Public Document Pack North Devon Council Brynsworthy Environment Centre Barnstaple North Devon EX31 3NP
K. Miles Chief Executive.
PLANNING COMMITTEE
A meeting of the Planning Committee will be held as a Virtual – Online meeting on WEDNESDAY, 11TH NOVEMBER, 2020 at 10.00 am.
Members of the Planning Committee Councillor Ley (Chair)
Councillors Chesters, Crabb, Davies, Fowler, Gubb, Leaver, Mackie, Prowse, D. Spear, L. Spear, Tucker and Yabsley
AGENDA
1. Virtual meetings procedure - briefing and etiquette Chair to report.
2. Apologies for absence
3. To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 14th October 2020 (attached) (Pages 5 - 8)
4. Items brought forward which in the opinion of the Chair should be considered by the meeting as a matter of urgency
5. Declaration of Interests (Please complete the form provided at the meeting or telephone the Corporate and Community Services Team to prepare a form for your signature before the meeting. Items must be re-declared when the item is called, and Councillors must leave the room if necessary)
PART A
6. 70952: Conversion of shop to form one flat at Coastal Borough Road, Combe Martin, Ilfracombe, Devon, EX34 0DQ (Pages 9 - 20) Report by the Head of Place (attached).
7. 71864: Change of use of land to a residential Traveller site and associated operational development at Land at Folly Lane, South Molton, Devon. (Pages 21 - 70) Report by the Head of Place (attached).
8. 71957: Change of use to land to create additional curtilage, installation of treatment plant and one flue at Barn adjacent Holtgate, Chittlehamholt, Devon. (Pages 71 - 80) Report by the Head of Place (attached).
9. Appeals Report (Pages 81 - 92) Report by Head of Place (attached).
PART B (CONFIDENTIAL RESTRICTED INFORMATION) Nil.
If you have any enquiries about this agenda, please contact Corporate and Community Services, telephone 01271 388253
NOTE: Pursuant to Part 3, Annexe 1, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, Members should note that:
"If a Member:
(a) Arrives at a meeting during the consideration of an item; or (b) Leaves a meeting at any time during the consideration of an item;
They shall not:
(i) propose or second any motion or amendment; or (ii) cast a vote
3.11.20
2
North Devon Council protocol on recording/filming at Council meetings
The Council is committed to openness and transparency in its decision-making. Recording is permitted at Council meetings that are open to the public. The Council understands that some members of the public attending its meetings may not wish to be recorded. The Chairman of the meeting will make sure any request not to be recorded is respected.
The rules that the Council will apply are:
1. The recording must be overt (clearly visible to anyone at the meeting) and must not disrupt proceedings. The Council will put signs up at any meeting where we know recording is taking place and a reminder will be issued at the commencement of virtual meetings.
2. The Chairman of the meeting has absolute discretion to stop or suspend recording if, in their opinion, continuing to do so would prejudice proceedings at the meeting or if the person recording is in breach of these rules.
3. We will ask for recording to stop if the meeting goes into ‘part B’ where the public is excluded for confidentiality reasons. In such a case, the person filming should leave the room ensuring all recording equipment is switched off. In a virtual meeting the public will be excluded from the meeting while in Part B.
4. Any member of the public has the right not to be recorded. We ensure that agendas for, and signage at, Council meetings make it clear that recording can take place – anyone not wishing to be recorded must advise the Chairman at the earliest opportunity. Public contributions to virtual meetings will be recorded, unless, at the Chair’s discretion, recording is deemed in appropriate in accordance with point 2 above.
5. The recording should not be edited in a way that could lead to misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the proceedings or in a way that ridicules or shows a lack of respect for those in the recording. The Council would expect any recording in breach of these rules to be removed from public view.
Notes for guidance:
Please contact either our Corporate and Community Services team or our Communications team in advance of the meeting you wish to record at so we can make all the necessary arrangements for you on the day.
For more information contact the Corporate and Community Services team on 01271 388253 or email [email protected] or the Communications Team on 01271 388278, email [email protected].
3
Meeting Etiquette Reminder for Members
Members are reminded to: Join the meeting at least 10-15 minutes prior to the commencement to ensure that the meeting starts on time. Behave as you would in a formal committee setting. Address Councillors and officers by their full names. Do not have Members of your household in the same room. Be aware of what is in screen shot. Mute your microphone when you are not talking. Switch off video if you are not speaking. Only speak when invited to do so by the Chair. Speak clearly (if you are not using video then please state your name) If you’re referring to a specific page, mention the page number. Switch off your video and microphone after you have spoken. The only person on video will be the Chair and the one other person speaking. Only use the Chat function to register that you wish to speak or to move or second a motion.
Virtual attendance by members of the public
If members of the public wish to attend virtually, please contact Corporate and Community services on 01271 388253 or [email protected] by 12pm on the Monday preceding the meeting.
4
Agenda Item 3 Planning Committee - 14 October 2020
NORTH DEVON COUNCIL
Minutes of a meeting of Planning Committee held at Virtual - Online meeting on Wednesday, 14th October, 2020 at 10.00 am
PRESENT: Members:
Councillor Ley (Chair)
Councillors Chesters, Davies, Fowler, Gubb, Knight, Leaver, Mackie, Prowse, D. Spear, L. Spear and Tucker
Officers:
Head of Place, Lead Planning Officer (South), Senior Planning Officer and Solicitor
Also Present:
Councillor Luggar (Ward Member)
102. VIRTUAL MEETINGS PROCEDURE - BRIEFING AND ETIQUETTE
The Chair outline the virtual meeting procedure and etiquette to the Committee and attendees.
The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer confirmed the names of those Councillors and officers present and advised that members of the public were also in attendance to listen to proceedings.
103. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
There were no apologies for absence received.
104. TO APPROVE AS A CORRECT RECORD THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 9TH SEPTEMBER 2020
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting 9th September 2020 (circulated previously) be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
105. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE MEETING AS A MATTER OF URGENCY
(a) Development at Larkbear: Planning application 61119
Councillor Knight addressed the Committee in reference to the lack of progress on the creation of pavements and access junction at the site. He noted that the houses
1 Page 5 Agenda Item 3 Planning Committee - 14 October 2020
had been started prior to the access works commencing, which contravened condition 15 of the planning permission granted. It was believed that a section of Devon bank had been removed, and the creation of a Bus Gate had also not progressed.
The Head of Place advised the Committee that a site inspection had taken place recently with Councillors to understand the works that had commenced on site. Negotiations were on-going between the developers and Devon County Council (DCC) in relation to the Bus Gate. There was a need to seek compliance and discussions would take place with the appropriate officers regarding the options available.
The Lead Planning Officer advised that there was an open enforcement case for the site and that she would work with the enforcement team to seek compliance and arrange a site visit in order to clarify the situation, which the Ward Members would be invited to attend, before considering any further action.
(b) Solar Farm and Yelland Quay sites – site inspections
The Head of Place addressed the Committee in relation to the sites which would normally require the Committee to make visits to the sites, and also to view the sites from various vantage points around the district.
The Committee discussed the possible solutions as site visits (by the whole Committee) could not be safely undertaken due to the current pandemic. Individual visits could not be recommended either from a health and safety perspective. The use of drones to provide the visual information was also discussed, along with the implications of cost, licences and legality.
The Head of Place suggested that in place of the Committee undertaking accompanied site inspections, that officers present videos and images of the site including vantage points to the Committee at a specially convened meeting of the Committee so that Members have a full understanding of the site prior to the application being determined by Committee.
RESOLVED (unanimous):
(a) that the Committee do not undertake accompanied site visits as it was irresponsible for Members to go on site and that officers present videos and images of the site including vantage points to the Committee at a specially convened meeting of the Committee so that Members have a full understanding of the site prior to the application being determined by the Committee; and
(b) That the Head of Place investigate the possible option of using a drone in future to provide the visual information.
106. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
2 Page 6 Agenda Item 3 Planning Committee - 14 October 2020
No declarations of interest were declared.
107. 65528: OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF PROSPECT HOUSE AND ERECTION OF 17 DWELLINGS AND ACCESS (ALL OTHER MATTERS RESERVED), LAND OFF DENES ROAD, LANDKEY, DEVON
The Committee considered a report by the Head of Place (circulated previously).
The Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee of an error on the application on page 33, paragraph 3 of the report, which should refer to three affordable properties, rather than two as stated.
In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that: The demolition of Prospect House was required in order to meet the required visibility for the junction. Much discussion had taken place between the applicant and Devon County Highways who had confirmed that without this the scheme would not be acceptable. The length of time taken since the submission of application was due to the ongoing discussions which were taking place in relation to viability of the scheme. The contextual street elevation drawings would be detailed further at the reserved matters stage. DCC had requested pre-commencement conditions regarding the drainage on site. The Heads of Terms agreed as part of the scheme viability were detailed on page 34 of the report which did not include public open space contribution. Following consultation with Devon County Council Lead Local Flood Authority, pre-commencement conditions had been included within the recommendations (conditions 9 to 12) regarding permanent surface water drainage.
The Lead Planning Officer advised that Prospect House was owned by the applicant and its purchase was calculated into the viability assessment. To move the access, and therefore avoid its demolition, could render the project financially unviable.
Councillor Luggar (in his capacity as Ward Member) addressed the Committee.
In response to questions, the Lead Planning Officer advised that it had taken a long time to negotiate the site in order to reach an acceptable scheme. Although only three affordable homes were being offered, instead of the five as set out in policy (this equated to 17.6% rather than 30% of properties on the site being ‘affordables’) the officer had agreed to the three and was not optimistic that any increase could be negotiated. The section 106 contributions proposed to be directed to education could be split with an amount also directed to public open space contributions. However, the amount could not exceed £100,000.
3 Page 7 Agenda Item 3 Planning Committee - 14 October 2020
RESOLVED that (11 for, 1 against) that the application be APPROVED as recommended by the Head of Place subject to the Section 106 contribution being split as follows:
(a) Education contribution - £70,000
(b) Public Open Space contribution - £30,000
108. APPEALS REPORT
The Committee considered and noted a report by the Head of Place (circulated previously) regarding planning and enforcement appeal decisions received since those reported at the last meeting of the Committee.
Chair The meeting ended at 11.27 am
NOTE: These minutes will be confirmed as a correct record at the next meeting of the Committee.
4 Page 8 Agenda Item 6
Application Report Strategic Development & Planning Place Services North Devon Council Lynton House, Commercial Road, Barnstaple, EX31 1DG
Application No: 70952 Application 17 April 2020 Expiry: Application Type: Full application Ext Of Time 17 April 2020 Expiry: Publicity Expiry: 6 February 2020 Parish/Ward: Combe Martin/Combe Martin Location: Coastal Borough Road Combe Martin Ilfracombe Devon EX34 0DQ Proposal: Conversion of shop to form one flat Agent: Graeme Coombs Applicant: Graeme Coombs Planning Case Officer: Mrs M. Pool Departure: N EIA Development: EIA Conclusion: Development is outside the scope of the Regulations.
Decision Level/Reason for Report to Committee / See Addendum in Committee (If Applicable): following report
Site Description This application relates to the ground floor of a former retail premises. It is a two storey property of predominantly render elevations with a first floor flat. It is positioned at an angle to and set back from Borough Road with a paved forecourt area demarcated by bollards separating this private amenity space from the pavement. There is a small enclosed courtyard to the rear. The property lies in a mixed residential and commercial locality in the centre of Combe Martin. The property is situated within Combe Martin Conservation Area. Additionally it is located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the Coast and Estuary Zone as well as being close to the Heritage Coast.
Recommendation: Refused Legal Agreement Required:- No
Page 9 Agenda Item 6
Planning History
Planning Decision Decision Date 77/1008/19/03 Approve - with conditions 20 October 1977
Address: Cliffs Prize Bingo, Borough Road, , Combe Martin, Ilfracombe, Devon, EX34 0DQ Proposal: alterations and extension to existing bingo hall to provide shop with bingo hall over
58472 Full Planning Approval 25 August 2015
Address: Country Crafts, Borough Road, Combe Martin, Ilfracombe, Devon, EX34 0DQ Proposal: insertion of replacement UPVC white double glazed windows,1 window replaced with patio doors and small area enclosed with hand railing on first floor
66010 Withdrawn 19 March 2019
Address: Coastal, Borough Road, Combe Martin, Ilfracombe, Devon, EX34 0DQ Proposal: conversion of shop to form one flat
Constraints/Planning Policy
Constraint / Local Plan Policy Distance (Metres) Advert Control Area Combe Martin Within constraint Article 4 Area: Combe Martin and Berrynarbor Within constraint Chivenor Safeguard Zone Consultation Structure or works Within constraint exceeding 91.4m Conservation Area: 46 Combe Martin ; Within constraint Conservation Area: 46 Combe Martin ; Within constraint Landscape Character is: 4C Coastal Slopes and Combes Within constraint with Settlement Within 100m of Adopted Heritage Coast Within constraint Within Adopted AONB (ST09 & ST14) Within constraint Within Adopted Coast and Estuary Zone Within constraint Within adopted Development Boundary: Combe Martin Within constraint Development Boundary ST07 Within Adopted Unesco Biosphere Transition (ST14) Within constraint Within Flood Zone 2 Within constraint Within Flood Zone 3 Within constraint Within Surface Water 1 in 100 Within constraint
SSSI Impact Risk Consultation Area Within constraint
Page 10 Agenda Item 6
Conservation Area: Combe Martin
CMA - Combe Martin Spatial Strategy DM01 - Amenity Considerations DM07 - Historic Environment DM08A - Landscape and Seascape Character ST01 - Principles of Sustainable Development ST03 - Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience ST07 - Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area ST09 - Coast and Estuary Strategy ST14 - Enhancing Environmental Assets ST15 - Conserving Heritage Assets
Consultees
Name Comment Combe Martin A flood risk assessment shows the property in flood zone 3 high Parish Council risk of flooding. The design has responded to the flood risk assessment by putting flood prevention barriers in place. Reply Received Combe Martin Parish Council supports this application. 9 March 2020 Councillor Y Has requested the application be called to Planning Committee. Gubb
DCC - Standing advice confirmed. There are not considered to be any Development highway implications arising from this proposal. Management Highways
Environment We object to this application on flood risk grounds. The submitted Agency FRA is unacceptable and does not set out the flood risks correctly or demonstrate that the Change of Use (More Vulnerable – table 2 Reply Received NPPG) will be safe. The proposed mitigation measures will 3 February 2020 increase flood risk to third parties. Reason In previous correspondence with the applicant, via the previous planning application (66010 – withdrawn) and via pre application discussions, we have set out the flood risks to the site (river and surface water – not tidal), explained that the whole site is flood zone 3 and at a significant to extreme hazard to people and property during larger floods. We have also explained the minimum design requirement to make any change of use application to more vulnerable usage acceptable (raising FFL to 0.8m above road level). In this instance, the applicant has not proposed a suitable safe design, in line with NPPF guidance and we cannot see any other way of achieving this with the constraints of the site. Our latest flood modelling is based on many historical event throughout Combe Martin and not just 1958 as suggested in the
Page 11 Agenda Item 6
FRA. The main river culvert cannot contain the design flood amounts. The culvert is overwhelmed during large storms (but still much smaller than the design flood event 1% chance with climate change) and flood waters will flow overland to either side of this property via Borough Road and the lane between Bosun’s cottage and Mill House. The proposed flood wall and demountable barrier at the front of the building is not acceptable as this will increase flood risk to third parties. This will remove flood storage and conveyance, and increase flood risk to third parties, so is unacceptable. Any flood resistance barrier has to be attached to the building itself, and be continuous around the whole building (external or internal), along with raising FFL. The rear yard, although enclosed, has not been designed as a flood defence barrier and cannot be considered as offering any form of protection to the property. This wall could easily be knocked down by the flood water, or indeed be removed by future owners. This also means that the building is surrounded by flood water, so no safe access and egress is possible. The option of safe refuge is a matter for the LPA to consider if the other issues could be overcome. For these reasons we do not see a way for the current ground floor proposal, at its current floor height, to be suitable for any form of residential development (even a lounge, kitchen, etc.). Heritage & 13/02/2020 10:48 - I do not consider that this proposal will cause Conservation harm to the significance of the heritage asset. Officer
Reply Received 13 February 2020 North Devon No response received but there are not considered to be any AONB Service landscape implications associated with this proposal.
South West Standing advice applies. There are no significant water supply Water issues arising. Foul sewage is proposed to be disposed of to the mains sewer.
Neighbours Comments No Objection Object Petition No. Signatures 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No representations received.
Page 12 Agenda Item 6
Considerations
Proposal Description This application seeks planning permission for a change of use of a former retail premises to a two bedroom flat. The only external change is the removal of the existing shop entrance door with access to the dwelling being via another retained front door.
Reason for Committee Call-In Councillor Gubb has requested removal of delegated powers for the reason:- ‘To discuss the Environment Agency’s concerns and the safe refuge to the upper floor which is now within the planning application.’
ADDENDUM The report below was considered at the Planning Committee meeting on 10th June 2020. The Committee decision was as follows:- RESOLVED (unanimous) that the application be DEFERRED for two months to allow the applicant the opportunity to undertake further negotiations with the Environment Agency regarding the objections raised.
