Site Description: The site is a paddock, situated adjacent to Green Lane. The site is separated from the lane by a hedge/bank with a number of trees. The lane is a typical rural lane that changes in width and alignment becoming narrow in sections leading west and altering in character when running past the houses located to the east of the site, where the accesses and development have a more suburban from, though still “well greened” in terms of the boundaries and large mature gardens.

The site is located at the end of a line of dwellings, which span both sides of Green Lane. These dwellings are largely detached and a reasonable size with good sized plots.

The site is not within any defined development boundary. The site lies within the area designated as the Tamar Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The nearest development boundary, is at Crapstone, which is approximately 1.2km to the north east, as the crow flies and further by road.

The site effectively lies at the edge of the group of houses, albeit there is a property further west (Martins Gate) but this property is set well back from Green Lane and there are only glimpse views of it from the road. There is a stable and small paddock and sand school to the west of the site.

The land is relatively level, with a gentle slope towards the north and west. There is a dip in the land across the middle section of the application site.

The Proposal: To erect a single dwelling, designed specifically for this site. It is proposed to be located in the south east of the site close to the adjacent road. A new access is proposed from the road, in order to create suitable visibility. This would involve the loss of part of the Devon Bank and the vegetation and trees upon it.

The proposed dwelling is part single storey and part two storey, with pitched roof elements, set into the land. In terms of accommodation it would provide: A lounge, dining area, family room and utility, 6 bedrooms two of which would be on the ground floor and 4 of the bedrooms would have ensuite facilities. There is also an integral garage proposed.

Materials are proposed as: on the pitched roofs – natural slate, with solar panels. There is a small flat roofed area which would be a green roof, with wild flower planting. Walls are proposed as a mix of black stained timber at ground floor and natural timber cladding at first floor. Windows and doors are proposed as aluminium.

An LVIA has been submitted in support of the application, which introduces indigenous species to replace domestic planting already on the site. The alignment of the boundary of the site across the paddock will be constructed as a planted hedge and will align with the existing dwellings to the east.

Additional planting is proposed between the proposed dwelling and the road. The applicant states that this will improve ecology on the site and act as a screen. Orchard planting is proposed on the western boundary.

Supporting information for the application has been submitted which is as follows: Tree Survey, Tree constraints plan and tree protection plan, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Landscape Scheme, Arboricultural Impact assessment and Layout Plan, Drainage Plan Phase 1 Contamination Study Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Proposed access arrangement.

Consultations :

• County Highways Authority: Standing Advice

• Environmental Health Section: Recommend unsuspected contamination condition.

• Town/Parish Council: Buckland Monochorum Parish Council: BMPC have now considered the application 3194/18/FUL. Erection of a two storey residential dwelling with associated parking at Axtown Lodge, Green Lane.

The Parish Council would like to OBJECT to the development on the following grounds:

The site sits within the Tamar Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which in accordance with the NPPF para 115 states that '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 application site intrudes into this landscape and clearly will have a harmful effect on it.

The design and appearance of the development will have a negative visual impact on the surrounding ANOB.

There is not a need within the Parish for such a large dwelling.

Planning history and previous decisions – the Planning Inspectorate have provided clear guidance on three occasions. Three recent applications within the vicinity have had appeals refused on the grounds that they would cause unacceptable harm to the AONB.

There is a need to safeguard the countryside and the development falls outside the development boundary.

Drainage: Recommendations – Objection Based on the information provided we would object to the current proposal on the grounds of insufficient information. As such we would recommend that the application is not decided until these issues have been overcome. Observations and comments This is a small scale minor development for the construction of a dwelling with associated drive and parking. A development of this scale requires a workable drainage scheme that prioritises the use of infiltration drainage in accordance with best practice SuDS design, (CIRIA C753). SuDS should be designed to reduce or manage the surface water as close to source as possible. The drainage hierarchy should be followed with the top of the list as first choice. Evidence will be required to show each option has been explored and discounted. 1. By infiltration, soakaway. 2. Discharge to a water course, attenuation maybe required. 3. Discharge to the public sewer, attenuation will be required and permission from SWW. The proposed surface water drainage scheme is for the use of soakaway but percolation testing to DG 365 and design has not been provided. It has been noticed from the drainage plan that percolation testing has already been carried out, so please provide details. The foul drainage scheme is for the use of treatment plant and drainage field. We are happy with the principle of the scheme however a completed FDA1 form and justification for private foul will be required before it could be formally approved. Overcoming the objection To overcome the objection the applicant will need to provide: 1. Completed FDA1 form and justification for private foul drainage scheme. 2. Percolation testing in accordance with DG 365 will be required to support the use of soakaways, or justify an alternative option. The report should include the trail logs and infiltration rate calculations. 3. Soakaways to be designed for a 1:100 year event plus an allowance for climate change. (Currently 40%)

Tamar Valley AONB unit: This representation is written on behalf of the Tamar Valley AONB. Having further reviewed the submitted information together with the appeal decision on previous outline application 00727/2015 and the appeal decision on neighbouring application 2844/17/FUL we are concerned at this proposal for a new dwelling within the AONB.

The proposal lies within the open countryside, though immediately adjacent to existing development on Green Lane. Whilst it might be considered to a sustainable location in terms of access to facilities and the proposed landscaping might mitigate the visual impact to some extent. It would nevertheless, introduce a residential use and associated paraphernalia that would domesticate the site and consequently significantly harm the landscape character and appearance of the area and adversely impacting on the character and natural of the AONB. This would contrary to paragraph 172 of the NPPF, which affords the AONB the highest level of protection with regard to landscape character and scenic beauty.

Consequently, we object to this application.

CPRE : the Inspector also considered that: “the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area, including to the Tamar Valley AONB, contrary to the development plan policies set out above. There would be a social and economic benefit associated with 3 new dwellings and a further benefit from the affordable housing contribution. However, these considerations do not outweigh the identified environmental harm The current proposal through its design and access statement (DAS) fails to demonstrate scheme evolution and alternatives, to reflect national planning policies refocus on the quality of design. For example, where is the pictorial evidence to demonstrate the appropriateness of siting, other than the statement: “The location of the dwelling within the site is intended to ensure that the visual impact of the dwelling is inconsequential within the valued landscape.” (DAS). The site may well not be considered isolated but it is within the AONB and open countryside, which should be considered in reference to the guidelines of Para 79 of NPPF 2018, which addresses rural sustainable development in the open countryside. Para 79 states (amongst other things) that the design of the scheme should be of “exceptional quality” by reflecting “the highest standards of architecture” and being “truly outstanding and innovative”.