In an e-mail dated 20 July 2020 the applicant advised he would be submitting a revised plan for a single dwelling on site in the next few weeks and requested a couple of weeks extension to allow time for the plans to be drawn up.
In an e-mail dated 11 August 2020 the applicant confirmed he now had the revised drawings and sought advice as to how he should now proceed.
Officer advice was provided on 12 August that if the character of the development was different from that considered under the present application that proposal needed to be withdrawn and a revised planning application submitted with relevant plans and supporting Flood Risk Assessment reflective of the new scheme.
There has been no new submission received and no response to e-mails from the LPA dated 14 and 30 September 2020.
In the absence of any further information on either the current scheme or any alternative proposal and as the two month extension has long passed the application is referred back to Planning Committee for a decision.
Planning Considerations Summary Is the principle of residential development acceptable in this location?
Is the residential use acceptable in terms of flood risk?
Page 13 Agenda Item 6
Planning Considerations In the determination of a planning application Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is relevant. It states that for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts, the determination is to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for this area includes the Devon Waste Plan and North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. The relevant Policies are detailed above.
Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states a general duty of a Local Planning Authority as respects conservation areas in exercise of planning functions. In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration.
Principle of residential development The application property lies within the development boundary of Combe Martin. Under Local Plan policy STO7 (1) Combe Martin is listed in the settlement hierarchy as a Local Centre wherein they will be the primary focus for development in the rural area. Development will be supported in accordance with the local spatial strategies, to enhance the sustainability of the locally important service centre and to enable wider local needs to be met. The principle of residential use is therefore acceptable in this sustainable location subject to compliance with all other relevant Local Plan policies.
Flood risk The application property is situated within Flood Zone 3, a location with a high probability of flooding. This is confirmed in the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk mapping which shows this property and the wider locality of Borough Road at risk from river and surface water flooding. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is submitted with the application. This details the present situation regarding the various mitigation measures incorporated within the building, which was constructed in the 1980’s, to cope with flooding. These measures include the bed of the river being concreted and the river widened. The bottom of the building is approximately two metres above the normal river level. In a section headed ‘Proposed Flood Prevention Measures’ these are detailed as construction of a boundary front wall approximately 1 metre in height to be built between the existing concrete bollards and walls with a pedestrian gate whilst to the rear the property is described as being protected by a solid wall enclosing the rear courtyard. Surface water is discharged to the river directly from the side of the property. In terms of an emergency escape route in the event of a flood event the applicant states there is a fire escape to the rear of the property that serves as a means of escape for
Page 14 Agenda Item 6
the first floor flat. It is contended this could equally serve occupiers of the proposed ground floor flat. The applicant states there have been no recorded flood events other than one in 1958. The Environment Agency (EA), have been consulted about the application. Their response is detailed above. In summary, they contend the submitted FRA is unacceptable, does not set out the flood risks correctly or demonstrate the resultant change of use to a More Vulnerable use will be safe. The whole site is in the EA view at a significant to extreme hazard to people and property during larger flood events. The minimum design requirement to make the use acceptable would be raising Finished Floor Levels to 0.8 metres above road level. This is not achieved in the current submission.
Notwithstanding the Parish Council’s comment the EA view is that the proposed flood wall and demountable barrier at the front of Coastal is unacceptable as it increases the risk to third parties. Further it will remove flood storage and conveyance. To be effective the resistance barrier has to be attached to the building and be continuous. The rear yard although it is enclosed has not been designed as a flood defence barrier and even replacement with a block wall as the applicant has suggested, would not result in a barrier so robust that it could withstand an extreme flood event. Ingress here would mean the option of using the external escape stairs would not be possible.
The applicant has responded to the EA comment in a further e-mail dated 9 February. It is contended the EA flood modelling is inaccurate and is based on historical events that have never happened at the seaside end of Combe Martin. The EA however assert their detailed flood modelling for Combe Martin produced in 2018 is the best technical/scientific flood modelling that can be produced and it includes use of historic flood records to calibrate the model. The response continues:- The model is then used to produce flood data (depth, speed, outlines) for a range of predictive storms. The design storm (1% chance of happening in any 1 year) is a far bigger storm that anyone has experienced in the past 60 plus year (1958 event), and we have to add climate change (40% to flood flows) to set the predict flood level, when considering new development. The detailed modelling has also assessed the capacity of the existing culvert and river channels, and it shows that they cannot contain the full range of predictive storms. Although the culvert and river channel were improved in 1979, which has increase the ‘protection’, they are still not large enough to handle the larger floods we have to consider. Boundary walls can indeed hold by flood waters, however they can and do fail during flood events. They can leak, overtop or collapse, causing surges of flood water which in turn collapse over wall or overtopping flood boards.’
Local Plan policy STO3 Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience is applicable to the assessment of this proposal. It states:-
Page 15 Agenda Item 6
Development should be designed and constructed to take account of the impacts of climate change and minimise the risk to and vulnerability of people, land, infrastructure and property by: (a) locating and designing development to minimise flood risk through: (b) avoiding the development of land for vulnerable uses which is or will be at risk from flooding, and (c) managing and reducing flood risk for development where that has wider sustainability or regeneration benefits to the community, or where there is no reasonable alternative site; This policy accords with the NPPF guidance specifically at Section 14 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change. At paragraph 155 it cautions inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Although paragraph 164 of the NPPF confirms changes of use should not be subject to the sequential or exception tests they nonetheless should still meet the requirements for site specific flood risk assessments. Paragraph 163 of the NPPF confirms development should only be allowed in areas at risk of flooding where it can be demonstrated that amongst other matters the development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient, any residual risk can be safely managed and safe access and escape routes are included as part of an agreed emergency plan.
In the light of the EA comments the ground floor occupiers of the property would not be safe in the event of a flood event as the applicant has not proposed the suggested design requirements either within the property or to external areas given the accurate flood modelling of this site. Changes which are proposed to the exterior will increase flood risk to third parties. The main river culvert cannot contain the design flood amounts and will be overwhelmed during large storms.
In a further e-mail dated 19 March the applicant has advised that the opportunity has arisen with the vacation of the first floor flat for new tenancy agreements to be drawn up. It is stated the existing entrance lobby could be kept clear of all furniture and could be used by the occupiers of both flats as a safe internal place of refuge should the need arise. Whilst this may be possible there are no suitable planning controls that could be exerted to require this and it would still not overcome the flood risks identified above.
Conclusion The application is not considered to accord with the adopted development plan. Refusal of the application is therefore recommended.
Page 16 Agenda Item 6
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
The provisions of the Human Rights Act and principles contained in the Convention on Human Rights have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report. The articles/protocols identified below were considered of particular relevance:
Article 8 – Right to Respect for Private and Family Life THE FIRST PROTOCOL – Article 1: Protection of Property
Recommendation Refused Legal Agreement Required:- No
Reason(s) For Refusal 1. The application property and surroundings lie within Flood Zone 3 at significant to extreme hazard to people and property during larger floods. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment is unacceptable as it does not set out the flood risks correctly or demonstrate a suitably safe design for the proposed residential accommodation can be achieved. Design alterations to the front of the building are not acceptable as they will increase flood risk to third parties. No satisfactory safe refuge or means of escape is proposed for occupiers in the event of an extreme flood event. Accordingly the development is not compliant with Policy STO1 Sustainable Development, Policy STO3 Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience and DMO1 Amenity Considerations of the North Devon & Torridge Local Plan 2018 or the guidance at paragraphs 155 and 163 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Informatives 1. Statement of Engagement In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive and pro-active way with the Applicant and has looked for solutions to enable the grant of planning permission. This has included dialogue with applicant regarding Environment Agency response. However the proposal remains contrary to the planning policies set out in the reason for refusal and was not therefore considered to be sustainable development.
Inserts
1. Location Plan
Page 17 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Appendix A
Copy Supplied to Accompany Planning 70952 - Coastal, Borough Road, Combe Martin Committee Report
Lynton House, Commercial Road, Page 19 Scale: 1:2500 Barnstaple, EX31 1EA Date: June 2020 © Copyright and database right 2017 Ordnance Survey Licence No. 100021929. No unauthorised reproduction permitted. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7
Application Report Strategic Development & Planning Place Services North Devon Council Lynton House, Commercial Road, Barnstaple, EX31 1DG
Application No: 71864 Application 12 October 2020 Expiry: Application Type: Full application Ext Of Time Expiry: Publicity Expiry: 1 October 2020 Parish/Ward: Bishops Nympton/Bishops Nympton Location: Land at Folly Lane South Molton North Devon Proposal: Change of use of land to a residential Traveller site and associated operational development Agent: Simon Ruston Applicant: Peard and Horchard Planning Case Officer: Mr R. Bagley Departure: N EIA Development: EIA Conclusion: Not EIA development
Reason for Report to Committee: At the request of Cllr Ley (please refer to consultation response below for reason)
Site Description
The site is located within the open countryside on a small parcel of Grade 3 agricultural pasture land located approximate 2.5 miles from the main centre of South Molton.
On site it is evident that the land is not currently actively used for grazing or crop growing.
The wider countryside comprises an undulating rural landscape interspersed with hedgerows and large areas of woodland to the north and North West. To the east is Rawstone Moors which is a more open landscape interspersed with hedgerows.
Within the site, the land rises from east to west with a high point in the middle of the site and lower ground to the North West. Within the north western section of the site is an existing metal shed building coloured green, and a hard standing comprising stone chippings. This area is well screened from the rural road and from the wider rural
Page 21 Agenda Item 7
landscape by established hedgerows which span the boundary of the site. The site is not visually prominent within the immediate or wider landscape.
The storage building on site, is being used to store timber and timber working tools. There was also a horsebox on site which it is understood will be removed.
Access to the site is via an existing gated access to the west into the single track rural road. Visibility is reasonable, the road is relatively straight and a visibility splay is provided. The road provides good visibility from and of the current access.
There are no immediate neighbours to the site. The nearest buildings are the UK Hardwood Buildings approx. 125m to the north east. There is a large wooded area between the site and the neighbouring property preventing views of the site.
Recommendation: Approved Legal Agreement Required:- No
Planning History
Planning Decision Decision Date 45027 Withdrawn 14 November 2007
Address: Higher Gorton, Gorton Hill, South Molton, EX36 3QE Proposal: Erection of block of 3 stables & tack room
Constraints/Planning Policy
Constraint / Local Plan Policy Distance (Metres) Area of Special Advert Control Within constraint Burrington Radar Safeguard Area Within constraint Class III Road Landscape Character is: 1F Farmed Lowland Moorland and Within constraint Culm Grassland Within Adopted Unesco Biosphere Transition (ST14) Within constraint Within:Exmoor Heaths, SAC 10KM Buffer Within constraint SSSI Impact Risk Consultation Area Within constraint
DM01 - Amenity Considerations DM04 - Design Principles DM05 - Highways DM06 - Parking Provision DM08 - Biodiversity and Geodiversity DM08A - Landscape and Seascape Character DM30 - Sites for Traveller Accommodation ST01 - Principles of Sustainable Development
Page 22 Agenda Item 7
ST03 - Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience ST07 - Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area ST10 - Transport Strategy ST14 - Enhancing Environmental Assets ST20 - Providing Homes for Traveller Communities
Consultees
Name Comment Bishops Parish Council members held a site visit (3/9/20) and discussed Nympton Parish the application with the owners. The application was then Council discussed further at the Parish Council meeting held 16th September 2020. Reply Received The Bishops Nympton Parish Council OBJECT to this application 17 September as it is currently submitted, for the following reasons. 2020 As is stands the Application 71864 has errors and omissions: • No mains water is available (as stated in the application) and the owners expect to collect and filter rainwater. However people have been observed at the site apparently surveying to devine a ground water source. • Although a compost toilet is envisaged in the application there are no details of how grey water would be managed. The disposal of foul waste from the proposed ‘mobile unit’ is not clear although the owners expect to install a processing plant which is not shown on the submitted plans. • The owners propose providing an electricity supply by using solar power, although this is unlikely to be sufficient during winter months to support a sewage processing plant. The siting of the solar unit is also not provided on the submitted plans. • The ‘mobile unit’ is envisaged as a permanent dwelling delivered preconstructed in two parts and should not be confused as being a ‘mobile home’ capable of being towed to another site. • The application states that the ‘Change of Use’ has not already commenced. However at the site a vehicle apparently converted for residential use, including a stove pie/chimney in operation, has been observed on various occasions. The Planning Enforcememt Officer was requested to visit the site but has as yet not issued a report. A chimney has already been added to the existing shed. • There is no explanation as to the meaning nor what exactly the ‘associated operational development’ is.
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan has policies ST20: Providing homes for the Travelling Community and DM30: Sites for Traveller Accommodation This site would not qualify under various parts of Policy DM30 in particular: • 2 (d) the site is located where occupants can gain reasonable access to local services and facilities including health and school provision; • 2 (h) the site is capable of being provided with essential services;
Page 23 Agenda Item 7
The site could be considered under Policy ST20 although approval would conflict with other policies concerning development in the open countryside. Policy ST20 expects to prepare a Development Plan which has not yet been published. However a Traveller Site Assessment has been published (December 2018) but this rejected potential sites in the Bishops Nympton and South Molton area. At the site meeting the owners confirmed that they would be the only people qualified to occupy the site and that it would not be open to anyone else from the Traveller community. Some confirmation of this would be appreciated.
The Parish Council requested further information as listed below from the Planning Officer but this has not been provided. Since these questions have not been answered the Parish Council further objects because of the uncertainty about these issues as it is not clear whether: • The site will qualify for refuse collection and pay the appropriate Council Tax? • The permission will be linked to named persons or be valid for occupation by anyone who qualifies with Traveller Status? • No consultation has been carried out with neighbours and this should be rectified. • The close proximity to the adjoining Chicken Farm (Permission 71231) should be considered.
The most serious concern from the above list is that no adjoining neighbours have been notified about the application and therefore not given the opportunity to respond within the initial time allowed for the application to be considered. The majority of ‘neighbours’ who have submitted responses are not actually nearby, in some cases they have listed addresses as far away as London. The councillors feel that the adjacent neighbours responses be given weight over those from out of the area.
We further request that DCC Highways be consulted about the effects of the proposed Travellers site as it borders the busy A361. Councillor E Ley Dependent on your recommendation in due course, at this stage I will call the above application to Committee. For the following Reply Received reasons: 12 September 1 The site in question is not identified, as required in policy DM30 2020 (2). 2 The proposal is for single occupancy. Sporadic, unidentified, single occupancy, sites across the district, amounts to uncontrolled development in the open countryside. 3 The site is not realistically capable of being provided with essential services. Councillor E Ley Reference the above, I maintain my Call in request, as this application and its potential implications warrant an airing in public. Reply Received
Page 24 Agenda Item 7
12 October 2020 DCC - No comments received Development Management Highways
Designing Out Having sought the views of the Police Diversity officer I have no Crime Officer objections to the proposal. I would recommend where possible and practical, doors and Reply Received windows meet PAS24:2016 as a minimum. 25 August 2020 Environment No comments received Agency Environmental No objections: Health Manager Condition Contaminated land (Unexpected contamination) Reply Received Condition. 26 August 2020 Advisory on compostable toilet Environmental It is difficult to be certain when it comes to potential amenity issues Health Manager associated with poultry farms. In cases where significant impact appears likely formal specialist assessment is generally warranted. Reply Received In this case, I have considered the circumstances with regard to 28 September the proposal for this application and also the poultry units proposed 2020 in application 71237. I have taken account of various factors including: the relative positron of the two sites in terms of separation distances and prevailing local wind directions; the scale of the proposed poultry farm; the relevance of the A39 Highway separating the sites in terms of potential noise impacts; a separation distance in excess of 100m and the open countryside rural character of both sites. I have also had regard to my recommendations on application 71231 that the approved odour and Waste Management plan dated April 2020 be conditioned on any planning permission.
My assessment is that significant amenity impacts are unlikely to rise give the specific circumstances involved. There may be notable odour impacts affecting the proposed traveller site at times when specific activities are undertaken such as muck clearing. However I believe such impacts are likely to fall within the bounds of hat would reasonably be expected when living in an agricultural based rural location. Gypsy & I have already submitted a supporting letter through the applicant’s Traveller Liaison agent confirming Traveller status. This application is supported by officer Devon County Council's Communities Team.
Reply Received 1 September 2020
Page 25 Agenda Item 7
Landscaping & No comments received Countryside Officer
Planning Policy As the agent’s letter says, the most relevant policy for this Unit application is DM30: Sites for Traveller Accommodation. Paragraph 2 of this policy sets out criteria that the proposal needs to meet and Reply received the agent’s supporting letter goes through these criteria. The most 1 September subjective one is criterion (d) as to whether the occupants can gain 2020. reasonable access to local services (within South Molton).
The site is in the open countryside where Policy ST07(4) applies. Development is limited to that which meets local economic and social needs; this is an enabling policy so acceptable forms of development are those enabled to meet needs through the specific provisions of other relevant policies within the Plan, such as DM30.
As the agent has indicated, when North Devon and Torridge Councils undertook a ‘call for sites’ for potential traveller site provision in 2017, the number of identified sites considered suitable and available to meet future needs was inadequate to accommodate the number of new pitches required. NDC needed six new pitches by 2031 but could only identify four new potential suitable sites. As the Council cannot currently demonstrate sufficient suitable sites within North Devon to meet the future needs of travellers, any additional suitable sites should be welcomed to help meet strategic needs.