Para 79 of the NPPF 2018 sets the bar very high for dwellings in the countryside. The design and access statement fails to demonstrate how the proposed scheme is of exceptional quality through e.g. structural integrity, craftsmanship, quality of materials and relationship to landscape, failing to demonstrate that the proposal would be reflective of the quality expected in the open countryside and indeed the AONB. The proposal does not meet the general design quality expectations of national planning policy in terms of design and effect on the character and appearance of the area, in particular the AONB – this is epitomized by the summary of the LVIA: “overall the development has a landscape impact with very small negative/neutral effect” and the DAS, which states: “The Applicant intends to erect a single dwelling of individual design incorporating good local materials” – ‘good’ is somewhat mediocre. The proposal seeks nothing more than a neutral effect in the landscape, where a high quality development should be sought, which enhances its setting! Why hasn’t the scheme been subject to Design Review Panel and Building for Life criteria assessment, to ensure that the highest possible level of design can be achieved in this sensitive location? Para 129 of the NPPF states: “Local planning authorities should ensure that they have access to, and make appropriate use of, tools and processes for assessing and improving the design of development. These include workshops to engage the local community, design advice and review arrangements, and assessment frameworks such as Building for Life. …In assessing applications, local planning authorities should have regard to the outcome from these processes, including any recommendations made by design review panels.” Para 130 and 131 of the NPPF 2018 state: “Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, taking into account any local design standards or style guides in plans or supplementary planning documents. Conversely, where the design of a development accords with clear expectations in plan policies, design should not be used by the decision-maker as a valid reason to object to development. Local planning authorities should also seek to ensure that the quality of approved development is not materially diminished between permission and completion, as a result of changes being made to the permitted scheme (for example through changes to approved details such as the materials used). In determining applications, great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings.” The DAS fails to demonstrate a design rationale for the proposed scheme. The proposal should “significantly enhance” this sensitive landscape. The submission documents do not demonstrate how the proposed scheme through massing, layout, material and landscape design will maximize design quality, “enhance its immediate setting” and is “sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area” through e.g. its ‘basic’ montage of ‘Character- Local Precedents’ rather than an analysis of what is best for this site! The Design and Access Statement fails to demonstrate: • the rationale for the use, massing and form of the building; • the rationale for the proportion of hard surfacing/landscaping; • the rationale for the use of materials beyond that of trying to be in keeping with architectural vernacular • how the quality of the proposed scheme will be maintained through to construction e.g. considering longevity and robustness of materials; • how detailing is considered e.g. rainwater will be dealt with etc Consultation - failures of the Design and Access Statement. The DAS is the primary document that decision-takers should consider when it comes to design aspects of a proposed development. It is a legal requirement under the Development Management Procedure Order (DMPO) 2015 to submit a DAS with most planning applications. There is no statutory requirement for applicants to carry out pre-application consultation for most applications, but the DMPO makes it explicit that a DAS must include consultation steps taken by the applicant. The applicant has failed to consult with the community. The 2018 NPPF indicates that applications that demonstrate proper local engagement should fare better than those that don’t. The DAS fails to highlight proper and effective community engagement demonstrating the passive approach to community consultation and engagement – not seeking out views but waiting for objections. The Government’s press release on launching the NPPF in 2018 states: “Refocusing on the quality and design of proposals which are in line with what local communities want, the framework ensures councils have the confidence and tools to refuse permission for development that does not prioritise design quality and does not complement its surroundings.” The proposal fails to address this national planning policy mandate. This is further amplified by the failure of the DAS to acknowledge the emerging Neighbourhood Plan and its’ evidence base, which dependent upon stage, is a material planning consideration. Can the local planning authority explain why the application was validated with this level of detail (ie DAS) and how it can approve an application, which fails to detail the schemes evolution, alternatives and evidence of effective consultation, given the revised NPPF? Should the scheme be approved on design quality grounds If the scheme is considered acceptable on design grounds, can the local planning authority explain how they will guard against dilution of architectural quality after the grant of permission, in accordance with the NPPF 2018?

Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land Para 170 of the NPPF 2018 states: “Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by…. b) recognizing the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland;” The site has not been assessed to establish its agricultural land classification, and as such a full consideration of how the scheme contributes towards the natural and local environment cannot be carried out. Para 163 of NPPF states: “When determining any planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. Where appropriate, applications should be supported by a site-specific flood-risk assessment. Development should only be allowed in areas at risk of flooding where, in the light of this assessment (and the sequential and exception tests, as applicable) it can be demonstrated that: a) within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; b) the development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient; c) it incorporates sustainable drainage systems, unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate; d) any residual risk can be safely managed; and e) safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan. “ Local community objections to the scheme, highlight that there is an issue with drainage in the area, and the resultant effects of the proposed development on flooding and in particular, the adjacent highway and safety issues. The Drainage Consultation response highlights that this scheme currently fails to meet requirements of national policy and as already mentioned the DAS fails to consider the sustainability of the building. Economic, Social and Environmental Objectives The proposal fails to demonstrate that the economic benefits of this proposal i.e. to provide one market led house, in the open countryside, outweighs the social and environmental harm of the proposal, in terms of failing to: • foster a well-designed built environment; • protecting and enhancing the AONB;

For these reasons, the application should be REFUSED, and as a result the proposal would not constitute sustainable development”

Representations: Representations from Residents

51 letters of representation against the proposal have been submitted with the following concerns:

• unnecessary development within an area of outstanding natural beauty. • Junction of Green Lane and Crapstone Road can be dangerous and any increase in vehicular traffic would only present additional hazards. • It is counter to all the tenets that determine the definition of an AONB. • There is no doubt that approval of this application will lead to almost unstoppable ribbon development in the Green Lane area. • Planning policies and guidance: The proposed development is in the Tamar Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, on a previously undeveloped greenfield site • The application is not in accordance with the with the development plan. • If the application was granted it would set a precedent for future development, the applications for which would undoubtedly flood in. • Highway safety issues: The development would increase the traffic on narrow country lanes which are used by local pedestrians, including schoolchildren walking to their respective school buses, as well as recreational walkers, horse-riders and cyclists. An increase in traffic flow would pose a danger to all those mentioned. • Highway safety issues. Green Lane is a narrow country lane without street lighting used by riders, walkers and cyclist, any development is this road will produce more traffic in a very quiet rural location. • It would also be development of a greenfield site in open countryside. • There can be no merit in this application given the unsuccessful planning histories for the site and the site immediately opposite. At every attempt, planning permission has always been refused because of the harm any development (or even the siting of a mobile home) would cause to the AONB - a view which has, quite rightly, always been upheld by the Planning Inspectorate when previous unsuccessful applicants have appealed to the Secretary Of State. • Like most residents in Green Lane and its surroundings people choose to live here because we much appreciate value and enjoy the character and quiet beauty of our natural environment. Our AONB should be respected. • The building will be conspicuous along the dominant Green Lane ridgeline for those in Axtown, Whistley Down and Stoke Hill Lane. • Part of the Local Plan Review March 2005 as amended by Core Strategy April 2011 states: Such development should not be permitted unless it provides for an overriding economic or community benefit and cannot reasonably be located within an existing settlement. • This development does not provide an economic or community benefit. • an opportunistic attempt to develop a site and environs which PINS has a clear, and recently demonstrated, commitment to uphold. • This is unsustainable residential building within the Tamar Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty • It will entail building outside the settlement of Green Lane, the extent of which has been accepted for many years without new ribbon development. The site is ecologically unsustainable since accessed only by car and without adjacent services. • Crapstone itself has taken a wholly disproportionate burden of house planning growth; this adds to the stock in an unsustainable way, which, if granted, would open a precedent for further subdivisions of existing plots by adjacent owners. • If this application is approved, coming on top of the recently approved application for the expansion to the Yelverton Business Park just across the valley it will steadily erode this part of the Tamar Valley AONB. What is the point of having such a designation if it fails to protect the area? • A proposal for 3 in number dwellings on this site was turned down on appeal APP/Q1153/W/16/3145211, this appeal seems applicable whether it is one, two or three dwellings. • drainage issues and general poor drainage of the road (also previously covered). • There are persistent attempts to construct dwellings on this land which have previously been refused. Those reasons remain valid. • Green Lane is not a settlement but is a small cluster of dwellings that have a clearly defined end point beyond which the landscape changes to a rural one. • There are no facilities within 1.5 Miles and no bus service nearer than in Yelverton. • The recent appeal decisions confirm that we are right to be strongly opposed to this development. The impact it will have on the amenity of the White House, and specifically how the character and appearance of the countryside is enjoyed from that property, reinforce our view that what is proposed must be refused. • Martins Meadow, enjoys a tranquillity on which the intrusion of the proposed development would be most damaging. • This is substantial residential development of a greenfield site, not even within the settlement of Green Lane the extent of which has been accepted for over 50 years. It is an unsustainable site, in a narrow lane frequented by walkers, often with dogs, horse and pony riders and cyclists, and where cars already pass only with difficulty. • Ecologically unsustainable. The use of a car is essential as the nearest local services (Yelverton) are approximately 1.6 (km) away via unlit roads and footpaths. There is a bus stop 0.5 (km) from the site but the service available is inadequate for normal school/employment hours. • A solicitor was employed by a number of local residents to represent their concerns. As well as the above mentioned concerns in addition concerns were raised via this representation as follows: o There was an almost identical proposal on the opposite side of the road. o Paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (NPPF) states that: *Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing 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 these issues". o Fortuitously, the Planning Inspectorate has already provided "clear guidance on this issue on three occasions. They have refused appeals in respect of this site on two previous occasions (1996 and 2016) and then in 2018 they also refused an appeal in respect of the field situated directly opposite the site, on the other side of Green Lane. On all three occasions the appeals were refused because the Planning Inspectorate held that the proposed developments would cause unacceptable harm to the AONB. o The proposal is contrary to Policies:NE10 of the 2005 Local Plan Review ( as amended); Paragraph 2.41 of the 2005 Local Plan Review s amended by the Adopted Core Strategy April 2011; Chapter 4 of the 2005 Local Plan Review as amended by the adopted Core Strategy 2011 relating to Housing and Community –“no development in the open countryside without a specific justification as defined in PPS7; Policy H29; Policy H31 of the 2005 Local Plan Review as amended by the Core Strategy 2011; Strategic policy 1, 5 and 17 of the 2011 Core Strategy. o The JLP and the Buckland Monochorum Neighbourhood Plan requires 20 homes to be built in the Buckland Monochorum Parish in the period to 2034. The development at Abbey Meadows Crapstone will provide 22 new homes, 40% of which are affordable. The target has therefore already been met.