In addition, the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable traveller sites; the current need is for 4 pitches within the next 5 years and there are no current unimplemented consents. Therefore, this triggers the presumption in favour of sustainable development for traveller sites, as for housing sites when there is inadequate five year land supply. As such, I consider that, whilst the site could be closer to South Molton, the services in the town are still relatively accessible from the site given the strategic need for additional traveller site provision. On balance I agree with the agent’s conclusion that this application is considered to satisfy all the policy requirements in Policy DM30(2). It is considered that it would be suitable in principle to accommodate a new traveller pitch.
Siting along the northern boundary will help reduce its visual impact and the development is unlikely to be seen from anywhere outside the site given the high hedge along that boundary. In terms of design, a new traveller pitch and washroom building would need to be designed so that the washroom building is no larger than necessary. Appropriate external materials of neutral colours should be used to reflect those of existing structures on site. The access should be considered against DM05 but appears to be appropriate
Page 26 Agenda Item 7
for its rural location. There are no nearby properties so there are no amenity issues arising under Policy DM01. The applicant proposes a range of features that would appear to provide the net gain in biodiversity required by policies ST14 and DM08, subject to assessment by a suitably qualified expert.
On balance, this application is policy compliant and is supported from a planning policy perspective.
South Molton Approve Town Council
Reply Received 4 September 2020 South West No comments received Water
Sustainability (Following consultation on the amended landscaping scheme JL20 Officer – Block 1250) Certainly seems reasonable at this stage and cannot see any Reply Received justification for seeking further information. 16 October 2020
Neighbours Comments No Objection Object Petition No. Signatures 2 23 12 0.00 0.00
- The site is not allocated for traveller accommodation and does not accord with DM30 1) - How many pitches would the site serve? - The site is greenfield agricultural land - The site is not in a Sustainable Location and will lead to travel to services and facilities of South Molton - The site is not served by amenity services or facilities (electricity, mains water, foul drainage) - Solar panels are proposed, where are these to be located? - Limited visibility into the rural road - Lack of public site notice - Amenity Impact of application 71231 - Erection of four poultry units with ten feed bins and associated services/utility building together with erection of one agricultural workers dwelling
Considerations
Proposal Description
This application seeks detailed planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to a single pitch residential traveller’s site with associated operational development.
Page 27 Agenda Item 7
The site already contains a hardstanding and metal single storey shed with concrete hardstanding in front, and is accessed via the road to the west. The proposal would introduce the following on to the site:
- A larger area of stone chipping hardstanding to accommodate the mobile home and access to the mobile home - A utility building measuring 7.3 metres wide by 4.0 metres deep by 2.6 metres high - A mobile home measuring approximate 12.9m wide by 6.5 metres deep - An existing shed measuring 7.48m wide by 4.07metres deep by approx. 2.8 metres high - A new borehole clean water system - A Package Treatment plant linking to the utility building. - Landscaping works including indigenous planting, a pond and bolstering of boundary vegetation.
Planning Considerations Summary
Principle of development: (ST20, DM30) Design (DM04) Landscape and Ecology (ST14 and DM08) Amenity (DM30, DM01, DM04) Infrastructure /Drainage (DM30, ST03, DM04) Highways (ST20, DM30, DM05, DM06)
Planning Considerations
In the determination of a planning application Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is relevant. It states that for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts, the determination is to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for this area includes the Devon Waste Plan and North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. The relevant Policies are detailed above.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration as is the National Planning Policy for Travellers Sites (PPTS) (August 2015). A link to the PPTS is included below: www.gov.uk/...planning-policy-for-travellers-sites
Principle of the development:
The site is in the open countryside where Policy ST07(4) applies. Development is limited to that which meets local economic and social needs; this is an enabling policy so acceptable forms of development are those enabled to meet needs through the specific provisions of other relevant policies within the Plan, such as DM30.
The ‘National Planning Policy for Travelers Sites (PPTS)’ sets the Governments planning policy for traveller’s sites and should be read in conjunction with the NPPF.
Page 28 Agenda Item 7
The Governments overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers, in a way that facilitates the traditional nomadic way of life for travellers whilst respecting the interests of the settled community. At part 4 of the PPTS the government allow Local Planning Authorities to make their own assessment of need for the purposes of planning.
Policy ST20 ‘Providing Homes for Traveller Communities’ sets out the criteria for delivery of Traveller sites in North Devon over the plan period. Policy ST20: Providing Homes for Traveller Communities (1) Delivery will be pro-actively pursued to provide adequate and appropriate accommodation to meet the identified needs and demands of traveller communities in northern Devon whilst recognising their traditional and nomadic way of life and respecting the interests of the settled community. (2) During the period 2011-2031, provision to meet identified needs in northern Devon will be made to deliver: (a) at least 15 pitches for permanent traveller accommodation; and (b) at least 2 transit sites or emergency stopping places each providing for the accommodation of 4 or 5 pitches. (3) Where allocation offers the most appropriate mechanism for delivery, sites will be allocated through a Development Plan Document to provide an appropriate range of accommodation to meet the identified accommodation needs and demands of travellers across northern Devon. (4) Proposals for traveller accommodation will be supported where they will meet an identified need whilst respecting the principles of sustainable development and having regard to the interests of the settled community. (5) Existing authorised sites providing traveller accommodation will be safeguarded unless it is demonstrated that they are no longer required to meet identified need. Part one promotes the proactive delivery of adequate and appropriate accommodation to meet the identified needs and demands of the traveller community whilst respecting their traditional nomadic way of life.
At part two the policy identifies that the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA), identifies the need for 15 pitches for permanent traveller accommodation within Northern Devon over the Plan period split between 6 pitches in North Devon and 9 in Torridge.
Policy DM30 ‘Sites for Traveller Accommodation’ refers at part 1 to allocated sites, but identifies at part 2 that sites for traveller accommodation will be identified and planning applications will be supported providing the site can deliver development which accords with parts a)-i) and part 3 of DM30.
Development proposals apply a Sequential Approach to the consideration of suitable locations for traveller accommodation and will steer provision to the most sustainable location whilst recognising that traveller accommodation has different requirements to
Page 29 Agenda Item 7
that of the settled community whereby a more isolated rural location is often preferred. Development will be supported where it is demonstrated that there is an identified need and that the need cannot be met by any existing or planned provision. The suitability of the site had been discussed prior to the application being submitted whereby the Planning Policy Unit and G&TLO supported the principle of the use of this site.
In assessing the appropriateness of the use of the site, the LPA must identify suitable land for sites where the occupants will accord with traveller Status, where there is an identified need for the site and the occupation of the site for the intended need will not harm the locality in terms of local amenity, highway safety and biodiversity.
1. Traveller Status
From the evidence supporting the application and from the supporting letter from the Devon County Councils Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officer (G&TLO) it is clear that the applicants meet the criteria for Traveller Status. The case officer has met the applicants on site and has heard how the applicants intend to use the site as a base from which their nomadic lifestyle can occur. Furthermore, the G&TLO states that:
‘I can confirm that both Johnny and Lili meet the definition of Traveller status. They have been known to Devon County Council for over 15 years. During this time, they have travelled various places across the County on unauthorised encampments due to there not being suitable authorised provision for them to use. They have regularly asked during those 15 years if there are any sites available in the Mid/North area where they have been mainly based; this has eventually led to the decision to buy their own land apply for planning permission.’
In accordance with Annexe 1, 2, c) of the PTTS the applicant’s intention is to lead a nomadic habit of life in the future. A number of letters of support have been received which would appear to corroborate the traveller status of the applicants, which is not in dispute.
2. The Need for the site:
The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTTA) in 2018 identified a need for 15 Traveller pitches across Northern Devon, reflected at part 2 of ST20. This scheme will deliver a single pitch to contribute towards the 15 required pitches.
Paragraph 7.55 of the NDTLP identifies the need for a split of pitches between North Devon and Torridge comprising 6 pitches in North Devon and a further 9 in Torridge. Currently, 4 Authorised pitches are provided in North Devon through approved planning permissions for single pitches:
NDT05 Woodpark Copse, West Yeo, Witheridge, EX16 8P North Devon Existing G&T(permitted) 1 pitch NDT06 Rock Hill Caravan, Queens Nympton, South Molton, EX364LE North Devon Existing G&T (permitted personal permission) 1 pitch NDT07 Old Repeater Station, Bommerton Cross, Molland South, EX36 3PN North Devon Existing G&T (permitted) 1 pitch NDT44 Land at Garland Cross, Kings Nympton North Devon Existing G&T (Temporary 5-year permission) 1 pitch
Page 30 Agenda Item 7
The Following excerpt from the North Devon and Torridge Traveller Site Assessment Study (Final Draft Report) shows that there is, and will continue to be, an identified need for Traveller Pitches in North Devon:
Hence the existing authorised provision falls short of the required need, and are not of a scale which would support the applicants specific needs for a settled base to travel from and it is not possible to share the existing single pitch uses. The alternative would potentially see the applicants continuing to live on unauthorised encampments which is a less preferred option in terms of the Article 8 Rights of the applicants, which can be met by the delivery of this site. The need to provide sites to meet the short fall in traveller sites is acknowledged in 13.164 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan and in the consultation responses from Planning Policy and the G&TLO. There is a shortfall in permanent as well as transit pitch provision which still exists and, indeed, the presence of unauthorised gypsy and traveller pitches in the District is indicative of this.
The Applicant’s supporting statement (paragraph 50), and the consultation responses from the G&TLO and Planning Policy Unit show that the number of identified sites in North Devon which are considered suitable and available to meet the needs of Travellers is inadequate to accommodate the number of new pitches required. For example the G&TLO identifies only three Local Authority Gypsy and Traveller sites across Devon (Sowton, Exeter, Broadclyst, East Devon, Haldon Teinbridge), and identifies that there is little other provision for Gypsy and Traveller families, nor are there any agreed/emergency or transit sites in Devon.
The Planning Policy Unit provide further clarity for an identified need for Traveller sites within the North Devon area. Following the (GTTA) ‘call in for sites’ to identify potential traveller sites, the number of identified sites considered suitable for traveller accommodation was inadequate to accommodate the number of new pitches required.
North Devon Council requires six new pitches by 2031 but can only identify four new potential sites. Therefore it is concluded that the council cannot at present demonstrate sufficient sites within the North Devon Are to meet the future needs of travellers. The Policy response also identifies that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable traveller sites whereby the current need is for 4 pitches within the next five years and there are no current unimplemented consents. This triggers the presumption in favour of sustainable development for traveller sites in the same way as housing sites.
Consequently any additional suitable sites which accord with National and Local plan policy must be encouraged, to contribute towards meeting the strategic needs identified at ST20 (2) and paragraph 4 of h) of the PPTS in particular part h) which states that
Page 31 Agenda Item 7
Authorities must look to increase traveller sites in appropriate locations, to address under provision and maintain an appropriate level of supply.
On balance, the Policy response gives a clear steer that there is currently a deficiency in provision of traveller sites across northern Devon. There is a need to identify suitable sites that accord with all parts of National and Local plan policy, and which will facilitate a sound base from which the applicants can continue their lifestyle.
Given the shortfall in site numbers, this site will contribute positively towards the shortfall in traveller pitches across North Devon in accordance with the principles off ST20 (2) to contribute towards the 15 traveller pitches required, and ST20 (4) whereby the change of use will meet an identified need.
Having established a need for the site, in terms of ST20 (2) and 4), the principle of the proposal must be considered against the parameters of ST20 and DM30 and the other relevant polices of the Local Plan. This will be expanded on below.
3. Appropriateness of the site
The site is not an allocated as a Traveller site within the Local Plan, but paragraph 7.57 of the Local Plan states ‘the Councils will facilitate the provision of appropriate sites to meet the needs and demands of travellers in northern Devon…’
DM30 (2) sets out 9 criteria which must be satisfied in considering a traveller site. These are as follows:
Sites for traveller accommodation will be identified and planning applications will be supported, providing the sites meet all of the following criteria: (a) the development is commensurate and proportionate to the scale and nature of the nearest settled community; (b) it does not have an unacceptable landscape, visual or environmental impact; (c) it offers an acceptable level of amenity to prospective occupants and will have no significant detrimental impact to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers; (d) the site is located where occupants can gain reasonable access to local services and facilities including health and school provision; (e) it does not place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services; (f) the health and safety of occupants and visitors will not be at risk through unsafe access to the site, noise pollution or unacceptable flood risk; (g) adequate on-site provision is afforded for vehicle parking and manoeuvring along with appropriate storage space, ancillary facilities and residential amenity space; (h) the site is capable of being provided with essential services; and
Page 32 Agenda Item 7
(i) the scale of employment activity is balanced to the residential component of the proposal The applicants have set out why they consider the site accords with DM30 (2) in their D&A. The policy considerations for each section are set out below:
At policy C and paragraph 25 of the PPTS ‘Sites in rural areas in the countryside’ the PPTS states that when assessing the suitability of sites in rural settings, the LPA should ensure that the scale of the site does not dominate the nearest settled community’. Paragraph 25 is also clear that ‘Local Planning Authorities should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing undue pressure of the local infrastructure’.
The nearest settled area is South Molton approximately 2-3 miles to the south west. The position of this single pitch, and the associated buildings and works to the land is within a naturally screened site, and the moderate scale of development proposed will not adversely affect the scale or nature of South Molton.
The size of the single plot is moderate in scale, with the majority of the site being managed by the applicants to provide the identified biodiversity gains. A small proportion of the site will be ‘developed’ with the introduction of the buildings, the pitch for the mobile home and the associated hardstanding and drainage. By virtue of its scale, mass and location, no part of the proposal will be harmful to the setting of South Molton nor will it adversely affect the nature of South Molton or any other settlement. The siting, scale and design accords with part a) and with policy DM04.
The sustainability of a residential use some distance from local facilities has been questioned by some of the objectors.
This was also an issue explored at appeal as part of Appeal Ref: APP/X1118/A/11/ 2162447 Woodpark Copse, West Yeo, Witheridge, Tiverton, Devon EX16 8PY. The appeal site was in the countryside, a little under a mile to the north of the village of Witheridge and adjacent to the B3137. The appeal decision is attached in its entirety to this report but note that the Inspector concluded:
The sustainability of a residential use some distance from local facilities has been questioned by some and, indeed, there is some conflict with the objectives of saved SP Policies ST1, ST16, TR2 and TR5 and saved LP Policy HSG9 in this regard. However, paragraph 54 of the Circular makes it clear that in assessing the suitability of gypsy-traveller sites, local authorities should be realistic about the availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local services. Moreover, paragraph 66 indicates that proposals should not be rejected if they would only give rise to modest additional daily vehicle movements. It is also notable that the Structure Plan predates Circular 01/2006.
Paragraph 23 of the PPTS is clear that applicants should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and, indeed, there is some conflict with the objectives of Policies ST01 and DM06 of the Local Plan in this regard. However, in assessing the suitability of traveller sites, local authorities should be realistic about the availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local services. Paragraph 109 of the framework states that ‘development should only be
Page 33 Agenda Item 7
prevented or refused on highways grounds if the would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. This indicates that proposals should not be rejected if they would only give rise to modest additional daily vehicle movements, which will be the situation in this case.
The Planning Policy response acknowledges that the proposal could be sited closer to the development boundary of South Molton if there was a site available, which there is not. ‘As such, I consider that, whilst the site could be closer to South Molton, the services in the town are still relatively accessible from the site given the strategic need for additional traveller site provision. On balance I agree with the agent’s conclusion that this application is considered to satisfy all the policy requirements in Policy DM30(2). It is considered that it would be suitable in principle to accommodate a new traveller pitch.’
A pitch closer to South Molton would also be less desirable for the applicants in terms of their way of life. A single pitch would give rise to no discernible impact, and can be controlled via conditions that the site remain for use by Gypsy and Travellers and, that the site will remain as a single pitch, in accordance with the approved plans. Restrictions can be placed on the touring caravan that this shall not be occupied for residential purposes when parked on the site and that the site shall not be used at any time for the stationing of caravans which are occupied residentially by other persons in transit. This will effectively limit the use of the site to one family at any time, restricting vehicular traffic and limiting the use of the site for its intended purpose.
The proposal site offers a settled base that reduces the need for ‘long-distance’ travelling and possible issues from unauthorised camping, and is of sufficient distance that will promote the peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community.
DM30 (2) d) requires the site is located where occupants can gain reasonable access to local services and facilities including health and school provision. South Molton is approximately 2-3 miles from the site served by a good road link to the village. Whilst the site is not ‘sustainably located’ it is possible to access by walking or cycling or driving along the road. The applicants will have reasonable access to the facilities in South Molton. It is acknowledged that there will be a need to travel a relatively short distance to the services and to the school, but this is a common occurrence within a rural locality.
The use of the site for a single pitch results in a modest rise in additional daily traffic movements. The Highways Authority have been consulted and have raised no objections in respect of sustainability and the modest traffic movements will not comprise a ‘severe ’cumulative residual impact on the local network.
Design:
In terms of design, Policy DM04 requires that development be appropriate and sympathetic and of a scale, mass, layout, appearance and material appropriate to the intended location.