Relevant Planning History

F/3/32/1173/1995/1: FUL Proposal: Proposed siting of a mobile home for private use only. Site Address: Pt OS 9893 (SX 5166) Green Lane Buckland Monachorum Decision Refusal: 04 Aug 95 Appeal AUN: Dismissed - (REFUSAL): 28 May 96 Layer: Planning History (Updated)

3902/2002/TAV: FUL Proposal Full application for creation of gateway Site Address: Land adjacent to The White House Green Lane Yelverton Devon Decision Conditional Consent: 04 Feb 03

00727/2015: OPA Proposal Outline planning application proposing the erection of 3 dwellings with means of access and layout to be considered. Site Address: Land at Axtown Farm Green Lane Yelverton Devon Decision Refusal: 22 Oct 15

Appeal decisions in relation to this site and the site on the opposite side of Green Lane are relevant material considerations in the determination of this planning application. 00727/2015 – Application for 3 dwellings: Refused for the following reasons: 1 The proposed development would result in three new dwellings in an unsustainable location within the open countryside designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where no special circumstances have been provided to justify the proposal. The proposed development does not therefore satisfy the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (notably but not limited to paragraphs 14, 55 & 115), West Devon Borough Council Core Strategy (2011) policies SP1, SP5, SP18 and West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review (2005) policies H31 and NE10.

Appeal. Ref: APP/Q1153/W/16/3145211 Appeal dismissed. Inspector identified that the main issues to consider were ° The effect on character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the landscape and scenic beauty of the Tamar Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); ° Whether or not the proposal, given its rural location, would constitute a sustainable location for access to facilities and services. He concluded that the character of Green Lane after the Whitehouse had a “strong open rural setting that commences at the appeal site and the field opposite.”………… The appearance of a definitive edge to the main body of Axtown is most marked when arriving from the west, whereby the end façade of The White House is the first readily appreciable residential development comprising part of an established settlement.

Whilst the Inspector acknowledged the landscaping proposed which would provide some degree of screening, he felt that “ any visibility of residential development, which would be more readily seen in winter, would create an urbanising effect, substantially altering the existing natural character, openness and attractive rural appearance of the site. This would detract from the current views across the open field towards the hills in the distance. It seems to me that the open, undeveloped nature of the appeal site, which also affords distant views, makes an important contribution to the AONB, which local and national policy seeks to protect.” He then went on to conclude that “the proposal would fail to conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the Tamar Valley AONB, or the character and appearance of the area more generally. The proposal would therefore be contrary to CS Policy SP17(a), CS Policy SP1 criterion (i) and Local Plan Policy NE10 criterion (ii).

In terms of the sustainability of the site, the Inspector concluded that ,”…… the proposal would constitute a sustainable location for development, in respect of access to services. Whilst the proposal would be contrary to Policy H31 of the Local Plan and CS Policy SP5, this is outweighed by compliance with the more recent provisions of paragraph 55 of the Framework. Furthermore, the criteria in the Local Plan and CS policies are of a type that the Framework only seeks to apply when new homes are isolated, which I have found is not the situation in this case.”

A further appeal was recently dismissed on the field directly opposite the appeal site, which is also relevant to the consideration of this site as both sites are located at the edge of Axtown.

2844/17/FUL Erection of single residential dwelling with associated parking and residential amenity area. Refusal 13/12/17 Reason for refusal: By reason of the site’s location and isolation from services, and the size and design of the proposed dwelling, the development constitutes a new residential intervention into the countryside which fails to provide safe and suitable access for all, would foster the growth in the need to travel by private car, fails to provide a sustainable solution and fails to respond to an identified local housing need. The proposal is therefore contrary to West Devon Development Plan policies SP1, SP8, SP24 and T5, emerging Joint Local Plan policies SPT1, SPT2, TTV31 and DEV8 and paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 14, 17, 32, 34 and 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework

APP/Q1153/W/18/3194430

The Inspector considered the main reasons were: ° the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the Tamar Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and ° whether the appeal site is a suitable location for a dwelling, with particular regard to accessibility to services and local housing need. The inspector noted …..” I saw that the character and appearance of the site is typical of the local landscape of tight field patterns, with woodland and boundary trees, and small scale in a greater landscape as described in the appellants’ Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA).” He goes on to say……. The appeal scheme would introduce a substantial dwelling and associated residential garden area at the site. While this would be screened from public view to a significant degree by existing trees and other vegetation, particularly when in full leaf as at the time of my visit, there would be a significant change in the character of the use of the site from pastoral to domestic.”

He concludes in relation to the landscape character…. “while landscape screening may mitigate the effects of the development in landscape visual terms, particularly when trees are in leaf, it would not mitigate the fundamental and permanent change in the character of the site that would result from the introduction of permanent residential use.”……….”I consider that the overall scale of the development would amount to a significant new residential intervention in the countryside that would inevitably substantially change the role and character of the site.”

In relation to the AONB he comments “I also note that the Tamar Valley AONB Unit raised no particular objections to the scheme considering that harm to the AONB landscape would be limited and capable of mitigation. In terms of the overall visual impact, I concur that harm would be limited and that it would be largely, although not completely, mitigated by the proposed layout and landscaping. However, in terms of the countryside character of the site, I consider that harm would arise that would not be mitigated by any of the measures before me. While this harm would be limited in overall scale to the confines of the site, and the new house would be located adjacent to the existing dwelling at Merrilyn where there is existing domestic activity, it would nonetheless be detrimental to the rural character of the site and locality. This additional domestication, and the inevitable associated paraphernalia, would therefore also adversely alter the character and, to a degree, the appearance of the AONB.”

In conclusion….. “In light of the above, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the Tamar Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It would therefore conflict with adopted Policies SP1 and SP24 of the CS, the relevant requirements of which are set out above.”

In relation to development in the countryside and isolated development the Inspector states that… “this physical proximity to the contiguous cluster of dwellings means that the new dwelling would not be isolated in the context of paragraph 55, since it cannot be said that it would be far away from other places, buildings or people, albeit the location is rural.” He goes on in relation to accessibility to services….” it does not necessarily follow that a site that is not ‘isolated’ will be reasonably accessible to services when considered in the context of other requirements of the Framework.”

He concluded that “the appeal site would be a suitable location for a dwelling, with particular regard to accessibility to services and local housing need. It therefore would not conflict with Policy SP8 of the CS or Policy T5 of the West Devon Local Plan Review 2005, the relevant requirements of which are set out above. It would also accord with the relevant requirements of the Framework. There would, however, be some conflict with Policy SP24 of the CS because the proposal is not for a smaller home.”

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development/Sustainability: The principle of this proposed development must be considered against the policies which relate to development in the countryside and the presumption in favour of sustainable development promoted in the NPPF 2018. Also material to the principle of the development are the recent refusals and appeal decisions.

In planning policy terms the relevant documents are the West Devon Local Plan adopted in 2005 and the West Devon Borough Council Core strategy adopted in 2011 which amended some of the policies in the earlier document. The relevant policies are: SP1, SP5, SP24 and H31.

In addition the emerging Joint Local Plan for Plymouth and South West Devon is also of relevance. Whilst it has not yet been adopted, it is well advanced in the Local Plan preparation process and is currently waiting for the Inspectors conclusions as to whether the document is sound. The policies are therefore of relevance: SPT1, SPT2 and TTV31.

The site is located in the countryside as Axtown does not have a defined settlement boundary. Policy H31 seeks to protect the countryside from development which is not essential such as that related to agriculture, forestry or horticulture. The proposal lies in an area which is identified as countryside and no such justification has been provided and as such the proposal is contrary to Policy H31.

Policy SP5 relates to new development and its strategic location. The policy encourages development to focus on the Main towns and then the Local Centres and villages and refers to the need for development in the countryside to be based on an essential agricultural, forestry and horticultural need. The proposal does not meet those justifications.

The previous appeal on this site as well as the new NPPF provisions, indicate that the weight to be applied to Policy H31 and SP5 should be limited. Paragraph 11 in the NPPF states that for decision takers, “ approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed6; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole .

Where LPA’s cannot demonstrate a 5 year Housing Land supply, the policies should be considered out of date. As West Devon cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year housing supply, the weight to be applied to H13 and SP5 is limited.

The NPPF 2018 makes reference to rural housing in Para.’s 77 – 79. In rural areas, “decisions should be responsive to local circumstances and support housing developments that reflect local needs.” and “To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities .”

Para. 79 refers specifically to isolated new homes and the fact that planning decision should avoid the development of them in the countryside. To determine whether this is an isolated dwelling reference must be made to the two recent appeal decisions on this site and the site which is located directly opposite this site on Green Lane.

The definition of what isolated means has been clarified in the High Court decision Braintree DC v SSCLG [2018] and the Inspectors in the recent appeal on this application site and the one directly opposite this site both determined that the sites were not isolated. In addition the Inspector concluded on the determination of the appeal on this site that the location was sustainable……... “ the proposal would constitute a sustainable location for development, in respect of access to services. Whilst the proposal would be contrary to Policy H31 of the Local Plan and CS Policy SP5, this is outweighed by compliance with the more recent provisions of paragraph 55 of the Framework. Furthermore, the criteria in the Local Plan and CS policies are of a type that the Framework only seeks to apply when new homes are isolated, which I have found is not the situation in this case.”:

In relation to the site opposite the application site the Inspector commented: “ this physical proximity to the contiguous cluster of dwellings means that the new dwelling would not be isolated in the context of paragraph 55, since it cannot be said that it would be far away from other places, buildings or people, albeit the location is rural.” He then went on to conclude that …. “the appeal site would be a suitable location for a dwelling, with particular regard to accessibility to services and local housing need. It therefore would not conflict with Policy SP8 of the CS or Policy T5 of the West Devon Local Plan Review 2005, the relevant requirements of which are set out above. It would also accord with the relevant requirements of the Framework. There would, however, be some conflict with Policy SP24 of the CS because the proposal is not for a smaller home.”

The arguments put forward by the Inspectors are material in the determination as to whether the proposed dwelling is isolated. The site is located adjacent to a group of dwellings known as Axtown which are not defined as a settlement and have no facilities or services, but which are a group of houses where social benefit could be derived from them being located together. It is considered by officers that the application site is not isolated.

In relation to the site being in a sustainable location, the Inspectors for this site concluded that the three settlements of Yelverton, Crapstone and Axtown could contribute to the rural vitality of Crapstone and Yelverton. He also found that the whilst it would be unlikely for people to walk to the nearby settlements because of the nature of the roads, it would be possible to cycle or take a bus or a short car ride and as such concluded that the location was sustainable.

The later appeal on the site opposite the application came to the same conclusion with regard to the sustainability of the location, where the Inspector makes reference to saved policy T5 of the West Devon Local Plan Review(2005) which seeks to provide development in locations accessible to public transport. Whilst also acknowledging that in sparsely populated rural West Devon, potential for public transport is limited. He acknowledged that there was a bus stop 600m from the appeal site, which would be similar for this site. The Inspector therefore concluded that the site had reasonable accessibility to the services in Crapstone and Yelverton and concurred with his colleague on the earlier appeal that the site was in a sustainable location, by contributing to the vitality of the settlements of Yelverton and Crapstone. Officers therefore conclude that the location of the site is sustainable Policy SP1 supports development which is sustainable. There are many criteria which need to be met in order to meet this policy. One is which is the need to protect ….“ natural and man-made landscapes in and surrounding the Borough with particular regard to the Tamar Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site and the Dartmoor National Park;”

Referring back to paragraph 11 of the Framework, specific reference is made to the fact that decisions should be made having reference to all of the policies in the Framework “unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed”

Such assets are referred to in the footnote as “habitats sites (and those sites listed in paragraph 176) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 63); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change.”

The consideration of this issue will be dealt with the next section (Design and Landscape).

Policy SP24 -Sustainable Rural Communities In the local centres and villages of West Devon, small scale development within, adjoining or closely related to settlement limits will be permitted where a need has been identified through the use of the Sustainable Rural Communities Toolkit and, where appropriate, a Parish Housing Survey has been undertaken. Proposals for development will be supported where they: Contribute to community well-being and to the sustainable social and economic growth of a settlement; Seek to protect and enhance existing community facilities, provide new local services, improve local employment opportunities and/or meet a housing need; and Are in scale and in keeping with the site, its setting and the nature of the settlement, reinforce local character and protect natural landscapes and biodiversity.

Reference is made to this policy for the sake of completeness, but in reality the application site does not lie within, adjoining or closely related to a settlement with settlement limits defined. So strictly speaking the policy is not of relevance. However in considering the criteria in the policy, it is acknowledged that there will be limited economic benefit in terms of the construction of the dwelling and in terms of social benefit, it will be an additional dwelling that will make use of the services provided in Yelverton. However there are two issues where the proposal will fail to meet the criteria. In terms of housing need. This is considered below, but in essence there is a general need (as identified in the Sub-Regional Housing Market and Needs Assessment undertaken for the production of the Core Strategy)

Contribution to the housing stock: The erection of a single dwelling will provide a limited social benefit through housing provision. However, current and emerging policy requires a tangible contribution to housing need within the locality. With regard to the existing housing stock, the Parish is faced with a quite clear and noticeable imbalance towards large detached housing. The rural area surrounding the application site is punctuated by single large detached executive style houses sat within their own grounds. In addition, the nearest village of Crapstone is clearly dominated by large houses. Officers would therefore conclude that there is no need for an additional house of this scale within the area and that the scheme therefore fails to provide an overriding community benefit or respond to housing need and imbalance. The application therefore conflicts with current development policies NE10, SP8, and emerging policies TTV31 and DEV8

Design/Landscape:

Landscape The proposal must be considered in relation to the impact it will have on the landscape and the AONB and reference will need to be made to the recent appeal decisions which support the value of the AONB and the need to protect it from harmful development.

In addition, consideration must be given to the design of the proposed dwelling and how it relates to its context and whether it has mitigated any of the landscape concerns in the design solution put forward.

The AONB Management Plan has a number of objectives which it has sought to meet over the period between 2014 and 2019. In landscape terms the objective states: To conserve and enhance the landscape character and local distinctiveness of the AONB .

One of the policies to achieve this states: Favour developments that are sustainable and respect, maintain and where possible enhance AONB special qualities, distinctive features and important heritage sites.

Strengthen landscape character by improving the condition of existing landscape features identified as being in poor condition; reinstating landscape features identified as missing or fragmented, and by seeking low impact solutions to visually intrusive (types of) developments and activities (including the influence of light pollution).

The Tamar Valley AONB unit have objected to the development proposed on the basis that “It would nevertheless, introduce a residential use and associated paraphernalia that would domesticate the site and consequently significantly harm the landscape character and appearance of the area and adversely impacting on the character and natural of the AONB. This would contrary to paragraph 172 of the NPPF, which affords the AONB the highest level of protection with regard to landscape character and scenic beauty.”

The application is open to the north and views from the development on the other side of the valley such as the Industrial estate of the site are currently of green fields and trees and hedgerows with the odd dwelling peeping through the vegetation. The open and undeveloped nature of the application site from distant views would be harmed if it were developed.