Page 34 Agenda Item 7
In this case the new traveller pitch and washroom building and the mobile home will be ‘temporary’ features, which can be removed from site if no longer required. The standard is that the proposed mobile home must meet the statutory definition as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 whereby a ‘mobile home’ is ‘any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer)…’
The buildings are designed so that the washroom building and static caravan is no larger than necessary. The buildings will comprise a mobile home by definition, and a toilet block as well as the shed building on site which are of floor area commensurate with the intended use. The grouping of the buildings is logical and will be located to the northern boundary, making use of existing high boundary hedges to screen the site from public views. The buildings will be no higher than approximate 3 metres. Solar panels will be attached to the roof of the buildings and will not be free standing within the site. There will be no visual impact from the solar units. The borehole, and foul drainage package treatment works will be below ground.
A larger hardstanding area will be provided to the comprising stone chippings which will match the existing site, and which will have no greater visual effect. These also provide permeable surface materials to enable effective drainage of the hard standing.
With the addition of the soft landscaping, the scale, mass and siting of the site is as sympathetic to the landscape as is possible for the development, and is of an appropriate scale, siting and material in accordance with DM04.
Landscape and Ecology
Local Planning Authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that the impact of development on wildlife is fully considered during the determination of a planning application under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (Habitats Regulations 2017).Paragraph 175 of the NPPF states that ‘when determining applications, local planning authorities should apply the principles that ‘if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused’.
DM30 b) and Policy DM08A requires that development be of an appropriate scale, mass and design that recognises and respects the character of the landscape, and does not result in adverse landscape visual impact.
The landscape is characterised as rural with sporadic residential and agricultural buildings scattered throughout. The site is located within the Rawstone Moor but the landscape is not recognised for its visual qualities by way of protective landscape designation. It is an attractive landscape, comprising largely Grade 3 agricultural pasture land interspersed with woodland and sporadic residential developments. To the south the landscape is dissected by the A361. To the north east are the sawmill buildings. The Landscape Character Type is 1F (LCT) ‘Farmed Lowland moorland and
Page 35 Agenda Item 7
culm grassland’ characterised with Gently undulating landform, in some places of a plateau-like character, which is apparent on site. One of the forces for change is population expansion and growth.
The scale of this proposal is not large, it is a single plot, with 3 static buildings and one pitch for a mobile home contained to the west of the site. The structures are sited appropriately, and do not spread out into the countryside.
The scale and mass is smaller than other sporadic buildings in the area such as the UK Hard Wood Sawmill buildings to the west and will be considerably less visually impacting than other approved development such as the 4 chicken sheds approved to the south (71231). As will be explained further below, landscape visual impact is restricted to within the site, and will not affect any wider landscape designations or be read in context with any settled area.
The position of the buildings along the northern boundary will help reduce its visual impact and the development is unlikely to be seen from anywhere outside the site given the high hedge along that boundary.
From the rural roads around the site, it is apparent that the site is not prominent within the wider moorland, being set down at road level, behind an established hedgerow. From further afield the wider undulating landform and intervening hedgerow and woodland vegetation provides effective visual effect screening in the wider rural landscape. Within the site it is apparent that the area proposed to change use, is relatively level, at the same approximate level as the road, and the land rises to the south, plateauing to the far south. The site is screened on all elevations by high established Devon hedges which provides an effective visual screen of the upper and lower sections of the site throughout the year. From the road, the site will not be adversely apparent. It is evident that the existing green shed and trailer positioned on site is not adversely visible in the wider countryside.
The site is currently grassed pastureland, which has been left to grow, and has opportunity to deliver improvements in terms of biodiversity offsetting and ecological mitigation for the small section of grass land lost to the enlarged hardstanding area. The Applicants have confirmed in their statement that no trees or boundary vegetation will be removed.
Page 36 Agenda Item 7
The applicants have provided amended plan JL20-BLOCK 1250 (above), which shows that the land within the site will be manage as a wildflower meadow with additional tree planting and wildlife pond. A planting scheme and species mix accompanies the plan. The landscaping will improve the appearance of the site and provide a good degree of biodiversity offsetting in excess of 10%. The landscaping will provide effective visual mitigation of the site within the countryside. A condition is included that the landscape mitigation measures shown be provided prior to the first occupation of the site. In his consultation response of16/10/20, the Authority’s Sustainability Officer has considered the additional landscaping and ecological mitigation and accepts that the scheme will deliver good biodiversity gains and that there is no need for additional mitigation measures.
Paragraph 26 of the PPTS states that ‘when considering applications, local planning authorities should attach weight to the following matters: …..b) sites being well planned or soft landscaped in such a way as to positively enhance the environment and increase its openness’….The plans show that the site is well planned, and in such a way as to minimise any intrusion into the countryside, and will provide ecological and biodiversity gains from the soft landscaping proposed. This landscaping will be provided prior to use by way of a planning condition. Overall the development of the site involves siting the structures on an area of existing hardstanding, with the inclusion of a small area of hardstanding on land, which it is apparent has no particular ecological value in itself. The landscape mitigation measures will maintain and enhance the attractive rural appearance of the site, whilst avoiding wider landscape effect into the LCT, which the Sustainability Officer supports.
In terms of the impact of lighting into the wider countryside and on any ecology within the site, this can be controlled through condition 9 whereby, no external lighting shall be installed at the appeal site unless details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, including hours of use and intensity and direction of illumination. Any such installation would then take place if approved.
The change of use of the parcel of land, and inclusion of the additional 2 additional structures and hardstanding do not comprise an unacceptable cumulative impact within
Page 37 Agenda Item 7
the LCT, either within the site or in conjunction with other development, and will not adversely affect the quality of the rural landscape in accordance with Paragraph 175 of the NPPF, Policy H of the PPTS, DM30 b) and DM08A.
Amenity
Policy DM30 (2) c) requires that the site offers an acceptable level of amenity to prospective occupants and will have no significant detrimental impact to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. DM01 is clear that development will be supported where it would not harm the amenities of any neighbouring occupiers or uses, and where the development will not harm the amenities of the intended occupiers as a result of existing or allocated uses. Paragraph 127 f) of the NPPF promotes developments that provide a ‘high standard of amenity for existing and future users’.
Twelve letters of objection have been received. A letter of objection has been received from the Bishops Nympton Parish Council. Twenty three letters of support have also been received. The South Molton Town Council recommends approval.
The letters of objection raised a number of important issues as summarised in the officer report. The matters referring to policy, ecology and highways have been addressed. To address the on-site amenity concerns the authority asked the applicants to provide additional information in respect of services within the site (water, electricity, disposal of foul drainage, disposal of surface water) and sought the further advice of Environmental Health in respect of the proximity of application 71231.
One objection raises question if a site notice was erected. A site notice was erected on 10th September 2020 outside the entrance to the site.
Neighbouring properties:
The site is bounded by existing agricultural land and there are no neighbouring dwellings bounding the site. The nearest neighbouring property is the ‘UK Hardwood LTD’ company, comprising a number of non-residential timber working buildings, located approx. 108 metres to the north east and separated from the site by a large area of intervening woodland.
The proposed accommodation unit and all other buildings are low level single storey units, which are well screened by established boundary vegetation along the road, limiting visual impact. The use of the site for the purposes of a single pitch Traveller accommodation will not result in loss of privacy to any other property.
Environmental Health have been consulted and have raised no objection to the use of the site for the intended purpose in respect of noise, emissions or detrimental impact to neighbouring property. Given the previous agricultural use of the site, Environmental Health recommend a Contaminated Land (Unexpected Condition) whereby any unexpected contamination found will be dealt with accordingly. They also recommended an advisory note in respect of the operation of the toilet block. Although this refers to the former composting toilet use, this applies to the current proposal for the package treatment plant in that, if operated correctly there is no reason why this will not provide safe and efficient disposal of foul drainage and grey waste from the block.
Page 38 Agenda Item 7
The site is of sufficient distance from any neighbouring use such that the effects on amenity from any domestic use will be minimised in accordance with DM30 2) c) and DM01 a) and Paragraph 127 of the NPPF.
Amenities of the occupiers of the site:
The objectors pointed out that the original submission did not specify how the site would be capable of being provided with essential services (Water, electricity, sewage disposal).
Amended plan: JL20-BLOCK1250
The amended scheme shows that sewage will be dealt with by way of a package treatment plant, and shows the provision of a borehole to provide clean water. These are accepted methods of providing clean water and disposing of foul waste for residential uses. There is no provision for connection to the electricity grid. Power will be provided by solar panels which will be positioned on existing and proposed structures within the site, and will not require free-standing solar panel frames. The amended scheme provides a comprehensive means of living self-sufficiently within the site, with no reliance on grid provided services or infrastructure. Environmental Health have raised no objections to the siting of this traveller site or to the provision of the water or sewage disposal measures. The measures proposed will provide essential services to the occupiers. The land to the east and south east will provide adequate residential amenity space for the occupants and the site is provided with adequate amenity facilities to meet the needs of this single pitch in accordance with DM30 (2) g) and h), DM01 b) and Paragraph 127 of the NPPF.
Impact of application 71231: Land to the South of Folly Lane South Molton North Devon EX36 3EE Proposal: Erection of four poultry units with ten feed bins and associated services/utility building together with erection of one agricultural workers dwelling (Approved 2020).
An objector raised comment that application 71231 has approved a dwelling and four poultry units approximate 100 metres to the south west of the proposed site. As this is within 400 metres of the residential use of this site the authority sought the advice of the Environmental Health Team.
As can be seen from the attached response, Environmental Health have raised no significant amenity objections to the siting of the proposed traveller site in proximity to the poultry units. This is because there is adequate separation distance between the
Page 39 Agenda Item 7
proposal site and 71231, and is separated by the A39 link Road, and that the poultry farm will be managed by way of an approved Waste and Odour management Plan (2020) which will effectively mitigate noise and odour to the proposal site. The approval of 71231 does not raise concern in respect of amenity.
Police Architectural Liaison officer consultation:
One objector raises comment in respect of matters pertaining to the Police. Whilst this is an opinion of the individual and not of the authority, to address this comment it is of note that the PALO has raised no objection to the siting of this single pitch Traveller site in his response of 24th August 2020.
There are no overriding amenity impacts which will result in significant effect to the amenities of neighbouring uses or of the occupiers of the site in accordance with DM30 d), DM01 and DM04 and the PPTS.
Infrastructure and Drainage
Paragraph 13 f) of the PPTS and DM30 (2) e) states that the development must avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services.
The authority considers that the use of the site for one single Traveller pitch at any one time, will not place undue pressure on local services and will accord with paragraph 13 of the PPTS to be sustainable economically, socially and environmentally, to meet the needs of the applicants.
The site will be self-sufficient, containing all services (water, electricity, sewage) and places no undue pressure on exiting service providers.
The sites location approx. 2-3 miles away from South Molton is considered sufficient distance from the built up area of South Molton, and from neighbouring property and uses such that it will enable promotion of peaceful co-existence, but is close enough that the applicants can integrate within the local community should they wish in accordance with part a).
The provision of this single pitch will provide a settled base from which the occupiers can operate their Traveller Status, which will not require ‘long-distance’ travelling to get to services and facilities of South Molton, nor will their lifestyle be reliant on unauthorised pitching. This application presents an opportunity to access schools, medical facilities and shops and services within a 2-3 mile distance in accordance with paragraph 13 b) and c). The travel time to the facilities is not excessive at approx. 10-15 minutes, and road access is relatively good. Folly Lane is a single track rural road which can accommodate the incremental increase in traffic movements from the occupancy of the site, which, given the nature of the application, at times of travel, will be relatively less than from a single dwelling.
If this pitch were refused, this will not reduce the applicants ‘long-distance travelling arrangements’ which will not promote sustainable living. Furthermore this will increase the potential for the applicants to have to seek alternative arrangements and the possibility of unauthorised encampment which will not accord with paragraph 13 d). This
Page 40 Agenda Item 7
application provides a viable suitable alternative, where the site accords with the development plan. In this case, the opportunity to provide a single pitch to meet an identified need for Traveller pitches outweighs the relatively minor pressures placed on local infrastructure and services. Where there are no overriding contraventions of the local plan the Authority should seek to approve the provision of the Traveller site to accord with sustainability criteria set out in para. 13 of the PPTS, which are not limited to locational sustainability, but take the wider economic, social and environmental considerations into account. The provision of a single pitch is not of such scale, mass or numbers of use to comprise a significant degree of undue pressure on the local infrastructure network or on services from a single family unit accordant with DM03 (2) and the PPTS.
Flood risk and Drainage:
In terms of Paragraph 13 g), the site is located within flood zone 1 where the principle of a residential use is acceptable without additional flood mitigation measures.
An FDA has been completed which refers to the obtaining of fresh water from the mains. This will not be the case and the site will be served via the new borehole system as illustrated.
The site will be drained via an increased area of permeable surface gravel material. This recognised method of disposal of surface water from the increased area of hardstanding will allow surface water to dissipate within the site and ensuring that there will be no significant surface water impact to the local road network.
The scheme does not place a vulnerable use within a flood zone and is not at risk from flooding and proposes suitable surface water management within the site, in accordance with ST03 and DM04 and 13 g).
Highways
Policy DM05 and DM06 require that all development must ensure safe and well- designed vehicle access and egress, considering the needs of all road users, and must provide safe and well-designed parking within sites to ensure accessibility to the site. This is reiterated at DM30 g).
Devon County Highways were consulted as part of the application process but have not provided comments. They have raised no objections in respect of the sustainability of the site, the proposed use or the proposed layout. It therefore falls to the Local Planning Authority to consider the highway implications of the site in terms of Manual for Streets 2 (MfS2) and the above highway policies.
The access to the site, leads to Folly Lane, which is a relatively straight section of single track rural road. Due to the width of the road and to the rise of the road towards the bridge across the Link Road, vehicles speeds will be generally low. This is not a trunk road, and is a rural road. The authorised use of the access is for agricultural purposes whereby, regular use of the existing access in association with agricultural activity could increase markedly were farming of the site to intensify if the applicants were to sell the land. The residential use will intensify the number of vehicle movements per day over
Page 41 Agenda Item 7
the low key traffic movements from an agricultural access. However, this must be weighed in the balance in respect of whether the site can deliver appropriate parking, turning and access from the use proposed.
The access into the site is splayed offering good visibility into the road. Further to the west visibility is limited by the rise of the road towards the bridge, but it is still possible to see vehicles crossing over the bridge from the access. To the west visibility is possible for approx. 60 metres until a bend in the road restricts views of traffic emerging from the bend. In assessing the acceptability of the access, the case officer emerged from the access point, stopping approximately 2.4 metres back from the road edge. It was clearly possible to see in both directions into the road, and at no point was the access considered ‘dangerous’. From driving to the east and west along the road, it was apparent that when approaching the access, views of vehicles emerging would be attainable from sufficient distance to enable braking. This would be the same at night. On balance these factors are sufficient in themselves to show that the visibility available in practice at the proposed access point will not be so limited as to result in severe conflict of vehicle movements, or to necessitate alterations to the existing access other than general maintenance.
The amended plans show that the increased area of hardstanding will allow the touring caravan to be manoeuvred and parked within the site such that vehicles can access and egress in a forward gear, enabling views into the road and limiting the need for manoeuvring into the lightly used rural road.
Within the site, there is provision for a turning head to allow parking/use of the touring caravan. It is possible to bring the caravan into the site, manoeuvre and park in the space to the east of the site as shown. It is possible to park 2 vehicles within the site, adjacent to the mobile home and to turn and access in a forward gear.
Despite the fact that the use of the site will intensify, and the access visibility standards prescribed in national standards would not be met, it is possible to use the access with
Page 42 Agenda Item 7
minimal adverse impact into the rural road network, and the proposal will not, on balance result in such an unsafe access into the rural road as to warrant refusal of this application. In the absence of DCC Highways objections, there is no reason to conclude that there would be undue risk to the health and safety of occupants and visitors to the site in accordance with DM05, DM06 and DM30.
Conclusion
In this case, the applicants have provided a robust argument to convince the Local Planning Authority that there is a genuine need for this traveller site in this location. The positive factors summarised below carry significant weight in determining this case.
It is evidenced that the applicants have a genuine need to use the site as a base from which to carry out their traveller lifestyle. The delivery of this site will contribute positively to the shortfall of Traveller sites across North Devon and there is support from Planning Policy and from the G&TLO and PALO for the applicant’s use of this site, which weighs heavily in favour of the proposed use.
As evidenced by the Impact Assessment, the site is appropriately located, and of a scale, mass, layout and material such that there is no adverse impact into the immediate or wider countryside. The site is not located within a sensitive or protected landscape and is under the threshold whereby an Environmental Impact Assessment would be required for a camp site. The scale and mass and number of buildings is what is required to support a traveller site, and materials proposed will not adversely impact the immediate or wider landscape, the site is well planned and soft landscaped to positively enhance the landscape, and provide biodiversity net gains to be made in developing the site.
The site has been chosen and designed to demonstrably meet the aims of the PPTS and the NPPF and Local Plan Policy that the scale does not dominate the nearest community of South Molton; the location will not result in any significant amenity impact to neighbouring uses, nor does the proposed use or adjoining uses result in amenity effect to the occupiers of the site. The inclusion of one single pitch will not place undue pressure on the local infrastructure, and users can gain access to services in South Molton.
The objector’s comments have been considered where relevant to this case, as have the sustainability matters and highways matters. The Authority also notes the 23 letters of support for the site.
Weighing the positive factors in the balance, this is necessary development where it will cause no significant effect to any third party. In light of the above the Local Planning Authority concludes that this case accords with ST20 (2) and with DM30 (2) and with the parameters set out in the PPTS Policy B, C and H. There is an opportunity to deliver a home for the traveller community. There is no evidence that there are any other sites where the applicants could reasonably carry out this type of development and still carry out their lifestyle in accordance with Article 8 Rights of the applicants.. The alternative is that they continue to live in unauthorised locations which does not accord with the Article 8 Rights of the applicants.
Page 43 Agenda Item 7
The application is considered to accord with the adopted development plan and National Plan policy.
Approval of the application is therefore recommended subject to the imposition of planning conditions
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
The provisions of the Human Rights Act and principles contained in the Convention on Human Rights have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report. The articles/protocols identified below were considered of particular relevance:
Article 8 – Right to Respect for Private and Family Life THE FIRST PROTOCOL – Article 1: Protection of Property
Recommendation Approved Legal Agreement Required:- No
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 : The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans/details:
Location Plan reference number JL20 – SLP received 28th July 2020 Utility building elevation drawings reference number JL20 – UTILITY received on 17th August 2020 Amended Block Plan reference umber JL20 – BLOCK PROPOSED rev B Received 14th October 2020 Amended Planting plan reference number JL20 – BLOCK1250 received 14th October 2020
('the approved plans').
Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of proper planning.
3. The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and travellers as defined in Annexe 1 Paragraph 1 and 2 of Planning Policy for traveller sites Department for Communities and Local Government 2015.
Page 44 Agenda Item 7
Reason : Only the proposed use of the site for Gypsies or Travellers is appropriate and any other use would need to be the subject of a separate application to be considered on its merits.
4. The residential accommodation on the site at any one time shall be restricted to one static caravan and the storage of one touring caravan. The latter shall not be occupied as a separate residential unit whilst on site. The caravans shall only be located in positions specifically allocated by approved drawing JL20 – BLOCKPROPOSED rev B, The site shall not be used at any time for the stationing of any other caravans that are occupied residentially by persons in transit.
Reason : Only the proposed use and amount of caravans/static caravans is appropriate and any other use would need to be the subject of a separate application to be considered on its merits. To safeguard the amenities of the area and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policies DM01, DM04, DM05 and DM08 of the adopted North Devon Local Plan
5. The proposed shed shall be constructed in accordance with the following schedule of materials:
- All buildings to be coloured dark green
Reason:
In the interests of the appearance of the development and locality in accordance with Policy DM04 and DM08A of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
6. Upon cessation of use of the site for Gypsy & traveller occupation, the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition including the removal of all structures from the site therefrom comprising :
- the mobile home and the static caravan - the storage building and concrete hard standing - the utility building and solar panels - the waste package treatment - All hardstandings
and the site shall be reinstated to its use for agricultural purposes.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to maintain control of the development which is temporary in character and to safeguard the amenities of the area in accordance with Policies DM01, DM04 and DM08A and DM08 of the adopted North Devon Local Plan
Page 45 Agenda Item 7
7. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation or the substantial completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 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 variations.
Reason : To assimilate the development into the landscape and to safeguard the appearance and character of the area in accordance with Policies ST04, ST14, DM04 and DM08A of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
8. No external lighting shall be installed unless details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, such details shall include intensity and direction of illumination. Any such installation shall take place as approved.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the rural locality and to ensure that excessive external lighting does not occur within the LCT to protect the rural landscape in accordance with policy DM08A.
9. All foul drainage must be disposed of in such a way as to prevent any discharge to a well, borehole or spring or any watercourse, including dry ditches with a connection to a watercourse.
Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy DM02 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
10. Should any unexpected contamination of soil or groundwater be discovered during development of the site, the Local Planning Authority should be contacted immediately. Site activities within that sub-phase or part thereof, should be temporarily suspended until such time as a procedure for addressing any such unexpected contamination, within that sub-phase or part thereof, is agreed upon with the Local Planning Authority or other regulating bodies.
Reason: In the interest of human health in accordance with Policy DM02 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.
Informatives 1. Bats and bat roosts are protected by law under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 [as amended], Schedule 2 of the Conservation [Natural Habitats, &c] Regulations 1994, the Countryside Rights Of Way Act 2000, and the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017. It is an offence to
Page 46 Agenda Item 7
recklessly or deliberately kill, injure or capture [take] bats, recklessly or deliberately disturb bats, damage, destroy or obstruct access to bat roosts. For further advice contact the Bat Helpline 0345 1300 228.
2. It is an offence under section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built. It is strongly recommended that any buildings or land where consent for work has been granted are checked for nesting birds prior to any work being undertaken. Where inspection is obscured i.e. Hedgerows, Ivy and in trees of dense foliage it is advised that work is scheduled for outside the nesting season i.e. not undertaken between March and August (inclusive). For further advice please contact the RSPB Southwest Regional Office 01392 432691.
3. If the intention is to install a private potable water supply to the site it will need to comply with the Private Water Supplies Regulations. Depending on the type of supply, private water supplies may be subject to specific controls and regulation by the Drinking Water Inspectorate and / or Local Authorities. The applicant should contact North Devon Council's Environmental Protection team where there is any doubt over relevant requirements for such a supply
4. Statement of Engagement In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive and pro-active way with the Applicant and has negotiated amendments to the application to enable the grant of planning permission. This has included submission of amended plans to secure landscaping and to secure additional on site amenity services.
Inserts
1. Location Plan 2. List of representation 3. Supporting letter from DCC Gypsy/Traveller Liaison Officer 4. Appeal decision re APP/X1118/A/11/ 2162447 Woodpark Copse, West Yeo, Witheridge, Tiverton, Devon EX16 8PY
Page 47 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7 Appendix A
Copy Supplied to Accompany Planning 71864 - Land at Folly Lane, South Molton Committee Report Lynton House, Commercial Road, Page 49 Scale: 1:5000 Barnstaple, EX31 1EA Date:11 Nov 2020 © Copyright and database right 2017 Ordnance Survey Licence No. 100021929. No unauthorised reproduction permitted. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7 Appendix B Neighbour Representation List for Application 71864
12 OBJECTIONS
Mr & Mrs Toft Drewstone Farm, South Molton EX36 Date Received 3EF 7-Sept-2020
SJ & J Bedford Wade Mill, Molland EX36 £NL Date Received
14-Sept-2020
Polly Goodman Email address Date Received
15-Sept-2020
John Hoar 41 East Street, South Molton EX36 3DF Date Received
14-Sept-2020
Melinda Stevenson Drewstone Park Cottage, Bishmill, South Date Received Molton EX36 3EF 15-Sept-2020
Mr & Mrs A Sing Pillavins, South Molton EX36 3EE Date Received
16-Sept-2020
David Sanders Bicknor Farm, South Molton EX36 3EF Date Received
15-Sept-2020
Jo Bedford Wade Mill, Moland, South Molton EX36 Date Received 3NL 15-Sept-2020
Matthew Gohl 46 Nadder Meadow, Soth Molton EX36 Date Received 4BR 18-Sept-2020
Nadine Marchant The Furrows, Gorton Hill, Bishmill, South Date Received Molton 18-Sept-2020
Edwina Ayres Email address Date Received
18-Sept-2020
18-Sept-2020
Page 51 Agenda Item 7 Appendix B 23 SUPPORT
Joanne Lawrence Shutes Cottage, West Down EX34 8NH Date Received
7-Sept-2020
Amanda Simons Email address Date Received
Amanda Simons 5-Sept-2020
5-Sept-2020
Nikita Simmons 4 Stuckley Road Date Received
7-Sept-2020
Luke McMahon 17 Sharwood Penton Rise London Date Received WC1X 9EG 8-Sept-2020
Jamie Glen Lyn Garage, Borough Road, Date Received Combe Martin 13-Sept-2020
Sharon 4 Stuckley Road, Bideford Date Received
13-Sept-2020
Andy Teal Combe View, Shute Lane, Combe Martin Date Received
13-Sept-2020
Laura Wyatt Email address Date Received
14-Sept-2020
Lucy Ellis 8 Snapehill Crescent, Dronfield Date Received
15-Sept-2020
Anna Jones 18 Coleford Road, Cheltenham GL52 Date Received 5GR 15-Sept-2020
Natasha Rowley 13 East End Terrace, Ashburton TQ13 Date Received 7LD 16-Sept-2020
Mr Ravenhill Hillhead Cross, Ugborough, Devon Date Received
16-Sept-2020
Barbara Venn 3 Park Vale Loxhore EX31 4SS Date Received
16-Sept-2020
Page 52 Agenda Item 7 Appendix B Lisa Email address Date Received
16-Sept-2020
Leah Email address Date Received
16-Sept-2020
Mrs D Johnston Yellaton Garden, Combe Martin EX34 Date Received 0NE 17-Sept-2020
Richard Wall 58 St Georges Road, Broadstairs Date Received
19-Sept-2020
Jennifer Smith The Burrow, Barton Hill Farm, Date Received Kentchurch HR2 0BZ 21-Sept-2020
Conner Clements 15 The Mill, Redlers Waterside, Stroud Date Received
24-Sept-2020
Mario Email address Date Received
25-Sept-2020
25-Sept-2020
25-Sept-2020
2 COMMENTS
Mrs Teresa Price Email address Date Received
15-Sept-2020
Darren Prouse Flat 1, 3 Bedford Street, Barnstaple Date Received EX32 8JR 21-Sept-2020
Page 53 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7 Appendix C
From: Sabrina Thomas
North Devon Planning Dept. Address: County Hall Topsham Road Exeter EX2 4QD
Tel: 07967 397 618
E-mail: [email protected]
Date: 14/07/2020
To Whom It May Concern:
Re: Traveller Status
Thank you for your letter relating to the above. I am happy to make the following observations in line with National and County Policy, and also observations following a site visit to the above location with the applicant and/or his/her agent.
Devon has only three local authority Gypsy/Traveller sites: Sowton, Exeter; this site is a long-term residential site managed by Elim Housing, which holds a waiting list. Broadclyst, East Devon; is not owned by the County Council and we are not able to offer any new pitches for families due to the terms set by the landowner. Haldon, Teignbridge is not owned or operated by Devon County Council (DCC).
Whilst accommodation for the settled community is increasing in the South West there is still little provision for Gypsy and Traveller families.
There are no agreed/emergency or transit sites in Devon and most of the traditional stopping places have been blocked off or developed for other purposes. Due to this, it is becoming more essential for Gypsy and Traveller families to have an authorised stable base from which they may access services such as Health and Education, that the rest of us may take for granted. It also provides the security to travel for economic purpose, knowing that there is an authorised base on return.
I can confirm that both Johnny and Lili meet the definition of Traveller status. They have been known to Devon County Council for over 15 years. During this time, they have travelled various places across the County on unauthorised encampments due to there not being suitable authorised provision for them to use.
They have regularly asked during those 15 years if there are any sites available in the Mid/North area where they have been mainly based; this has eventually led to the decision to buy their own land apply for planning permission.
Page 55 Agenda Item 7 Appendix C I have never had to deal with any complaint about them on DCC land, they have been camped on has always been left cleaner than when they found it. They are respectful to every area and its local community they have camped on over the years.
They fully intend to travel for parts of the year for economic purpose.
DCC supports Johnny and Lili in this application; it’s taken them a long time to get to this point and any local community would be lucky to have Johnny and Lili as part of their community.
Small private sites continue to be the best option for local planning and housing authorities in relation to accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers. Meeting this huge need in Devon is important if the number of unauthorised encampments and unauthorised developments are to reduce across the county, at the same time it allows local planning authorities to fulfil their responsibility to meet the accommodation need along side other communities in Devon.
The County Council has a range of responsibilities in these matters and, on education, health and welfare grounds this application is supported, recognising the lack of authorised sites within Devon.
Yours sincerely
Sabrina Thomas
Sabrina Thomas Gypsy/Traveller Liaison Officer
Page 56 Agenda Item 7 Appendix D
Appeal Decision Hearing held and site visit made on 14 February 2012 by Alan Woolnough BA(Hons) DMS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 20 March 2012
Appeal Ref: APP/X1118/A/11/2162447 Woodpark Copse, West Yeo, Witheridge, Tiverton, Devon EX16 8PY • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr G Hill against the decision of North Devon District Council. • The application ref no 50501, dated 11 June 2010, was refused by notice dated 13 April 2011. • The development proposed is described on the application form as: ‘Change of use for stationing of caravan for residential occupation with associated works (new access, hard standing, septic tank) and agricultural/forestry uses’.
Formal Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the material change of use of the land from agriculture and forestry to a mixed use comprising agriculture, forestry and the use of land for the stationing of a single twin-unit caravan for residential occupation and the parking of a single touring caravan, together with the construction of a vehicular access, track and hardstanding and the provision of a septic tank, at Woodpark Copse, West Yeo, Witheridge, Tiverton, Devon EX16 8PY in accordance with the terms of the application, ref no 50501 dated 11 June 2010, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule attached to this decision.
Procedural Matters
2. At the Hearing it was reported that certain local residents had not received copies of the District Council’s letters notifying them of the appeal and the arrangements for the Hearing. Consequently, they had not had adequate opportunity to make representations and were unable to attend. Those in question were therefore allowed a further period after the Hearing in which to make representations and the main parties afforded the opportunity to respond. In reaching my decision I have taken into account all the post-event submissions received as a result.
3. Witheridge Parish Council and others have expressed the view that the planning application was improperly publicised, reference to intended occupancy of the site by travellers not having been referred to in the description of development on the application form or in notification material. However, I find no injustice to have arisen as a result. It is not necessary to define such occupancy in the description and, in any event, intentions in this regard are readily apparent from supporting documentation submitted with the application. The District Council’s decision on the application and the subsequent appeal are therefore valid.
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk Page 57 Appeal Decision APP/X1118/A/11/2162447 Agenda Item 7 Appendix D
4. At the Hearing the Appellant confirmed that, notwithstanding the reference to a ‘transit site’ on application drawing no GH004, planning permission is not sought for such a facility. It was also confirmed that, in addition to the envisaged twin-unit static caravan, permission is sought for the parking of only one touring caravan (which would not be occupied when on site), and that the amended site access plan received by the District Council on 28 March 2011 supersedes the original access proposal shown on drawings GH002 and GH003. I have determined the appeal on this basis.
5. At the Hearing the main parties agreed that, in the light of the above, and notwithstanding the description set out in the above heading, the proposed development would be more accurately described as: The material change of use of the land from agriculture and forestry to a mixed use comprising agriculture, forestry and the use of land for the stationing of a single twin-unit caravan for residential occupation and the parking of a single touring caravan, together with the construction of a vehicular access, track and hardstanding and the provision of a septic tank . I have used this description as the basis for my decision and am satisfied that there is no prejudice to the interests of any party in doing so.
6. The Appellant has indicated that he would be prepared to construct a vehicular access within the road frontage to the appeal site at whichever location would satisfy the District Council and the County Council as highway authority (HA) in terms of the provision of visibility splays. However, the scheme before me specifies only one access arrangement, by means of the amended site access plan referred to above, and no alternative has been presented in drawing form to which regard might be had in determining the appeal. Having regard to case law arising from Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE & Harborough D.C . [1982] JPL 37, consideration of any other option is effectively precluded in such circumstances by the fact that interested parties would be denied the opportunity to comment on it. My decision therefore focuses solely on the access proposal the subject of the District Council’s refusal of planning permission. Any alternative would fall to be pursued by means of a separate planning application.
Main Issues
7. The main issues in determining this appeal are: • the effect of the proposal on highway safety; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the countryside; and • whether any harm arising from the above issues is outweighed by the general need for gypsy and traveller sites and the Appellant’s accommodation needs.
Reasoning
8. The appeal site comprises some 2.8 hectares of paddock and woodland located in the countryside, a little under a mile to the north of the village of Witheridge and adjacent to the B3137. It contains a substantial agricultural barn, constructed and finished in timber, for which retrospective planning permission was granted in 2007 (ref no 45021) and enjoys a lawful use for agriculture and forestry. The site’s frontage to the road extends for approximately 300 metres and is largely comprised of low banking and substantial vegetation, including
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk Page 2 58 Appeal Decision APP/X1118/A/11/2162447 Agenda Item 7 Appendix D some mature trees. Sole vehicular access is directly from the public highway via a track adjacent to the northern boundary.
9. Planning permission is sought for a material change to a mixed use that would include use of the land for the stationing of a twin-unit static caravan for occupation by gypsies or travellers as defined in paragraph 15 of ODPM Circular 01/2006: Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites . The static caravan would be sited to the immediate west of the barn, with parking facilities for vehicles and a single space for a touring caravan provided further to the east. It was confirmed at the Hearing that a need for a separate utility block or dayroom is not envisaged.
10. A new vehicular access from the B3137 would be constructed some 43 metres to the south of the existing, to be linked to the caravan pitch by a new hardsurfaced track. The existing access would be stopped up. A septic tank would be installed to the immediate south-west of the static caravan and additional planting would be undertaken along the frontage and within the main body of the site.