The proposal would intrude into that predominant landscape and serve to extend the residential development into that area. As described by the Inspector when commenting on the previous proposal for 3 dwellings on this site, the impact would be to “ urbanise ” the site and as a result “substantially alter the existing natural character, openness and attractive rural appearance of the site. ”

Whilst it is accepted that the proposal considered by the Inspector was for 3 dwellings and the current proposal is for one dwelling, it is still considered that the impact of residential development on this site which has an intrinsically different character to the Whitehouse and dwellings beyond, would have a negative impact on the character of the landscape and harm the landscape beauty of the AONB and would detract from the current views across the open field towards the hills in the distance. The proposal would be contrary to Policy SP17 of the West Devon Core Strategy, and DEV 27 of the emerging JLP. Paragraph 172 in the NPPF 2018, also places great weight on conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in AONB’s National Parks and the Broads. As has been discussed above, the proposal does not conserve the natural undeveloped nature of the site and neither does it enhance the landscape quality as it will intrinsically change the character.

The LVIA submitted with the planning application concludes in terms of landscape impact that “….. overall the development has a landscape impact with very small negative/neutral effect, further minimised with the potential for mitigation which introduces these landscape features alluded to, supplying many positive effects helping to retain and improve landscape character immediately and for the long term .”

However as has been outlined above, the concern from the AONB unit is the change in character of the landscape which will occur as a result of the proposal. Whilst the mitigation referred to would help, what is of utmost importance here is the existing character. The introduction of a dwelling and curtilage and the associated domestication and manicuring of the garden, as well as additional planting where traditionally there was none will significantly impact on that existing character, which is not considered to be acceptable.

Design In relation to the design of the proposed dwelling. It is acknowledged that the applicant has sought to seek advice from the AONB unit, in order to progress the scheme. However the advice given was not formal pre application advice but rather informal comments on the scheme presented. That process was not formally concluded, but the AONB officer acknowledged that the proposal was moving in the right direction, albeit there were still issues to be resolved. Clearly subsequently the proposal did not address sufficiently the AONB units concerns with the proposal now before you. In terms of design, the proposal has sought to work with the landform and kept some of the dwelling as single storey to reduce the visual impact. Landscaping is also proposed, including a hedgerow along the proposed northern boundary. However the dwelling is still large and has a large footprint. In addition the difference in levels between the site and the road has resulted in a driveway which curves in two directions before arriving at the parking and garaging. This in itself is a significant visual intrusion and with the new access proposed from the road means that the site will actually become much more visible from Green Lane and the excessively engineered driveway will have a significant visual impact on the character of the area.

Neighbour Amenity: There has been a large number of representations in relation to the development from local people along Green Lane and the wider community. The two immediate neighbours are amongst those concerned albeit they are concerned in the main about the general impact of the development rather than the impact on their properties. Some concern has though been expressed by the neighbour to the west at the impact of new dwelling on the peace and tranquillity they currently enjoy in their property. The tranquillity of the landscape is one of the key components of an AONB designation, which has been considered in the Design and Landscape section above.

Highways/Access: The Highway Authority have not made comments but have asked for standing advice to be used. The proposal seeks to alter the existing access which is currently shared with the stable and sand school which are immediately to the west of the application site. The proposal is to construct a new direct access off green Lane in the middle section of the hedgerow of the site. The standing advice states: there should be adequate parking provided. This is the case with the proposal. Standing advice also makes reference to the technical specifications of the access and drive. A detailed drawing of the proposed access has been produced, which shows a driveway that enters the site at right angles, then curves through 90 degrees to the west and then turns through 180 degrees towards the east. The applicant confirmed that this was due to the change in levels between the road and the sloping nature of the site. A turning space is provided which is a requirement of standing advice. With regards to the access itself, it meets the standards required.

In addition consideration must be given to the visual impact of the creation of the new access on to Green Lane and the rural character of the lane at this point. That visual impact is of further concern because of the levels the driveway has to curve to the west before curving again towards the east where the new parking area behind the proposed house is located. The driveway and access drawing also indicates a visibility splay which id=s described as realignment of hedge as necessary. Which could mean that the amount of hedge needing removal is more than has been indicted so as to achieve appropriate visibility when leaving the site. As stated earlier the impact of the access and the visibility of the site could be significant from Green Lane.

Drainage: Initially the drainage engineers had an objection to the proposal, however after the submission of additional information, they conclude that sufficient information has been submitted in relation to drainage to satisfy the drainage engineers and so they recommend conditions be applied.

Concerns of local residents, the CPRE and the Parish Council: There have been a large number of objections to the proposal referring to the previous refusals on the site and other sites in the immediate locality; the impact on the AONB; countryside and green field concerns; increased traffic on the Lane and the fact that the proposal is contrary to planning policy. These are all material considerations and have been taken into account in the consideration of the proposal and have informed the planning balance to be applied to this proposal.

Planning Balance: It is clear that the applicant has worked hard to try to overcome the concerns raised on previous applications and appeals and has asked the architect to design a scheme which has acknowledged the context of the site and attempted to keep the height of the proposed dwelling down so as to take advantage of the dip in levels in the middle of the site.

However it is the principle of development in this location and in relation to the impact it will have on the landscape character and the AONB that is the key consideration here. It is a large dwelling on a site which is currently intrinsically of a landscape character. The dwelling and the changes to the access will significantly harm that character and as such impact negatively on the AONB. It will not therefore conserve and enhance the AONB which is required by national and local planning policies.

In addition, whilst the JLP is emerging and has not yet been adopted, the issue of housing need is of some material weight in this decision. The proposed 6 bedroom detached house, in no way meets the local need for smaller 2 – 3 bedroom properties which has been identified as being needed in this area.

As a result the application is recommended for refusal.

This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Planning Policy

The relevant development plan policies are set out below:

West Devon Borough Council Core Strategy 2011 SP1 – Sustainable Development SP6 –Density of Housing Development SP7 – Strategic Distribution of Housing SP9 – Meeting Housing Needs SP11 – Rural Regeneration SP17 – Landscape Character SP19 – Biodiversity SP20 – Promoting High Quality Design SP21 – Flooding SP24 – Sustainable Rural Communities

West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review 2005(as amended 2011) NE10 – Protection of the Countryside and Other Open Spaces BE13 – Landscaping and Boundary Treatment BE19 – Development on Contaminated Land H28 – Settlements with Defined Limits H31 – Residential Development in the Countryside H32 - Residential Development in the Countryside H33 - Residential Development in the Countryside H37 – Meeting Local Housing Needs in Rural Areas H38 – Conversion or Redevelopment of Larger Dwellings H39 – Redevelopment of Single Residential Plots T9 – The Highway Network PS2 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PS3 – Sewage Disposal

Emerging Joint Local Plan The Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan is currently undergoing a main modifications consultation (22 Oct – 03 Dec 2018) as part of the examination in public to determine the soundness of the plan. The joint councils are waiting to hear from the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) regarding the next steps. Until PINS provide an update, the JLP councils are unable to commit to a timetable for adoption. The National Planning Policy Framework provides guidance on the weight that can be given to policies in emerging local plans in paragraph 48:

48. Local planning authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);

b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and

c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)

The JLP is nearing the conclusion of the examination process, and can be considered to be at an advanced stage of preparation.

The Council consider that the emerging policies are all compliant with the NPPF. It should be noted that the JLP is being examined against the provisions of the 2012 NPPF, and therefore for the purposes of paragraph 48 of the NPPF policies should also be assessed for their conformity against the 2012 NPPF.

PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017)

SPT2 Sustainable linked neighbourhoods and sustainable rural communities SPT3 Provision for new homes TTV31 Development in the Countryside DEV1 Protecting amenity and the environment DEV8 Meeting local housing need in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area DEV10 Delivering high quality housing DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment DEV24 Landscape character DEV27 Nationally protected landscapes DEV28 Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation DEV30 Trees, woodlands and hedgerows DEV37 Managing flood risk and Water Quality Impacts

Neighbourhood Plan There is currently no Neighbourhood Plan in place in this area.

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Clare Stewart Parish: Okehampton Ward: Okehampton North

Application No: 1667/18/FUL

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Rowan Edwards Ltd Hayrish Ltd 21 Plymouth Road Hayrish Farm Tavistock Taw Green PL19 8AU Okehampton

EX20 2LE

Site Address: Land rear of London Inn, 22 West Street, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 1HH

Development: Erection of 3no. cottages

Reason item is being put before Committee: On the request of Ward Member Councillor Leech having regard to objections from Okehampton Town Council and other regarding overdevelopment, access, parking, drainage and flood risk.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Conditions

1. Time limit 2. Accord with plans 3. Archaeology recording (PTC – date agreed 07/02/19) 4. Natural slates 5. Stonework 6. Compliance with submitted surface water drainage scheme 7. Property level flood risk assessment and evacuation plan prior to occupation 8. Parking to be made available prior to occupation and retained

Key issues for consideration:

Principle of development, design, impact on Conservation Area, Flood Risk/Drainage.

Site Description:

The site is situated to the west of West Street, with the access adjacent to the entrance to Westbridge Close. It appears the land has most recently been used as parking/amenity space in connection with the London Inn Public House which fronts onto West Street immediately to the south of the site. The site access runs immediately adjacent to the London Inn before opening out into a space which is partially enclosed by historic stone walls which largely obscure views into the site from the west. To the north and east of the site are residential properties accessed from Westbridge Close.

The site is located within the adopted Okehampton Settlement Boundary and Conservation Area. The nearest individually listed buildings lie to the east on the far side of the river. The entrance to the site is located within Flood Zones 2 and 3.

The Proposal:

Permission is sought for the construction of three dwellings within the site accessed from West Street. The dwellings would be located on the eastern side of the site with vehicle parking on the western side adjacent to the existing stone wall (which would largely be retained). The dwellings would be formed of a two storey terrace with pitched roofs sloping away from the existing neighbouring properties in Westbridge Close. External treatments would include white render and stone under a slate roof with powder coated steel window frames. Bin storage is shown within the site boundary.

Consultations :

• County Highways Authority – No objection – “The proposed development is served by an existing access which appears to have, at one time, served as the access to the car park for the public house. The junction geometry is adequate to accommodate the traffic that would be generated by the proposed development. The parking proposed within the site is very constrained, but the highway authority is satisfied that any inadequacies with the internal layout, such as the inadequate clearance behind the illustrated parking spaces will not lead to issues affecting highway safety .”

• Drainage Specialist – Compliance condition to secure submitted surface water drainage scheme

• Environment Agency – “We have no objections to the proposed development as submitted however, we recommend you consult your emergency planners in respect of emergency evacuation.

Reason- We are satisfied that the dwellings themselves will be safe from flooding over their lifetime. However the main vehicle access appears to be within Flood Zone 3 as defined by maps as having a high probability of flooding. We advise that flood depths on the access route will be shallow and we note that an alternative access is proposed. Your emergency planners should be satisfied that this is appropriate.

Advice to the LPA – Sequential Test The buildings themselves lie within Flood Zone 1 and it has now been shown that an alternative pedestrian access route will be provided. However given that the primary vehicular access route lies within Flood Zone 3, your Authority will need to take a view on whether it would be appropriate to apply the flood risk Sequential Test. For information, an appeal for a site on land to the rear of Royal Oak House, Fore Street, Bridestowe (Ref. APP/Q1153/A/10/2127030, dated 27 September 2010) has supported the need for the test to be applied in circumstances where a development is within Flood Zone 1 but the access is within Flood Zone 3.

There are also more recent appeals at Treliddon Lane, Downderry (Ref. APP/D0840/W/15/3137961, dated 20 February 2016) and Primrose Dell, Polgooth (Ref. APP/D0840/W/16/3163288, dated 13 March 2017) where it was confirmed that the Sequential Test should be applied even though only a small part of these sites were at risk from flooding.”

• Emergency Planner – “I have reviewed the FRA, and I would state that there is minimal risk to the occupants from flooding, however the occupants will be effectively cut off from support from the emergency services during modelled flood events, even the secondary access route does not address this issue as this will only take the occupants to further dry land that has no road access.

However I am unsure whether this is sufficient justification for refusal of the permission, and on this basis I would suggest that we condition that prior to occupation a property level flood risk assessment and evacuation plan should be produced. This plan should be submitted to the lpa for approval. The approved plan shall be made available to future occupants .”

• South West Water – Foul flow only to public sewer

• DCC Archaeology – Archaeological recording condition

• Okehampton Town Council – Objection – “on the grounds of access, drainage and concerns regarding the potential overdevelopment of the site. It was also noted that the area was possibly with the conservation area .”

Representations:

Two letters of objection have been received, with concerns raised summarised as follows:

• Increase in traffic – danger to pedestrians accessing nearby buildings • Insufficient car parking provision • Noise and disruption during construction

One letter of representation states it is from the current landlord of the London Inn and that they have no objection.

Relevant Planning History

• 3465/17/PRE Pre-application enquiry for erection of 3 dwellings. Land Rear of London Inn, 22 West Street, Okehampton. Partial Officer support given.

• 11215/2007/OKE: Refurbish public house and demolition of existing rear outbuildings and erection of 2 storey extensions London Inn 22 West Street Okehampton Devon EX20 1HH Conditional Consent: 05 Feb 08

• 11216/2007/OKE: Conservation Area Consent for part demolition of building to rear London Inn 22 West Street Okehampton Devon EX20 1HH Conditional Consent: 05 Feb 08

• 10041/2007/OKE: Extension and conversion of public house to provide 9 flats and erection of new building to rear to provide 10 flats; and associated parking London Inn 22 West Street Okehampton Devon EX20 1HH • Withdrawn: 23 Jul 08

• 8367/2005/OKE: AMENDED DESCRIPTION AND PLANS Residential redevelopment of site to provide 14 flats and 9 parking spaces within converted public house new extension to public house on site of existing rear wing (to be demolished) and two new buildings to be erected London Inn 22 West Street Okehampton Devon EX20 1HH WRE: Dismissed - (REFUSAL): 07 Dec 06

• 8371/2005/OKE: Conservation Area Consent application for demolition of rear wing of public house and outbuildings London Inn 22 West Street Okehampton Devon EX20 1HH WRE: Dismissed - (REFUSAL): 07 Dec 06

ANALYSIS

Principle of Development/Sustainability:

The site is located within the adopted Okehampton Settlement Boundary, with current adopted policy seeking to direct new housing development to such areas. West Devon BC is not currently able to demonstrate a five year supply of housing, and as such policies in respect of housing supply are considered to be out of date. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF states:

“11. Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development...

For decision-taking this means: c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole .”

The “ tilted balance ” set out in paragraph 11 above is considered to apply in this case. The site is in a town centre location and is considered sustainable with regards to access to services. It can also be noted Okehampton has been identified as an area suitable for development within the emerging Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (JLP).

As can be seen from the planning history section above there have been previous attempts to secure residential development on this site. The appeal decision in respect of application 8367/2005/OKE focused on the impact on the living conditions of the existing neighbouring property 24 West Street, and the standard of amenity that would be enjoyed by the new residents of proposed Block B. This application also included the conversion of the London Inn into residential use. It is considered the principle of residential development can be supported on this site, with due regard given to all other material planning considerations including detailed design and neighbour amenity. The economic and social benefits of the provision of three dwellings on a sustainably located site weight in favour of the proposal in the tilted balance.

Flood Risk/Drainage:

An initial holding objection from the Council’s Drainage Specialist was overcome with the submission of further information. A condition is recommended to ensure the submitted surface water drainage scheme is complied with.

The Environment Agency recommended consultation with the Emergency Planner with respect to evacuation. The Emergency Planner had some initial concerns but is not raising objection subject to a condition as detailed above to secure a property level flood risk assessment and evacuation plan.

The Environment Agency have indicated that the Sequential Test may be applicable in this case as the vehicle access to the site lies within Flood Zone 3. A site specific flood risk assessment has been provided which shows the access is partly within Flood Zone 2. Planning Practice Guidance indicates the Exception Test could be applied if the Sequential Test is not satisfied as the proposal is for a ‘more vulnerable’ use. The application would provide for much needed housing in an otherwise sustainable location that would bring wider community benefits to outweigh the flood risk in this case (bearing in mind only part of the site is located within the Flood Zone). The Emergency Planner has confirmed an evacuation plan can be appropriately secured by condition. It is considered refusal of the application on flood risk grounds could not be substantiated in this case.