Highway safety
11. The District Council has refused planning permission for the proposal on grounds of detriment to highway safety, citing saved Policy TR10 of the Devon Structure Plan 2001 to 2016 (SP), adopted in 2004. The Appellant contends that the policy applies only to the county’s Strategic Road Network as defined by the SP, of which the B3137 does not form part, such that there is no policy foundation for the District Council’s refusal. However, although the policy is headed ‘Strategic Road Network and Roadside Service Areas’, it is readily apparent from its wording and that of the supporting text that precedes it that, as a matter of fact, the policy seeks to maintain highway safety on the whole of the county’s road network.
12. I thus find that saved SP Policy TR10 is directly applicable to the proposal and that, rather than defining its scope, the heading is an anomaly. In any event, saved Policy TRA6 of the North Devon Local Plan 2006 (LP) states explicitly that development will only be permitted where, amongst other things, provision is made for safe access onto and egress from the highway for all forms of travel serving the site and the functioning of the road network of the safety of highway users is not harmed.
13. The Appellant invites me to assess, in the event that I find the proposal to be harmful in terms of highway safety, whether such harm would be outweighed by other considerations. However, harm of this nature cannot be set aside other than in the most exceptional circumstances. Nonetheless, there is scope for assessing whether prescribed standards for visibility at the proposed access might be relaxed without compromising highway safety. There are two sets of standards to consider: the Department of Transport’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), preferred by the HA, and Manual for Streets 1 and Manual for Streets 2 (MfS1 & MfS2), preferred by the Appellant.
14. MfS2 was published in September 2010 and is endorsed by the Department of Transport. It builds on the advice in MfS1, published in 2007, and is intended to fill the perceived gap between the latter and DMRB. Paragraph 1.3.6 of MfS2 recommends the application of DMRB parameters for stopping sight distances (SSDs) where actual vehicle speeds are above 40 mph for significant
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk Page 3 59 Appeal Decision APP/X1118/A/11/2162447 Agenda Item 7 Appendix D periods of the day. Nevertheless, paragraphs 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 recommend that MfS should be the starting point for any scheme affecting non-trunk roads and that, if DMRB standards are used, they should be applied in a way that respects local context.
15. The HA carried out a radar speed survey adjacent to the appeal site over a period of one week. This revealed an 85 th percentile speed for northbound vehicles, approaching the proposed access point uphill, of 50.3 mph. The equivalent speed for southbound vehicles, heading downhill, was 50 mph. The results also show that 85 th percentile speeds were above 40 mph during all periods of the day. The Appellant questions the reliability of the survey in terms of the radar locations used and the weather conditions during which it was conducted. I agree that such factors may have led to an over-estimation of actual speeds at the proposed access point, particularly when regard is had to the deceleration effects of an uphill bend that must be negotiated by northbound traffic.
16. Nonetheless, there is no suggestion that the results have been distorted to such a degree that actual average speeds may have been 40 mph or less in either direction and, indeed, my own observations at the site suggest that this would be most unlikely. No alternative survey data has been provided. I therefore accept the County and District Councils’ stance that regard should be had to DMRB parameters as far as SSDs are concerned, but also find that the key principles of MfS2 should be taken into account in applying them so as to respect local context. The HA notes that DMRB specifies a requirement at the proposed access for a visibility splay extending 120 metres to the south as measured along the edge of the public highway (the y-distance) and a setback at the access centre line of 2.4 metres (the x-distance) to the nearside edge of the carriageway, with no obstruction exceeding 0.6 metres in height within the splay. The equivalent y-distance to the north is 160 metres.
17. However, the HA has also taken into account the advice in MfS2 concerning the flexible application of such standards. Having regard to, amongst other things, the deceleration effect of the hill, it concluded that y-distances of 120 metres to the north and 91 metres to the south would be acceptable, albeit that the x- distance should remain 2.4 metres. However, it is common ground that, even with the clearance of vegetation and reduction in height of roadside banks, only 70 metres visibility to the nearside edge could be achieved to the north from a 2.4 metres setback over land that falls within either the public highway or the control of the Appellant. It is also agreed between the parties that no more than 65 metres visibility would be attainable in practice to the south unless extensive swathes of vegetation were to be removed, due to the presence of the bend in the road.
18. Having regard to measurements agreed on site between the main parties and in the absence of cogent evidence to the contrary, I concur. This being so, even the HA’s reduced visibility requirements could not be met in either direction. Nonetheless, I find other considerations to provide mitigating circumstances beyond those acknowledged by the HA. I am also mindful of advice in section 3.2 of MfS2 which warns against a slavish adherence to technical standards. Furthermore, paragraph 9.4.2 of MfS2 establishes that DMRB is written specifically for trunk roads and, where used in other situations, should not be applied uncritically.
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk Page 4 60 Appeal Decision APP/X1118/A/11/2162447 Agenda Item 7 Appendix D
19. Forward visibility towards the proposed access has been measured by the Appellant as 110-115 metres for drivers travelling south and 93 metres for those heading north. These figures are not contested by the District Council or HA and are close to those deemed acceptable by the latter for the purposes of visibility for drivers emerging from the access. Nor is it disputed that the road is only lightly trafficked. It is also relevant that the width of the vehicular carriageway at this point is sufficient to allow an oncoming car to pass safely around the front of an emerging vehicle.
20. This combination of circumstances is such that it is acceptable for a vehicle leaving the site to edge out onto the carriageway where visibility is less than ideal. Whilst the driver of the emerging vehicle might have limited sightlines, an oncoming driver from either direction would be able to see much further and could spot them in good time, even allowing for a reaction time of two seconds. Oncoming traffic could therefore slow to ensure safety, by means of gentle braking or easing off the accelerator rather than an emergency stop.
21. As paragraph 2.17 of TD41/95 of DMRB makes clear, the y-distances prescribed in that document are intended to prevent emerging vehicles from influencing the speed of oncoming traffic, a requirement that is excessive and unnecessary on the relatively quiet B3137 at West Yeo. Indeed, the road junction opposite the existing access to the appeal site and other accesses in the vicinity all have visibility that fails to meet prescribed standards, yet on the evidence before me have functioned safely for many years. The only accident recorded in the locality did not involve an emerging vehicle.
22. Considered together, these factors are sufficient in themselves to satisfy me that the visibility available in practice at the proposed access point can be legitimately assessed from the reduced x-distance of 2 metres favoured by the Appellant and would not be so limited as to render likely any form of vehicular conflict. However, even if this were not the case, the shortcomings of the existing access serving the site would still weigh heavily in favour of the appeal proposal.
23. Visibility to the north from the existing access is extremely restricted, to the extent that is extremely dangerous to exit the appeal site in a vehicle without the assistance of someone to check for oncoming traffic. Indeed, despite the low level of traffic using the road, the Appellant has either been extremely fortunate in making use of the access for the past several years without incident or has exercised a great deal of care in doing so. On the evidence before me, such use has been limited to vehicle movements associated with low key agriculture and forestry, storage of personal and business items within the barn and occasional unauthorised residential activity.
24. Although Mr Hill is expecting to reside alone in the proposed static caravan for the time being, when not travelling, the possibility remains that he may be joined by his partner Ms Doherty and their young son Seamus in due course. The HA estimates daily vehicle movements of up to eight per day in such circumstances, taking into account the school run, and I concur. I also agree that this would amount to a more intensive use of the replacement access than has been made of the existing one in the past.
25. However, the vastly superior visibility to the north that would be available at the former leads me to conclude that, even with the envisaged increase in site traffic, the proposed arrangement would still be far safer than the existing.
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk Page 5 61 Appeal Decision APP/X1118/A/11/2162447 Agenda Item 7 Appendix D I am also mindful that regular use of the existing access in association with lawful activity could increase markedly were farming of the appeal site to intensify. Given the presence of a sturdy agricultural barn with the benefit of planning permission, this seems probable should the current appeal be unsuccessful and the Appellant decide to sell the land.
26. I conclude that, despite the fact that visibility standards prescribed in national guidance would not be met in full, the proposal would, on balance, bring about a considerable improvement in highway safety at the appeal site. The scheme therefore complies with the objectives of saved SP Policy TR10 and saved LP Policy TRA6.
Character and appearance
27. The locality is not recognised for its visual qualities by means of a protective landscape designation. Nonetheless, it is very attractive, being characterised by rolling pasture, wooded areas and a sparse scattering of built development largely agricultural in purpose. Extensive views across open countryside are available from nearby public rights of way and the roadside in the vicinity of the appeal site is typified by low ‘Devon Banks’, substantial trees and other high vegetation.
28. It is common ground between the parties that a substantial mature tree to the north of the proposed access would need to be removed to accommodate a 2.4 metres x 70 metres visibility splay, whereas a reduced x-distance of 2 metres would enable its retention. It is also agreed that no other trees of individual significance would need to be felled to facilitate the envisaged splays in either direction. I concur and, moreover, am satisfied that in the wake of frontage clearance already undertaken by the Appellant little more would need to be done to achieve the sightline required to the north, besides a slight remodelling of the Devon Bank to reduce it to 0.6 metres in height within the splay.
29. However, visibility requirements to the south of the access give greater cause for concern in terms of their likely landscape impact. The Devon Bank rises to a greater height in this direction and, whilst the roadside vegetation within the desired splay is somewhat neglected and contains no specimens of note, it nonetheless forms a substantial screen. This contributes to the rural ambience of the locality, particularly when seen from the public footpath that extends westward from the opposite side of the road, and guards against exposure of the appeal site and the barn within it to clear public view.
30. It is the Appellant’s intention to replace any removed banking and vegetation on the back edge of the splay and carry out additional screen planting within and on the margins of the appeal site. I am also satisfied that, with the benefit of such mitigation, the visual impact of the proposed static twin-unit caravan would be effectively subsumed by the backdrop of the existing barn, especially if coloured to match the latter. The touring caravan would be hidden from public view by the barn and, notwithstanding the comments of the local Parish Council and some local residents, glimpses of either unit from the footpath to the north of the site would be very limited. It is not apparent that hedge maintenance along the site’s northern boundary by the neighbouring landowners would make a significant difference in this regard.
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk Page 6 62 Appeal Decision APP/X1118/A/11/2162447 Agenda Item 7 Appendix D
31. Nonetheless, I am mindful that replacement and additional planting would take some time to establish an effective screen. Moreover, even once this had been achieved the new access and the extensive track leading from it would remain visible from the road and footpath and continue to detract, albeit marginally, from the prevailing rural and sylvan sense of place. I conclude that the proposal would cause limited but discernible harm to the character and appearance of the countryside, contrary to saved SP Policy CO1, saved LP Policy ENV1 and national guidance in Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7).
Traveller-related matters
32. I have taken into account the Secretary of State’s view that Circular 01/2006 is fundamentally flawed, his intention to revoke it and the draft Planning Policy Statement issued for consultation in April 2011 with a view to replacing it. Whilst the current Circular has yet to be revoked, the substance of the consultation document gives an indication of the Government’s intentions and is thus a material consideration. That said, the consultation may prompt amendments to the draft guidance. Moreover, as the Circular remains in place, I am bound to have regard to it in determining this appeal. The following assessment is made on this basis.
33. The development plan currently makes no provision for additional gypsy and traveller sites in the area. The Devon-wide Gypsy and Traveller Housing Needs Assessment (GTHNA) published in November 2006 identified a shortfall of 226 pitches across the County over the next five years, with an immediate need in North Devon for a further five permanent and five transit pitches over the same period. In the absence of a more recent GTHNA, recognition of this level of need is carried through in the emerging North Devon and Torridge Joint Core Strategy. However, it is notable that this figure originates as a projection to 2011, so is already out of date.
34. The Appellant’s research indicates that only two of the permanent pitches thus required have been provided. Updated counts provided by the District Council at the Hearing and other information concerning the occupation of privately owned pitches in the area give no reliable indication to the contrary. The Council acknowledged at the Hearing that a shortfall in permanent as well as transit pitch provision still exists and, indeed, the presence of unauthorised gypsy and traveller pitches in the District is indicative of this. The District Council also concedes that, setting aside its highway safety and visual concerns, the appeal site is otherwise acceptable as a gypsy-traveller site in accordance with guidance set out at paragraph 54 of Circular 01/2006.
35. The sustainability of a residential use some distance from local facilities has been questioned by some and, indeed, there is some conflict with the objectives of saved SP Policies ST1, ST16, TR2 and TR5 and saved LP Policy HSG9 in this regard. However, paragraph 54 of the Circular makes it clear that in assessing the suitability of gypsy-traveller sites, local authorities should be realistic about the availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local services. Moreover, paragraph 66 indicates that proposals should not be rejected if they would only give rise to modest additional daily vehicle movements. It is also notable that the Structure Plan predates Circular 01/2006.
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk Page 7 63 Appeal Decision APP/X1118/A/11/2162447 Agenda Item 7 Appendix D
36. Mr Hill’s status as a traveller, as defined in paragraph 15 of Circular 01/2006, is not disputed by the District Council or any other party. He purchased the appeal site in 1999 and has strong local connections, as evidenced by the many letters of support received from Witheridge residents. Whilst he continues to travel during the warmer months, he is seeking somewhere to stop between late October and April. He currently enjoys good health but recognises that at the age of 56 he needs to make arrangements for when he may not be able to travel as extensively as he does at present. I have no reason to question this account of his circumstances.
37. I attach little weight to the needs of Ms Doherty and the Appellant’s son Seamus, who presently reside in a rented house in Cumbria. In any event it was made clear at the Hearing that, notwithstanding an indication to the contrary in initial submissions, they are not expected to join the Appellant at Witheridge in the near future should the appeal succeed. However, I accept in the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary the Appellant’s strong assertion that, in view of his background, he feels unable to occupy a conventional dwelling. Mr Hill advises that a house he once owned in Exeter was occupied by an adult son and that he never lived there himself, merely using it as a postal address and treating it as an investment. There is no evidence before me to the effect that he currently owns any property other than the appeal site or has ready access to alternative permanent accommodation.
38. The Appellant’s son Manus was also initially identified in the planning application as a potential occupier of the permanent unit at Woodpark Copse. However, it was confirmed at the Hearing that this is no longer envisaged and that he would be only an occasional visitor. Although Manus travels with his father for much of the year, his status as a Traveller has not been substantiated by cogent evidence and, as an adult in his mid-20s, could not be regarded as a dependant. Should he wish to take up residence at the appeal site on a longer term basis, it would be a matter for the District Council as to whether he fulfilled the occupancy condition that would be attached to any planning permission.
39. I conclude that there is a clear need for at least three permanent gypsy- traveller pitches in the District, with unauthorised encampments indicating that demand may be significantly greater. The appeal site is suitable for such use in the terms of paragraph 54 of Circular 01/2006 and there is no indication that the need is likely to be fulfilled in the foreseeable future by the development plan though provision elsewhere in the locality. The Appellant has demonstrated that he enjoys traveller status, is in need of a permanent traveller pitch and does not have access to suitable alternative accommodation.
40. I am satisfied that, rather than being compromised, highway safety at the appeal site would be improved by the proposal. Whilst limited harm the character and appearance of the countryside would result, this could be mitigated in time to a considerable extent. In any event, I find that such harm is clearly outweighed by the general need for gypsy and traveller facilities in the area. Such need justifies a departure from saved SP Policies CO1, ST1, ST16, TR2 and TR5, saved LP Policies ENV1 and HSG9 and national guidance in PPS7.
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk Page 8 64 Appeal Decision APP/X1118/A/11/2162447 Agenda Item 7 Appendix D Other Matters
41. I have considered all the other matters raised, including whether the recently published draft National Planning Policy Framework proposes any significant changes to existing national policies that are relevant to the determination of this appeal. I find that it does not and, therefore, has no effect. In any event, the fact that the said guidance is yet to be finalised tempers the weight that may be attributed to it.
42. It was evident from my visit that parts of the appeal site are poorly drained. This being so, there is a need to guard against surface water run-off onto the highway that might be caused by the works required to accommodate the access track. However, as the track could be constructed from porous materials and there is plenty of room for soakaways, I am satisfied that prior approval by the District Council of a suitable surfacing and drainage scheme would address this issue. The County Council’s archaeological specialist confirms that, notwithstanding concerns expressed by the local Parish Council, any archaeological impact arsing form the appeal scheme would be minimal.
43. The Appellant has submitted a report prepared by specialist wildlife consultants to the effect that the existing frontage banking and vegetation provides an important habitat and food resource for dormice, a species protected by European and national law. However, the report also contains a method statement, adherence to which would ensure adequate safeguards in this respect and could be secured by a condition attached to a grant of planning permission. There is no cogent evidence before me that other nature conservation interests would be affected by the proposal.
44. I am aware that the site has been used unlawfully by the Appellant in the past. However, past breaches of planning control have no bearing on the determination of the current appeal. The District Council is empowered to enforce the provisions of any planning permission I may grant. Although cited by a local resident, I find saved LP Policy HSG10, which is concerned with temporary accommodation to cater for farm or forestry enterprises, to be of limited relevance to my decision. LP Policy HSG14, also thus cited, has not been saved by the Secretary of State and thus carries no weight. Therefore, neither these nor any other matters are of such significance as to outweigh the considerations that have led to my conclusions on the main issues. Accordingly, I am minded to allow the appeal and grant planning permission.
Conditions
45. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Appellant and the District and Parish Councils and discussed at the Hearing, having regard to the advice in Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions . In some cases I have edited the suggested wording to reflect that advice.
46. The stopping up of the existing access and visibility splays at its replacement measuring 2 metres by 70 metres to the north and 65 metres to the south, within which there should be no obstruction exceeding 0.6 metres in height, are required in the interests of highway safety, as are a setback for any gates, an approved drainage scheme and the preclusion of transit use. A restriction of the number of caravans to one static caravan for residential occupation and one touring caravan, which shall not be occupied when on site, together with
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk Page 9 65 Appeal Decision APP/X1118/A/11/2162447 Agenda Item 7 Appendix D prior approval of surfacing proposals for the access and track, are necessary for the same reason and to minimise harm to visual amenity.
47. A scheme for additional planting should be approved and implemented in the interests of visual amenity, with provision for replacement within the first five years, as proposals in this regard submitted with the planning application lack sufficient detail. However, this need not be framed in the overly prescriptive terms suggested by the District Council. For the same reason, restrictions on the colour and finish of the static caravan to match that of the existing barn, as suggested by the Appellant, and the locations of the caravans within the site are desirable. External lighting could be harmful visually and, accordingly, any such proposals must first be approved by the District Council.
48. Adherence to the Appellant’s ecological method statement in carrying out frontage clearance and reinstatement is required to guard against harm to nature conservation objectives. Given the expert view of the specialist advising the District Council, a condition to safeguard archaeological interests is unnecessary. Occupation of the site must be limited to gypsies and travellers to ensure that the land remains permanently available to meet their specific needs. However, having regard to advice in paragraph 93 of the Annex to Circular 11/95, I find no reason to make the permission personal to the Appellant or, as there would only be one residential caravan, to restrict occupation to a single family unit.
49. I have attached a condition listing the approved drawings in order to facilitate applications for minor material amendments, making clear that the elevational details of the envisaged twin-unit caravan are illustrative only. However, a requirement to establish the access at a point other than that for which permission is sought, as suggested by the Parish Council, would exceed the scope of the appeal. Moreover, the size of the site and the extent of existing hardstanding within it are such that a stipulation that specific turning facilities be provided is unnecessary.
Conclusion
50. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed and that a permanent planning permission should be granted.
Alan Woolnough
INSPECTOR
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk Page 10 66 Appeal Decision APP/X1118/A/11/2162447 Agenda Item 7 Appendix D
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
The planning permission hereby granted is subject to the following 12 conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, subject to any departure therefrom required by other conditions attached to this permission: Location Plan at 1:2500 scale, drawing no GH004 and the amended site access plan stamped as received by the local planning authority on 28 March 2011. Elevational details on drawings GH001, GH003 and GH004 are illustrative only and are not binding on this permission. 3) The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and travellers as defined in paragraph 15 of ODPM Circular 01/2006: Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites . 4) Caravans on the site at any one time shall be restricted to one static caravan for residential occupation and one touring caravan. The latter shall not be occupied residentially when on site. The caravans shall only be located in positions specifically allocated by approved drawing GH004. Notwithstanding the reference on drawing GH004 to a ‘transit site’, the site shall not be used at any time for the stationing of caravans that are occupied residentially by persons in transit. 5) Any static caravan shall be of a dark stained or unpainted timber finish or coloured so as to match the colour of the existing barn on the site at all times. 6) No development shall take place until details of schemes for the stopping up of the existing access, the surfacing of the new access and track hereby permitted and surface water drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 7) The new access shall be hardened, surfaced and drained for a distance of not less than 8 metres back from the edge of the public highway in accordance with the approved details before first being brought into use and shall thereafter be retained and maintained in the approved form. Any gate shall be provided no less than 8 metres back from the edge of the public highway, hung to open inwards away from the highway and thereafter retained in that form. 8) Visibility splays, within which no obstruction exceeding 0.6 metres in height shall be retained or introduced, shall be provided on either side of the new access hereby permitted before it is first brought into use and shall be permanently maintained thereafter. Both splays shall extend 2 metres from the nearside edge of the vehicular carriageway along the centre line of the access. From the centre point of the access, the splays shall extend 70 metres to the north and 65 metres to the south as measured along the nearside edge of the carriageway. 9) No caravan intended for residential occupation shall be stationed on the site until the new access hereby approved has been completed in accordance with the amended site access plan stamped as received by the local planning authority on 28 March 2011 and the details approved pursuant to conditions 6) and 7) above and is available for use and visibility splays in accordance with condition 8) above have been provided.
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk Page 11 67 Appeal Decision APP/X1118/A/11/2162447 Agenda Item 7 Appendix D
10) The existing vehicular access shall be permanently stopped up in accordance with the scheme approved pursuant to condition 6) above as soon as the new access is available for use. 11) Notwithstanding any details shown on the approved plans, no development shall take place until full details of landscaping works, to include bank reinstatement, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority together with an implementation programme. All removal of existing banking and planting and all new and replacement landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and implementation programme and shall adhere to the ecological method statement attached to the report by Devon Wildlife Consultants dated 14 October 2010. Any trees or plants which within five years of planting are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation. 12) No external lighting shall be installed at the appeal site unless details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, including hours of use and intensity and direction of illumination. Any such installation shall take place as approved.
END OF SCHEDULE
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk Page 12 68 Appeal Decision APP/X1118/A/11/2162447 Agenda Item 7 Appendix D APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Mrs A T Heine Heine Planning Consultancy BSc MSc MRTPI
Mr J P Hurlstone The Hurlstone Partnership BSc(Hons) CMILT MCIHT
Mr G Hill Appellant
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Ms J Watkins Planning Officer, North Devon District Council
Mr R Chaffe Development Management Officer, Devon County Council
INTERESTED PERSON:
Mr D O’Cathail Local resident
DOCUMENTS PUT IN AT THE HEARING
1 Notification letters and e-mails dated 1 November 2011 and 30 January 2012, with lists of those notified, supplied by the Council 2 Copy of e-mail from Mrs Thomas to the Planning Inspectorate, dated 9 February 2012, with correspondence from Mr & Mrs Manning attached, submitted by the Council 3 Gypsy and Traveller caravan counts, updated 21 July 2010 and 1 February and 18 August 2011, submitted by the Council 4 Letter from Clare Spicer dated 13 February 2012, submitted by the Appellant
PLANS
A.1 to A.6 Application plans comprising location plan, drawing nos GH001, GH002, GH003 and GH004 and amended site access plan B A3 size copy of drawing no 110403 Figure 1, dated July 2011, supplied by the Appellant
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk Page 13 69 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8
Application Report Strategic Development & Planning Place Services North Devon Council Lynton House, Commercial Road, Barnstaple, EX31 1DG
Application No: 71957 Application 13 November Expiry: 2020 Application Type: Full application Ext Of Time 13 November Expiry: 2020 Publicity Expiry: 14 September 2020 Parish/Ward: Satterleigh & Warkleigh/Chittlehampton Location: Barn Adjacent Holtgate Chittlehamholt Devon Proposal: Change of use of land to create additional curtilage, installation of treatment plant and one flue Agent: Mr Nigel Polkinghorne Applicant: Mr Lane Planning Case Officer: Mr O. Mathers Departure: N EIA Development: EIA Conclusion: Development is outside the scope of the Regulations. Decision Level/Reason for Report to Committee Committee : Applicant is a Councillor
Site Description The site comprises two independent units of accommodation approved under Class Q, application reference 64939. The land is to the North East of Chittlehamholt and is accessed via a private farm track serving the approved dwellings. The land slopes steeply down to the south and east, with a more level area of ground cover abutting the northern boundary. The site is surrounded by open agricultural fields to the north east and east. To the south of the site are woodlands.
With regards to site constraints, the site benefits from minimal flood risks as it lies outside of Environment Agency Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3, and is not situated within an identified Critical Drainage Area. Additionally, the site does not feature any areas of land within a SSSI or indeed within an identified AONB. There is a listed building in proximity.
Recommendation: Approved Legal Agreement Required:- No
Page 71 Agenda Item 8
Planning History
Planning Decision Decision Date 52942 Withdrawn Invalid 15 December 2011
Address: Holtgate, Chittlehamholt, Umberleigh, Devon, EX37 9PD Proposal: Erection of one agricultural building for hay / straw / implements & livestock
53206 Full Planning Approval 20 February 2012
Address: Land adj Holtgate, Chittlehamholt, Umberleigh, Devon, EX37 9PD Proposal: Erection of agricultural building for storage & livestock
64939 Prior Approval Granted 17 July 2018
Address: Barn south east of Holtgate, Chittlehamholt, , Devon, EX37 9PD Proposal: Prior Approval for change of use of agricultural building to two dwellinghouses (Class Q(A)(B)) (Amended Plan)
Constraints/Planning Policy
Constraint / Local Plan Policy Distance (Metres) Area of Special Advert Control Within constraint Burrington Radar Safeguard Area Within constraint Class III Road Landscape Character is: 5D Estate Wooded Farmland Within constraint Listed Building Curtilage (Adjacent to) Within constraint Within Adopted Unesco Biosphere Transition (ST14) Within constraint
DM01 - Amenity Considerations DM04 - Design Principles DM05 - Highways DM06 - Parking Provision DM07 - Historic Environment DM08 - Biodiversity and Geodiversity DM25 - Residential Extensions and Ancillary Development
Consultees
Name Comment Councillor R No comments received. Jenkins DCC - No adverse highways impacts have been identified. Development Management Highways
Page 72 Agenda Item 8
Environment No identified flood risks. Agency
Heritage & I do not consider that this proposal will cause harm to the Conservation significance of the heritage asset. Officer
Reply Received 27 August 2020 Satterleigh & No comments received. Warkleigh Parish Council
South West The applicant is advised that the foul drainage system installed Water may also be required to comply with Environment Agency requirements and Building Regulation requirements therefore they are advised to contact the relevant organisations to ensure compliance.
Neighbours Comments No Objection Object Petition No. Signatures 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Considerations
Proposed Development The application seeks detailed planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to residential in order to create additional residential curtilage, together with the installation of a package treatment plant and a flue to be installed on the roof of ‘Unit 2’. The development proposed relates to two barns (Unit 1 and Unit 2) given approval under Class Q legislation, application reference: 64939.
The area of agricultural land proposed to be changed into domestic curtilage surrounding the converted barns measures approximately 747 metres squared.
Planning Considerations Summary Principle and use Design Amenity Highways Flood Risks/Surface Water Drainage Ecology/Wildlife Foul Drainage
Planning Considerations In the determination of a planning application Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is relevant. It states that for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts, the determination is to be made in accordance with the
Page 73 Agenda Item 8
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for this area includes the Devon Waste Plan and North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. The relevant Policies are detailed above.
Section 16 of the Listed Building Act, in considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the Local Planning Authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration.
Principle and Use The application site is situated within the open countryside which falls under Policy ST07: Spatial development strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area of the NDTLP which states “In the countryside, beyond Local Centres, Villages and Rural Settlements, development will be limited to that which is enabled to meet local, economic and social needs, rural building reuse and development which is necessarily restricted to a countryside location”.
This application is seeking the change of use from agricultural land to a residential private curtilage featuring a gravelled area, a turning bay and useable amenity space associated with the two recently converted barn units.
It is normally the case that special justification has to be given for new development within the countryside to ensure that there is no visual impact. However, in this instance the land in question is immediately adjacent to the two approved barn conversions.
Given the recent residential use associated with the barn conversion, it is unlikely that the surrounding land would be utilised for the purposes of agriculture by virtue of this fact. The newly proposed area of residential curtilage is modest in scale when compared to the two dwellings and it is therefore considered acceptable in principle, subject to other material planning considerations which will be considered below.
Design With regards to scale, the proposed flue will not significantly alter the scale of ‘Unit 2’ barn conversion.
Page 74 Agenda Item 8
The material selection of metal is proportionate and necessary for the functionality as a flue. The scale, proportion and design of the changes are therefore considered to be appropriate.
The proposed driveway and turning area are to be made of gravel; a porous and appropriate material for the functionality of allowing vehicles to move.
With the aforementioned points considered, there are no significant issues that are perceived to arise from the proposals in respect of the scale, design and character that would warrant a refusal. Therefore, the proposals are considered to comply with Policy DM04, DM07 and DM25 of the Local Plan and the design objectives established in the NPPF.
Amenity The two dwellings have very few immediate neighbours, the closest being ‘Holtgate’ approximately 90 metres away. The site is bound by trees, hedges and other forms of planted boundaries and consequently offers few views from wider public vantage points. The activities associated with residential land is not anticipated to adversely impact the amenities of the surround in comparison with the current associated agricultural use.
Therefore, there are no identified amenity impacts and the proposals are considered to be in accordance with paragraph 180 of the NPPF and policy DM01 of the Adopted Local Plan.
Highways Policy DM05 of the Local Plan states that all development must ensure safe and well- designed vehicular access and egress, adequate parking and layouts which consider the needs and accessibility of all highway users including cyclists and pedestrians. It also states that development must protect and enhance existing public rights of way, footways, cycleways and bridleways and facilitate improvements to existing or provide new connections to these routes where practical to do so.
Policy DM06 of the Local Plan (Parking Provision) states that development proposals will be expected to provide an appropriate scale and range of parking provision to meet anticipated needs, having regard to the:(a) accessibility and sustainability of the site; (b) availability of public transport; (c) provision of safe walking and cycling routes; and (d) specific scale, type and mix of development.
Parking provision and turning within the site will be improved by the gravel driveway and turning area and the access will remain unchanged. Consequently, there are no known highways risks or parking issues associated with this proposal that would warrant a refusal of the application. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with adopted Local Plan policies DM05, DM06 and the guise of the NPPF.
Heritage and Conservation The application site lies to the south east of a Grade II listed building, namely ‘Holtgate’ (reference: 1258737). The Heritage and Conservation Officer has advised:
Page 75 Agenda Item 8
“I do not consider that this proposal will cause harm to the significance of the heritage asset”.
Consequently, in light of these comments it is considered that there are no adverse heritage impacts that would arise as a result of the proposed change of use, flue and treatment plant.
Surface Water Drainage The site is not located within a designated Environment Agency Flood Risk Zone or within an identified Critical Drainage Area (CDA). Surface water runoff is to be directed and discharged into the existing soakaway system on site. Consequently, there are no identified surface water drainage concerns associated with the proposals which would warrant a refusal.
Ecology/Wildlife Local Planning Authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that the impact of development on wildlife is fully considered during the determination of a planning application under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (Habitats Regulations 2017).
Policy DM08 of the Local Plan states that Adverse impacts on European and UK protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan habitats and species must be avoided wherever possible and that they must be adequately and proportionately mitigated, if full mitigation cannot be provided, compensation will be required as a last resort.
In terms of protected species, the wildlife trigger list supplied indicates that works are to be undertaken on existing roof structure of Unit 2 in order to allow for the flue. However, under application 64939 a new roof was granted to allow for the barn conversion. The agent, has stated “I have inspected the inside and outside of the property and confirm there no wildlife present”. Moreover, no concerns have been raised by the Sustainability Officer and the site is considered unlikely to be a preferred location for wildlife.
Consequently, it is not considered that any further wildlife survey work would be required in this instance.
Foul Drainage A package treatment plant is proposed as part of the application. Necessary informatives are included to remind the applicant of the associated works.
Conclusion The proposed change of use of land from agriculture to domestic curtilage and the erection of a flue, by virtue of their design and appearance will be commensurate to the functional need of providing a amenities on site.
The development is well related to neighbouring properties and the public realm without detrimentally impacting amenities. There are no adverse highways implications, surface water drainage concerns or landscape impacts associated with the proposals. There are no identified wildlife or ecology impacts that would warrant a refusal of the application. The development is therefore considered to be in accordance with paragraphs 14, 17,
Page 76 Agenda Item 8
and 109 of the NPPF and policies DM01, DM04, DM05, DM07 and DM25 of the Local Plan.
It can therefore be concluded that a conditional approval of this application is recommended.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
The provisions of the Human Rights Act and principles contained in the Convention on Human Rights have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report. The articles/protocols identified below were considered of particular relevance:
Article 8 – Right to Respect for Private and Family Life THE FIRST PROTOCOL – Article 1: Protection of Property
Recommendation Approved Legal Agreement Required:- No
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 : The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans/details: 602 20 B Site Plan received on the 11/08/20, 602 01A Location Plan received on the 11/08/20, 602 30 B Elevations Floors Proposed received on the 11/08/20, ('the approved plans').
Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of proper planning.
Informatives 1. The applicant is advised that the foul drainage system installed may also be required to comply with Environment Agency requirements and Building Regulation requirements therefore they are advised to contact the relevant organisations to ensure compliance.
2. Statement of Engagement In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive and pro-active way and has imposed planning
Page 77 Agenda Item 8
conditions to enable the grant of planning permission. This has included an assessment of the design, amenity impacts, highways impacts, surface water drainage, foul water drainage, ecology and historic environment.
Inserts
1. Location Plan
Page 78 Agenda Item 8 Appendix A
Copy Supplied to Accompany Planning 71957 - Barn adj. Holtgate, Chittlehamholt Committee Report Lynton House, Commercial Road, Page 79 Scale: 1:5000 Barnstaple, EX31 1EA Date: 11 Nov 2020 © Copyright and database right 2017 Ordnance Survey Licence No. 100021929. No unauthorised reproduction permitted. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9
Planning and Enforcement Appeals Report
Strategic Development & Planning Place Services North Devon Council Lynton House, Commercial Road, Barnstaple, EX31 1DG
REPORT TO: Planning Committee COMMITTEE DATE: 11th November 2020
TOPIC: Planning and Enforcement Appeal Decisions received REPORT BY: Sue Thomas – Senior Planning Support Officer (Appeals)
Please find attached copies of the Planning and Enforcement Appeal decisions received since those reported at the last Planning Committee Meeting. If Members wish to discuss any of the cases at the Planning Committee Meeting please would they email [email protected] or telephone Sue Thomas on 01271 388296 by 12 noon on 9th November 2020.
Inserts
1. Planning Enforcement Appeal Decision re 10191 – Pinetree Lodge, Thornlands, Combe Martin – Appeal Dismissed and Enforcement Notice Upheld 6th October 2020 2. Planning Appeal Decision re 71324- Land at Broadpark, East Down – Appeal Allowed 21st October 2020 3. Planning Enforcement Appeal Decision re 10625 – The White Hart Inn, Bratton Fleming – Appeal Dismissed and Enforcement Notice Upheld with correction and variation 30th October 2020
Page 81 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9
Appendix A
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 August 2020
by Roy Curnow MA BSc(Hons) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 06 October 2020
Appeal Ref: APP/X1118/C/20/3249509 Pinetree Lodge, Thornlands, Combe Martin, Ilfracombe, Devon EX34 0NT • The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. • The appeal is made by Stephen Paul Senn against an enforcement notice issued by North Devon District Council. • The enforcement notice, numbered 10191, was issued on 20 February 2020. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is within the last ten years the unauthorised change of use consisting of the industrial (B2) use of a porta cabin. • The requirement of the notice is cease the use of the porta cabin as B2 use (approximate position coloured blue on the attached location plan). • The period for compliance is three months. • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice is upheld.
Preliminary Matter
2. The notice refers to a porta cabin, whilst the appellant refers to a portacabin. Both are in common usage, and I have used the form given in the notice.
3. The notice alleges the change of use of the porta cabin, rather than the change of use of the land on which it stands. This indicates that Council’s position is that the porta cabin is a building. I have been given no evidence to suggest otherwise and from what I saw on the site, having mind to the established case law in Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v SSETR (No.2) [2000] 2 PLR 102, I have treated the porta cabin as a building.
Reasons
4. Thornlands is a small collection of properties that lie in the open countryside. The porta cabin that is the subject of this appeal lies on the north side of the drive that gives access to the three properties, including Pinetree Lodge. The porta cabin is sited a short distance to the west of Pinetree Lodge, outside the wall that bounds it. Whilst it might be on land in the same ownership, the porta cabin is outside the curtilage to Pinetree Lodge. Although there appears to be no planning permission for the porta cabin, the evidence suggests that this has been in place for over ten years.
5. The “planning unit” is a concept which has evolved as a means of determining the most appropriate physical area against which to assess the materiality of
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 83 Agenda Item 9 Appeal Decision APP/X1118/C/20/3249509 Appendix A changes of use. The starting point for the identification of the planning unit is the principles set out in the case of Burdle1. From the evidence, I find that the “planning unit” here is the footprint of the porta cabin, much as shown on the plan attached the notice.
6. A ground (d) appeal is made on the basis that, at the time when the notice was issued, no enforcement action could be taken in respect of any breach of planning control which may be constituted by those matters. The burden of proof lies with the appellant to make his case.
7. Therefore, the appeal turns on whether he can show, on the balance of probability and using evidence that is precise and unambiguous, that the porta cabin has been continuously used for purposes within Use Class B22 (Industrial) purposes for at least ten years at the time that the notice was issued. That is to say, at least since 20 February 2010 (‘the relevant date’).
8. In his statement, the appellant states that the porta cabin “has been used as a commercial rental/storage unit” with uses “ranging from metal working, business storage, private storage, commercial kitchen, jewellery workshop, music studio, mail order caravan parts and its current occupant as a carpentry workshop”.
9. I have not been given evidence that meets the required standard to show that these uses fall within Use Class B2. On face value, business storage, private storage, commercial kitchen, music studio or mail order caravan parts would not, whilst metal working and jewellery workshop might. It might be that the manner in which all of these uses were carried out, including when used by Alan Taylor between April 2006 and April 2009, was not materially different from a B2 use. However, I simply have not been provided with the required evidence in this regard, nor as to when these various uses were being carried out, to be able to reach such a conclusion.
10. The evidence, including a site visit report by the Council’s Enforcement Officer dated 29 July 2017 and a third-party representation from Mr and Mrs Spicer, suggests that the use as a carpentry workshop, within Use Class B2, started sometime in 2015 and was in place at the time that the notice was served. This leaves the appellant to demonstrate the continuous use of the porta cabin for B2 purposes between the relevant date and the commencement of the carpentry workshop use. He has not done so.
11. That there might have been several enforcement investigations at Pinetree Lodge over the years, including the issuing and later withdrawal of an enforcement notice, does not equate to supporting evidence for this ground (d) appeal.
12. This appeal has to be assessed on its individual merits. In this regard, the appellant has failed to demonstrate, using precise and unambiguous evidence, that the porta cabin has been used for purposes within Use Class B2 for a period of ten continuous years to the date when the notice was served.
1 Burdle v Secretary of State for the Environment [1972] 1 WLR 1207 2 The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 84 2 Agenda Item 9 Appeal Decision APP/X1118/C/20/3249509 Appendix A Conclusion
13. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. I shall uphold the enforcement notice.
Roy Curnow
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 85 3 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9
Appendix B
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 October 2020 by Matthew Jones BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 October 2020
Appeal Ref: APP/X1118/W/20/3255229 Land at Broadpark, East Down, Barnstaple, Devon EX31 4NA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under required under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mr Dominic McGuire against the decision of North Devon District Council. • The application Ref 71324, dated 15 March 2020, was refused by notice dated 3 April 2020. • The development proposed is a steel portal frame barn for the storage of forestry equipment.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and approval is granted under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 6, Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the Order) for the siting, design and external appearance of a steel portal frame barn for the storage of forestry equipment at Land at Broadpark, East Down, Barnstaple, Devon EX31 4NA in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 71324, dated 15 March 2020, and the plans submitted with it.
Procedural Matter
2. The Council’s decision notice does not explicitly state that prior approval is refused. However, looking at the notice as a whole, including the statement of the applicant’s rights, in addition to the Council’s evidence submitted with the appeal, it is reasonable to read the notice as a refusal of prior approval.
Preliminary Matters and Main Issue
3. Class E of Part 6, Schedule 2 of the Order permits, amongst other things, the carrying out on land, used for the purposes of forestry, development reasonably necessary for those purposes consisting of works for the erection of a building. This is subject to the conditions set out within paragraph E.2 of the Order.
4. The Council no longer disputes whether or not the barn is reasonably necessary for the purposes of forestry and, with due regard to relevant case law, this matter falls beyond the scope of my remit in any case1.
5. Given such, the main issue is confined to the siting, design and external appearance of the barn in accordance with condition E.2(1)(a) of the Order.
1 R (on the application of Marshall) v East Dorset District Council and Pitman [2018] EWHC 226 (admin) https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 87 Agenda Item 9 Appeal Decision APP/X1118/W/20/3255229 Appendix B Reasons
6. The site is a long and quite thin parcel of curving land set down within a valley. The surrounding area is decidedly rural, with verdant agricultural fields scattered with isolated houses, farm buildings and residential barn conversions.
7. The barn would be located towards the west extremity of the appeal site, in a secluded and low-lying position far from principal public views from the nearest highway. The building would be a reasonably modest structure with a simple palette of materials, leading it to have a utilitarian form compatible with this rural environment. Accordingly, I find that the siting, design and external appearance of the building would not result in harm to the surrounding area.
Conclusion
8. I conclude that the siting, design and external appearance of the building would be acceptable and therefore, the appeal should be allowed.
Matthew Jones INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 88 2 Agenda Item 9
Appendix C
Appeal Decision by Roy Curnow MA BSc(Hons) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 October 2020
Appeal A Ref: APP/X1118/C/19/3240256 Appeal B Ref: APP/X1118/C/19/3240257 The White Hart Inn, Bratton Fleming, Barnstaple, Devon EX31 4SA • The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. • Appeal A is made by Mr Philip Milton against an enforcement notice (‘the notice’) issued by North Devon District Council. • Appeal B is made by Mrs Helen Milton against an enforcement notice issued by North Devon District Council. • The enforcement notice, numbered 10625, was issued on 10 October 2019. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is within the last four years, unauthorised material change of use consisting of the residential use of a public house. • The requirements of the notice are: (1) Cease the use of the residential use [sic] of the public house building and the land edged red on the attached plan; (2) Remove the kitchen and cooking facilities from the residential unit known as The Apartment; and (3) Remove any rubbish or debris resulting from complying with steps 1 and 2. • The period for compliance with the requirements is within nine months of the date when this notice takes effect. • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Since the prescribed fees have not been paid within the specified period, the appeal on ground (a) and the application for planning permission deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the Act as amended have lapsed. Summary Decision: The appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice is upheld with correction and variation.
Procedural Matter
1. Given that both appeals were made on ground (d) alone, and the situation regarding the Covid pandemic, the parties were asked whether they had any objection to the appeal being taken forward without a site visit. Neither objected to this. As no party would be prejudiced by doing so, my decision has been reached on this basis.
The appeal on ground (d)
2. To succeed on this ground, the appellant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the use of the land alleged in the notice occurred on or before 10 October 2015 (‘the relevant date’) and continued for at least 4 years after the change without substantial interruption.
3. From the evidence before me, The White Hart (TWH) is a public house lying towards the centre of the village of Bratton Fleming. This ceased trading in 2012 and was vacant until bought by the appellants in 2014.
4. It is reported that it was in an “abandoned state” when bought. However, this does not necessarily equate with its use being abandoned in line with
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 89 Agenda Item 9 Appeal Decisions APP/X1118/C/20/3240256 and APP/X1118/C/20/3240257 Appendix C established case law in Hartley v MHLG [1970] and Trustees of Castell-y- Mynach Estate v Taff-Ely BC [1985] JPL 40. In the latter, the Court suggested four criteria for abandonment: the period of non-use, the physical condition of the land or building, whether there had been any other use, and the owner’s intentions as to whether to suspend the use or to cease it permanently. In this regard, I note the financial difficulties that have been encountered by those running the pub over the years. However, I have not been provided with evidence, based on the tests in Castell-y-Mynach, to find that the use of the property as a pub (Use Class A41) was abandoned when the appellants purchased it.
5. The appellants sought to develop the site and their application for planning permission was refused. TWH was registered as an Asset of Community Value in 2016, but this lapsed. Both parties understand that a further application for registration as an ACV has been made.
6. To avoid the property being empty and vulnerable, the appellants decided to let part of the property for residential purposes. They describe the two units that were so let on the first floor of TWH as the Flat and the Apartment. According to the Council, the latter was previously known as the Bedsit, but I use the title the Apartment for clarity.
7. Before looking at the evidence of the use of the residential units, it is important in cases such as this to identify the correct planning unit, using the established judgement in Burdle v SoS for the Environment [1972]. Determining the planning unit allows an assessment to be undertaken as to whether and, if so, when a material change of use has occurred.
8. Parties agree that the Flat was used as accommodation by the pub’s Manager. It was, therefore, ancillary to the use of the pub. The Council’s belief is that the Apartment was used as overflow accommodation ancillary to the pub. As this has not been specifically countered by the appellants, I take it to be the case. Following the terms of Burdle, I find that TWH was, in its entirety, a single planning unit until 31 July 2014.
9. The appellants’ evidence shows the Flat was first let independent of the pub on this date. That is to say, a material change of use occurred prior to the relevant date. The judgement in Swale BC v FSS & Lee related to assessing the continuous nature of breaches of planning control involving changes of use. Amongst other things, it sets out that where there are gaps in occupation a decision must be reached on whether these are de minimis. During substantial breaks, that is to say breaks that are not de minimis, the continuous use would have been broken and in these periods the Council would have been unable to take enforcement action against the use.
10. I consider the break in the occupation of the Flat for 3 weeks in March 2015, during a change in tenants, not to be substantial. The Council state, in paragraph 5.13 of its statement, that the Flat was empty for two months from May to July 2018; this was not challenged by the appellants in their final comments. Whilst, perhaps, at the upper end of a de minimis break, in the circumstances I again do not find this to be a substantial break.
1 Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 90 2 Agenda Item 9 Appeal Decisions APP/X1118/C/20/3240256 and APP/X1118/C/20/3240257 Appendix C 11. Both, however, differ markedly from the 7-month break between 23 October 2016 and 15 May 2017 when a variety of upgrading works were carried out at TWH. Various reasons have been given for the length of this break - including the nature of the works involved, that the period during which those works were undertaken included the 2016 Christmas period, and that the “works were prolonged by the workmen engaged”. Notwithstanding these reasons, this break was substantial. It did not equate to the sort of “fallow period” referred to in Thurrock Borough Council v SSE [2001]. Following the lead of the judgement in Swale, the Council would have been precluded from taking enforcement action against the breach during this period.
12. Although it was the intention of the appellants to continue to let the Flat after the work, the continuous nature of the breach was broken. As such, the required 4-year period for the Flat was not achieved.
13. An email2 to the Council’s Council Tax department, from Mr Milton, shows that from 23 April 2016 the Apartment was let as a self-contained residential unit. The evidence shows that a Mr Burrell rented both units with the intention of sub-letting one of them. Due to personal and health issues, he moved to the Apartment and gave up the Flat. In the email, Mr Milton states that prior to this date there was no kitchen in the Apartment.
14. The lack of a kitchen adds weight to the Council’s assertion that the Apartment had been used as ancillary accommodation. It also points to the Apartment not being a self-contained unit until this time. Thus, the evidence shows on the balance of probability that its first use for residential purposes independent of the pub was after the relevant date. Therefore, a continuous material change of use of the Apartment for the required 4-year period cannot be demonstrated.
15. On the basis of the submitted evidence, it has not been shown that the residential use of TWH has been carried out for a continuous period of four years prior to the notice being issued. Therefore, the evidence before me does not show that, when the notice was issued, no enforcement action could be taken in respect of the breach of planning control.
Other Matters
16. My attention has been drawn to an appeal decision relating to an appeal against an enforcement notice at the ‘Ring O’ Bells’ pub in Praxton3. Whilst this was submitted after the date for final comments, it was accepted in accordance with the guidance in paragraph 1.12 of the ‘Enforcement Appeals: Procedural Guide’ July 2020 as there are undoubted similarities between the ‘Ring O’ Bells’ case and that which is before me.
17. However, notwithstanding these similarities, each appeal must be determined on its own merits. Therefore, the appeal before me does not turn on the ‘Ring O’ Bells’ decision.
18. I note, however, that I share a concern expressed by the Inspector in that case regarding the wording of the Requirements of the notice. In the first of these, the Council requires the cessation of the residential use of the public house building. From the evidence before me, the established lawful use of the premises is a public house with ancillary living accommodation on the first
2 27 April 2016 - included in the Appellants’ Appendix 5 3 APP/X1118/C/19/3237425 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 91 3 Agenda Item 9 Appeal Decisions APP/X1118/C/20/3240256 and APP/X1118/C/20/3240257 Appendix C floor. Therefore, the cessation of “residential use” could be interpreted as preventing any future residential use whatsoever. Were the pub to re-open, this could preclude the lawful use of the first-floor living accommodation for residential purposes ancillary to the primary use of the property as a public house.
19. I shall amend the requirement to specify that the residential use which must cease is such residential use as is unconnected with the use of the premises as a pub. This will prevent any misunderstanding, and I am satisfied that this will cause no injustice to either the Council or the Appellant.
20. There is, furthermore, a slight drafting error in this requirement where an extraneous “use of the” appears before the words “residential use of the public house…”. This can be deleted without altering the intended meaning of the requirement, which has been readily understood in any event.
21. In reaching my findings I have been aware of the issues relating to the registration of the property as an ACV. However, it has not been demonstrated that this has had any bearing on the residential use of the property. That “tenants have been housed via the Council” is not relevant to this ground of appeal against the notice, which relates solely to the period that the Flat and the Apartment have been used. It is reported that the Council did not follow its enforcement protocol. This is a matter that lies outside the remit of the appeal process and would have to be taken up with the Council. The Council has not suggested that there has been any concealment, and I find no reason to find otherwise.
Conclusion
22. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal against the enforcement notice should not succeed. I shall uphold the notice with correction.
Formal Decision
23. It is directed that the enforcement notice be corrected by:
• at paragraph 6 requirement 1, between the word “Cease…” and the phrase “…the residential use of…”, deleting the words “the use of”
and varied by:
• at paragraph 6 requirement 1, adding the words “other than for purposes ancillary to the primary use of the premises as a public house” after the words “…the attached plan”.
24. Subject to correction and variation, the appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice is upheld.
Roy Curnow
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 92 4