Design/Conservation:

The current proposal addresses the reasons why the previous scheme was dismissed on appeal. The repositioning of development on the site addresses the concerns regarding the impact on 24 West Street (as this related to a proposed extension to the London Inn building). The residential units now proposed would be modest in size, and the fenestration design would allow for adequate living conditions within.

The current proposal is for a much more appropriate quantum of development on the site, and the proposed design would respect its surroundings and the wider setting of the Conservation Area. The proposed use of powder coated steel frames which is considered acceptable. Conditions in respect of slates and stonework to ensure their overall acceptability is recommended for any approval.

Neighbour Amenity:

The north east elevation of the dwellings facing towards Westbridge Close would only have high level rooflights facing towards the boundary wall which would minimise potential for overlooking. It is considered no amenity reasons for refusal could be substantiated.

Highways/Access:

The amount of car parking proposed (4 spaces in total) is considered acceptable in a town centre location with good access to public transport provision. Devon County Highways have raised no objection to the application and have not requested any conditions. A condition is recommended to ensure the parking shown on the submitted plans is available prior to occupation of the dwellings and retained for that use.

Other Matters:

Whilst some noise and disturbance during construction is inevitable it is not considered grounds for refusal.

An archaeology condition is recommended on the request of the County Archaeologist. Whilst the Agent provided an archaeology report after their initial response was received this is not considered sufficient and the County Archaeologist is still requesting a prior to commencement condition.

The Planning Balance:

Subject to the above recommended conditions it is considered the balance tips in favour of the proposal. Concerns raised by third parties are not considered grounds for refusal in this case.

This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Planning Policy

The relevant development plan policies are set out below:

West Devon Borough Council Core Strategy 2011 SP1 – Sustainable Development SP5 – Spatial Strategy SP6 –Density of Housing Development SP7 – Strategic Distribution of Housing SP18 – The Heritage and Historical Character of West Devon SP19 – Biodiversity SP20 – Promoting High Quality Design SP21 – Flooding SP22 – Okehampton

West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review 2005(as amended 2011) BE1 – Conservation Areas BE2 – Conservation Areas BE10 – Archaeology and Sites of Local Importance BE13 – Landscaping and Boundary Treatment H28 – Settlements with Defined Limits T8 – Car Parking T9 – The Highway Network PS2 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PS3 – Sewage Disposal PS4 – Private Water Supply

The National Planning Policy Framework provides guidance on the weight that can be given to policies in emerging local plans in paragraph 48:

The JLP is nearing the conclusion of the examination process, and can be considered to be at an advanced stage of preparation.

PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017) SPT1 Delivering sustainable development SPT2 Sustainable linked neighbourhoods and sustainable rural communities TTV1 Prioritising growth through a hierarchy of sustainable settlements TTV2 Delivering sustainable development in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area TTV16 Spatial priorities for development in Okehampton. TTV17 Land at Exeter Road, Okehampton TTV18 East of Okehampton TTV19 Land at Stockley DEV1 Protecting amenity and the environment DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise and land DEV10 Delivering high quality housing DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment DEV21 Conserving the historic environment DEV22 Development affecting the historic environment DEV28 Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation DEV31 Specific provisions relating to transport DEV37 Managing flood risk and Water Quality Impacts

Neighbourhood Plan

A plan area for Okehampton has been designated but proposals have not progressed to the next formal stage.

Recommended conditions in full:

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby approved shall in all respects accord strictly with drawing numbers LonInnMews LocPI APR18, LonInnMews SitePI APR18, LonInnMews BLPI SEP17, LonInnMews EL APR18, LonInnMews PI APR18, LonInn SEC APR18 received by the Local Planning Authority on 25th May 2018; J-464 3001 Rev A received by the Local Planning Authority on 25th September 2018.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which this approval relates.

3. PRE-COMMNENCEMENT CONDITION: No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out at all times in accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure, in accordance with the Joint Local Plan and paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development.

This pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that the archaeological works are agreed and implemented prior to any disturbance of archaeological deposits by the commencement of preparatory and/or construction works.

4. The roofs of the buildings shall be clad in natural slates, fixed in the traditional manner with nails rather than slate hooks. A slate sample shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to use in the development, which shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To perpetuate the use of vernacular materials so as to retain the character of the locality.

5. The stonework shall be constructed of natural stone which matches the colour and texture of that occurring locally, a sample of which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to use in the development. The new stonework shall be laid on its natural bed and pointed in a lime mortar recessed from the outer face of the stone. Machine cut or sawn faces shall not be used in the wall or for quoin stones. Reason: To ensure that the development displays good design practice in respect of the location and character of the development and to allow the Local Planning Authority to assess the details of the scheme to ensure that their character is maintained.

6. The drainage scheme shall be installed in strict accordance with the approved plans (Drawing No: J - 464 – 3001 Rev A), maintained and retained in accordance with the agreed details for the life of the development.

Reason: To ensure surface water runoff does not increase to the detriment of the public highway or other local properties as a result of the development.

7. Prior to occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved a property level flood risk assessment and evacuation plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The approved plan shall be made available to all future occupants.

Reason: To minimise risks to occupiers during times of flood.

8. The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking, servicing, garaging areas relating to them (and shown on the submitted drawings) have been properly consolidated, surfaced, laid out and constructed. The parking, servicing and garaging areas shall be kept permanently available for the parking and manoeuvring of motor vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted.

Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the garaging and parking of vehicles clear of all carriageways in the interests of road safety and amenity.

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: Nicola Glanville Parish: Tavistock Ward: Tavistock North

Application No: 1738/18/HHO

Agent/Applicant: Ms J Flatman Langs Cottage South Zeal Okehampton EX20 2JP

Site Address: The Leaze, 7 Kilworthy Hill, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 0EP

Development: Householder application for erection of wooden trellis and pergola

Reason item is being put before Committee – Called by Ward Member (Cllr Moody) in order to consider the impact of the proposed trellising above the historic wall on the amenity of neighbours at The Knoll (above the site). Summary of Ward Members comments:

• Increasing the height of the historic wall within the Conservation Area would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbours at The Knoll (above the site). • The loss of an existing view from the bungalow (The Knoll)

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Conditions Standard time limit Adherence to plans Timber materials to be left to weather naturally or any alternative colour finish to be agreed , prior to installation , by LPA.

Key issues for consideration: Design, materials and visual appearance and its impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and WHS. Impact of the development on residential amenity.

Financial Implications (Potential New Homes Bonus for major applications): None

Site Description: The site is located in an elevated position overlooking Kilworthy Hill and has wider vistas of Tavistock town beyond. As a consequence, it is also visible from viewpoints around the town. The site is not Listed, nor is it in close proximity to other Listed Buildings, although due to its visible position it can be seen in the context of the setting of other Listed Buildings below the site. The site is within the Conservation Area and World Heritage Site. The Proposal: The proposal is for the erection of a simple open-sided, wooden pergola (approx.3m x 3m and 2.5m in height) and a timber latticed trellis fence (0.75m in height). The pergola is to be sited to the rear (north) of an enclosed garden, to the west of and belonging to The Leaze. The pergola is to be sited below and in front of an existing stone retaining wall (2.6m in height) that separates the garden from the neighbouring property above, known as The Knoll. The trellis is to sit on wooden supports above the existing boundary wall.

Consultations :

• County Highways Authority - No objection

• Environmental Health Section - No objection

• Tavistock Town Council - Neutral view - However it is felt a site visit should be called to allow a better understanding of the issues involved

• Heritage Specialist - ‘I do not consider the proposed pergola to harm the character or appearance of the conservation area. Such structures have been an element of garden design for a long time and as such fall within the bounds of what may be considered typical – along with sheds and small greenhouses. The scale drawings do not show the structures in situ so it is difficult to see exactly how they relate to the stone retaining wall. I would suggest conditions requiring the timber be left to weather naturally or have an agreed applied colour. So long as the scale of the proposed structure is acceptable in relation to the wall I would say there is no harm to CA or WHS or setting of LB’s, subject to the condition(s) suggested. The conservatory on the adjoining property has harmed the character and appearance of the CA’.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

Representations: Representations from Residents/Applicant Representations received from residents prior to re-advertisement and re-consultation of the application, which now only relates to the erection of trellis fencing and a pergola (the application previously also included creation of parking space on Kilworthy Hill and a greenhouse in the garden of The Leaze). The following representations include objections to the trellis / pergola only: Occupants of 4 Kilworthy Hill – 2 letters of objection Occupants of The Knoll – 2 letters of objection Occupants of Brangwyn House – 1 letter of objection Occupants of Sally House – 1 letter of objection

Representations received from residents following re-advertisement and re-consultation of the application. Objections only relate to the trellis / pergola: Occupants of 4 Kilworthy Hill – 1 letters of objection Occupants of The Knoll – 1 letters of objection Occupants of Penhele – 2 letters of objection

The comments from neighbours to the site cover the following points: - Loss of view from conservatory at The Knoll due to the trellis fencing - Trellis will cause Over-dominance to The Knoll (above the site) - Visual appearance of trellis – harm to CA and WHS. - Dispute over ownership of the boundary wall, above which the trellis is to be erected - Dispute regarding whether the conservatory at the Knoll was lawfully built - Dispute regarding the applicants rights to privacy from over-looking of the garden at The Leaze - Concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest

Relevant Planning History – None relevant to this proposal. 2468/17/HHO - Householder application for proposed parking space – Refused 10/11/2017

Analysis This application has taken a while to reach this stage in the determination process due to the applicant making amendments to that proposed and the need to re-advertise and re-consult on revised drawings required as a result. The application now solely relates to the erection of a pergola and trellis fence.

Principle of Development/Sustainability: The site is located within the development boundary of Tavistock where the erection of buildings within the curtilage of existing residential dwellings is acceptable in principle.

Design/Landscape: As commented by the Heritage Specialist above, pergola structures ‘have been an element of garden design for a long time and as such fall within the bounds of what may be considered typical – along with sheds and small greenhouses’. The scale of both proposals is considered acceptable in design and materials and providing that the timber is left to weather naturally or an appropriate colour is agreed with the LPA prior to its installation, the pergola and trellis fencing is not considered to be of harm to the CA or the WHS or setting of Listed Buildings. A condition is recommended to ensure the colour of the pergola and trellis is agreed. Neighbour Amenity: The Knoll is a single storey bungalow, with a conservatory to its rear, which is situated within 1-2m of this boundary wall, above the site. Due to its proximity to the boundary and the approx. 2m difference in ground levels, the conservatory does over-look the garden of The Leaze below and it is therefore understood why the applicant is seeking to erect trellis fencing to provide a degree of privacy to the garden below. In Planning terms, there is no right to a view and although it is appreciated that the trellis fence once erected would obscure wider vistas of the town currently enjoyed by the occupants of The Knoll whilst seated in their conservatory, it is not considered that the trellis would cause undue loss of amenity to occupants of The Knoll. The trellis is not a solid structure and is not considered to be over-dominant or cause loss of light to the glazed conservatory. Other Matters: Comments from residents and applicants have been raised concerning the ownership of the boundary wall. This is not material to the determination of the application and is a civil matter for both parties to resolve privately. Comments have also been raised as to whether the conservatory was lawfully built. The owners of The Knoll have stated that they sought the advice of the LPA regarding the need for Planning approval prior to the commencement of works to build the conservatory. At that time, Officer advice was that Planning permission was not required. However, no certificate of lawfulness application was submitted to prove this. Based on knowledge obtained from the Officers site visit of the dimensions and siting of the conservatory in relation to current permitted development rights afforded Householders under the GPDO 2015 (as amended) it is considered that the conservatory would be classed as permitted development and therefore would not have required Planning permission. Furthermore, although not formally proven, the applicant states that the conservatory has been in situ for more than 4 years and the Officer has no evidence to consider otherwise, making the conservatory likely to be lawful. At the outset, concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest were raised that an Officer who gave Pre-app advice was related to the applicant. This claim has now been proven unfounded. Conclusion: Following the Officers meeting on site with occupants of The Knoll (neighbouring property) and further careful consideration of the material considerations, as outlined in the assessment above, on balance the Officer recommends conditional approval of this application for the reasons given above. This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and with Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Planning Policy Section 70 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that regard be had to the development plan, any local finance and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act requires that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The relevant development plan policies are set out below:

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

West Devon Borough Council Core Strategy 2011 SP1 – Sustainable Development SP18 – The Heritage and Historical Character of West Devon SP20 – Promoting High Quality Design

West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review 2005(as amended 2011) NE10 – Protection of the Countryside and Other Open Spaces BE1 – Conservation Areas BE2 – Conservation Areas BE3 – Listed Buildings BE13 – Landscaping and Boundary Treatment H40 - Residential Extensions

The National Planning Policy Framework provides guidance on the weight that can be given to policies in emerging local plans in paragraph 48:

The JLP is nearing the conclusion of the examination process, and can be considered to be at an advanced stage of preparation.

PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017)

TTV31 Development in the Countryside TTV32 Residential extensions and replacement dwellings in the countryside DEV1 Protecting amenity and the environment DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise and land DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment DEV21 Conserving the historic environment DEV22 Development affecting the historic environment DEV23 Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site

Conditions in Full:

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. The development hereby approved shall in all respects accord strictly with drawing numbers: Site Location Plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 09/07/2018; Proposed Pergola Floor Plan; Proposed Elevations (Trellis & Pergola); and Block Plan all received by the Local Planning Authority on 30/10/2018. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which this approval relates. 3. The timber materials to be used in the construction of the trellis fencing and pergola hereby permitted shall be left to weather naturally or any alternative colour finish shall have been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, prior to installation. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

West Devon Borough Council DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 26-Feb-19 Appeals Update from 4-Jan-19 to 8-Feb-19

Ward Bridestowe

APPLICATION NUMBER : 0978/18/OPA APP/Q1153/W/18/3215427 APPELLANT NAME: Mr H Weymouth PROPOSAL : Outline application (all matters reserved) for 1no. live/work unit LOCATION : Land West of Cannon Barn Cottages, Lewdown, EX20 4BT APPEAL STATUS : Appeal Lodged APPEAL START DATE: 18-January-2019

APPEAL DECISION:

APPEAL DECISION DATE: Ward Milton Ford

APPLICATION NUMBER : 1116/18/FUL APP/Q1153/W/18/3215226 APPELLANT NAME: Mrs D Faircloth PROPOSAL : Change of use of existing barn to dwelling LOCATION : Lower Hill Farm, Lamerton, PL19 8RR APPEAL STATUS : Appeal Lodged APPEAL START DATE: 30-January-2019

APPEAL DECISION:

APPEAL DECISION DATE: APPLICATION NUMBER : 1280/18/LBC APP/Q1153/Y/18/3210365 APPELLANT NAME: Mrs S E Hambley PROPOSAL : Listed Building Consent for provision of WC facility to first floor of existing cottage LOCATION : 7 Venn Hill, Milton Abbot, PL19 0NY APPEAL STATUS : Appeal Lodged APPEAL START DATE: 07-November-2018 APPEAL DECISION: Dismissed (Refusal) APPEAL DECISION DATE: 05-February-2019 APPLICATION NUMBER : 2424/17/OPA APP/Q1153/W/18/3206945 APPELLANT NAME: Mr R Holland PROPOSAL : Outline application with some matters reserved for erection of 13 dwellings (9 open market and 4 affordable) and access road LOCATION : Development site at SX 447 766, East of Summer Green, Lamerton APPEAL STATUS : Appeal Lodged APPEAL START DATE: 05-November-2018 APPEAL DECISION: Dismissed (Refusal) APPEAL DECISION DATE: 05-February-2019 Ward Tamarside

APPLICATION NUMBER : 0415/18/FUL APP/Q1153/W/18/3215716 APPELLANT NAME: The Arundell Arms Hotel PROPOSAL : Amendment to extant consents 01865/2011 & 2501/17/ARM to add 1 extra dwelling and revise the appearance, means of access, landscaping, layout and scale LOCATION : The Arundell Arms Hotel, Fore Street, Lifton, PL16 0AA APPEAL STATUS : Appeal Lodged APPEAL START DATE: 30-January-2019

APPEAL DECISION:

APPEAL DECISION DATE: