Public Document Pack North Devon Council Brynsworthy Environment Centre Barnstaple North Devon EX31 3NP

M. Mansell, BSc (Hons), F.C.P.F.A. Chief Executive.

PLANNING COMMITTEE

A Special meeting of the Planning Committee will be held in the Barnstaple Rugby Club Main Room - Barnstaple Rugby Club on WEDNESDAY, 17TH APRIL, 2019 at 10.00 am.

(NOTE: A location plan for the Rugby Club is attached to the agenda front pages)

NOTE: Please note that copies of letters of representation have been placed on North Devon Council’s website and are also available in the Planning Department.

ALSO: A break at lunchtime may be taken at the discretion of the Committee dependent upon the speed of progress of determining the planning applications on the agenda.

PARKING: Please note that the Rugby Club is a pay and display car park (£1.70 all day). Other nearby car parks are located at Mill Road Car Park (adjacent to the Rugby Club – 40p per hour, maximum stay 3 hours), Fairview (£1.70 all day) or Rolle Quay (£1.10 per hour for 1 – 4 hours. 5 hours - £5.60, 6 hours - £6.80, 7 hours - £8.00, 8 hours - £9.20).

Members of the Planning Committee Councillor Ley (Chairman)

Councillors Bonds, Chesters, Crabb, Croft, Edmunds, Flynn, Fowler, Gubb, Lane, Leaver, Prowse, Spear, Tucker, Worden and Yabsley

AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence

2. To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 13th March 2019. (Pages 11 - 16)

3. Items brought forward which in the opinion of the Chairman should be considered by the meeting as a matter of urgency

4. 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)

5. To agree the agenda between Part 'A' and Part 'B' (Confidential Restricted Information)

PART A

6. 63167: Lee Bay Hotel, Ilfracombe (Pages 17 - 176) Demolition of existing hotel, erection of 23 dwellings, formation of new public open space, extension to existing car park, erection of Café and WC block and associated landscaping, drainage and highway works (amended plans and documents) (revised information) (additional information), Lee Bay Hotel, Lee, Ilfracombe, EX34 8LR.

7. 65813: The Barn, Landkey (Pages 177 - 188) Variation of condition 3 (submission of landscaping as a reserved matter prior to commencement), condition 5 (submission of boundary treatment at the same time as the reserved matters landscaping), condition 7 (submission of site contamination report prior to commencement) and condition 8 (submission of construction management plan prior to commencement) attached to outline application 55288 for erection of one dwelling (amended plans and description, only matter reserved is landscaping), The Barn, Whiddon Park, Landkey Road, Barnstaple, EX32 9LA.

8. 65926: 4-6 Wilder Road, Ilfracombe (Pages 189 - 198) Removal of conditions 3 and 4 attached to Planning permissions 15310 (conversion of existing dwellings to form hostel for young people with associated skill training rooms and wardens flat). Removal of conditions 3 and 4 (use restrictions) attached to Planning permission 22076 (conversion of disused building to form 9 no. Flatlets and ancillary Coffee Bar and seminar room for use by Wilder Park Cottage project) (amended description and location plan), 4 - 6– Wilder Road, Ilfracombe, EX34 8BN.

9. 66290: Ilfracombe Youth Canoe Club, Ilfracombe (Pages 199 - 206) Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) attached to Planning permission 63082 (erection of one storage building), Ilfracombe Youth Canoe Club, Larkstone Lane, Ilfracombe, EX34 9NU.

10. 66400: Tarka Tennis Centre, Barnstaple (Pages 207 - 216) Approval of details in respect of discharge of condition 11 (contamination), 13 (piling re floodlights), 14/15 (surface water management), 16 (construction management), 18 (lighting), 19 (lemp), 20 (tree protection), attached to planning permission 63351 (outline planning permission) in respect of the AGP works (amended description), Tarka Tennis Centre, Seven Brethren Bank, Barnstaple, EX31 2AS.

2

11. 66445: Tarka Tennis Centre, Barnstaple (Pages 217 - 226) Reserved matters application for artificial grass pitch (layout/scale/appearance and landscaping) along with levels and means of enclosure (outline application 63351), Tarka Tennis Centre, Seven Brethren Bank, Barnstaple EX31 2AS.

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 1 of the Constitution, Members should note that:

"A Member appointed to a Committee or Sub-Committee who:

(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;

Shall not:

(i) propose or second any motion or amendment; or (ii) cast a vote

in relation to that item if the Committee or Sub-Committee (as the case may be):

(c) Is sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity in relation to that item; or (d) The item is an application submitted pursuant to the Planning Acts and, in such a case, the Member shall also leave the room if at any time the public and press are excluded in respect of that item."

REGISTERING TO SPEAK

 If you wish to address the Planning Committe you should contact the Committee Administrator in advance of the Committee on 01271 388253 or speak to them just before the meeting commences.

WHAT HAPPENS AT COMMITTEE?

 The Chairman will introduce himself/herself  The Planning Officer will present his/her report  The Chairman will call out the names of individuals who have registered to speak  Speakers will be restricted to 3 minutes each (which is timed and bleeped). A maximum of six supporters and six objectors of the application may speak at committee. The applicant or agent and representative of the parish council may also speak at committee.  Once public participation has finished, the Planning Officer will be given the opportunity to respond or to clarify any points that have arisen from the public participation exercise  The Members of the Committee shall then debate the application (at this point the public shall take no further part in the debate)

WHEN SPEAKING

3

 State clearly your name, who you are representing and whether you are supporting or objecting to the application  Speak slowly, clearly and loud enough for everyone to hear you, and direct your comments to the Chairman and the Committee  Try to be brief, avoid being repetitive, and try to prepare what you want to say beforehand.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

 A record of the decisions taken at the meeting is produced (known as the “minutes of the meeting”)  The minutes of the meeting are published on the Council’s Website: www.northdevon.gov.uk

4

APPOINTMENT OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS AT MEETINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

In accordance with the North Devon Council Constitution, a Member or Leader or Deputy Leader of a Political Group, appointing a substitute shall notify the Proper Officer of the name of his/her substitute. Notification by a Member purporting to be a substitute Member will not be accepted.

In the case of a substitution to the Planning Committee, the substitute Member shall sign and lodge this certificate with the Corporate and Community Support Manager confirming the acceptance of the appointment and that they have completed all Planning training modules provided to Members.

DATE OF PLANNING COMMITTEE: ...... [Insert date]

For completion by Member of the Planning Committee requiring a substitute

I, Councillor...... [print name], hereby declare that I appoint

Councillor ...... [insert name of substitute Member] to substitute for me at the above mentioned meeting of the Planning Committee:

[signature]...... [date]...... OR

For completion by Leader/Deputy Leader of a political group nominating a substitute

I, Councillor...... [print name of group Leader/Deputy Leader], hereby declare that I appoint Councillor ...... [insert name of substitute Member of same political Group] to substitute for Councillor

...... [insert name] at the above mentioned meeting of the Planning

Committee.

[signature]...... [date]...... AND

For completion by substitute Member accepting appointment of substitute

I, Councillor ...... [print name], hereby confirm that I accept the appointment of Substitute for the above mentioned Planning Committee and hereby confirm that I have undertaken all appropriate Planning training modules in relation to the same.

[signature]...... [date]......

NOTE: FORM TO BE COMPLETED AND RECEIVED BY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING

5

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.

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.

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.

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].

6

The Barnstaple Rugby Club full address is: Barnstaple RFC, Pottington Road, Barnstaple, EX31 1JH.

At the traffic lights at the end of Rolle Street on the B3149 turn either left or right onto Mill Road according to the direction that you are travelling from. Follow the road along and turn right onto Pottington Road.

The Rugby Club is located on your left. Please note that the Rugby Club is a pay and display car park (£1.70 all day). Other nearby car parks are located at Fairview (£1.70 all day) or Rolle Quay (£1.10 per hour for 1 – 4 hours. 5 hours - £5.60, 6 hours - £6.80, 7 hours - £8.00, 8 hours - £9.20).

7

9.04.19

8

9

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 2 Planning Committee - 13 March 2019

NORTH DEVON COUNCIL

Minutes of a meeting of Planning Committee held at Barnstaple Rugby Club Main Room - Barnstaple Rugby Club on Wednesday, 13th March, 2019 at 10.00 am

PRESENT: Members:

Councillor Ley (Chairman)

Councillors Chesters, Croft, Flynn, Fowler, Gubb, Lane, Leaver, Mackie, Prowse, Spear, Tucker, Worden and Yabsley

Officers:

Head of Place, Solicitor, Senior Planning Officer and Senior Planning Officer

Also Present:

Councillors Barker

82. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Bonds and Councillor Edmunds. Councillor Mackie was appointed as a substitute for Councillor Edmunds.

83. TO APPROVE AS A CORRECT RECORD THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 13TH FEBRUARY 2019

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 13th February 2019 (circulated previously) be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

84. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIRMAN SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE MEETING AS A MATTER OF URGENCY

(a) Special Planning Committee: 17th April 2019

The Chairman advised that following the decision by the Committee at its meeting on 13th February 2019, a special meeting of the Committee had been arranged on Wednesday 17th April 2019 at 10.00 a.m. to consider planning application 63167 Lee Bay Hotel, Lee.

85. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

1 Page 11 Agenda Item 2 Planning Committee - 13 March 2019

The following declaration of interest was announced:

Councillor Worden Planning applications 64059 to 64063 – personal interest as he knew some of the objectors.

86. 64059 TO 64063: OAKLANDS POULTRY FARM, EAST ANSTEY, EX36 3PH

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Place (circulated previously – now appended).

The Senior Planning Officer reminded the Committee of the decision of deferral and the reasons made at its meeting on 14th November 2018. A full copy of the minutes was tabled. In relation to the site being located within a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Impact Risk Zone, the agent had submitted an air quality report and this had been forwarded to Natural England for comment. Since publication of the report, Natural England had confirmed that it would trigger the 4% threshold as it could impact on the Culm Grassland Special Area of Conservation (SAC)/Exmoor Heaths SAC. Therefore, the Planning Authority would be required to carry out a Habitats Regulation Assessment. If the Committee was minded to approve the application, it would be recommended that the approval be subject to the Head of Place being delegated authority to carry out a Habitats Regulation Assessment to the satisfaction of Natural England.

Councillor Barber (East Anstey Parish Council), Helen Pierce (objector), Iain Bew (objector), Lucy Moore (objector), Heather Warne (objector), Reg Howe (objector) and Kevin Bateman (agent) addressed the Committee.

In responses to questions, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the planning applications had been registered on 6th November 2017. They were retrospective applications and that the concrete pads, poultry houses and feed silos had been located on the site since before that date. As the applications had been submitted to regularise the works, enforcement action had not been pursued.

In response to questions, Lionel Shelly, Development Viability Lead from Plymouth City Council who had been appointed to provide an independent viability review on the impact of the siting of the poultry units on the potential ability of the four open market dwellings to be delivered and sold on the open market (the profits from which would go towards subsidising the 8 affordable units on the site) addressed the Committee. He advised the Committee of his background and that he had grown up and lived in the countryside and therefore had an understanding of the countryside. He had undertaken the role for 40 years. He was required to provide a review and not a full evaluation. He referred to the valuation reports that had been provided by Webbers estate agents and advised that the impact was minimal. Consideration needed to be given to whether four open market dwellings could be sold. The impact on profit made upon the sale of the open market dwellings was minimal, therefore money would be available for the provision of affordable housing. As an ex Vice-Chairman of a Parish Council, he understood the issue of providing affordable

2 Page 12 Agenda Item 2 Planning Committee - 13 March 2019

housing. He worked for Plymouth City Council and not on behalf of developers. Part of his role was to press for the provision of affordable housing. His opinion had been based on the ability for the developer to make a profit on the four open market dwellings which could then be transferred to the provision of affordable housing.

In response to a question, the Senior Planning Officer advised that as she had not been the original case officer, she was unable to comment on the considerations that had been taken into account by the previous case officer. However, the Blackerton site had been taken into consideration. The viability assessment had been undertaken to assess whether the applications would have an impact on the provision of affordable housing (planning application 55662).

In response to a question, the Solicitor advised that the Senior Planning Officer had sought advice regarding whether the five planning applications could be considered within one report. He had advised that the applications could be considered as one report, however there were five separate applications, and decisions would be required for each application.

In response to a question, the Senior Planning Officer read the statement provided by the Environmental Health Officer dated 29th October 2018 regarding the prevailing wind direction.

RESOLVED (11 for, 2 against, 0 abstained) that applications 64059, 64060, 64061, 64062 and 64063 be REFUSED for the following reasons and that the Head of Place be delegated authority in consultation with the Chair of the Committee to formulate the precise wording for the reasons:

(a) Visual impact on the Exmoor National Park;

(b) Highways Authority objections;

(c) Impact on the viability of planning application 55662;

(d) The prevailing winds would not take odours away;

(e) Contrary to policy DM14 paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f);

(f) Lack of information provided on the Habitats Regulation Assessment.

87. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

RESOLVED that the meeting be adjourned to enable a five minute comfort break.

RESOLVED that the meeting be re-convened to consider the remaining business.

3 Page 13 Agenda Item 2 Planning Committee - 13 March 2019

88. 64769: THE WATERGATE, 7 THE STRAND, BARNSTAPLE, EX31 1EU

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Place (circulated previously – now appended).

The Senior Planning Officer reported the receipt of an amended plan since the publication of the report. The amended plan omitted the fencing, reduced the number of tables from 84 to 81 and removed the sails, bandstand and lighting. Following the receipt of the amended plans, it was now recommended that reason 2 in relation to lighting only be removed. The proposal was on Council land and it was his understanding that the applicant would lease the land from the Council for a period of 15 years.

Vanessa Harrison (on behalf of Economic Development, North Devon Council), Kirsty Bowie (Sharing One Language - objector), Christopher Punt (objector), Catherine Marlow (Historic England - objector), John White (Chair of Barnstaple Carnival Committee – objector) and Graham Townsend (Barnstaple Bridge Trust – objector) addressed the Committee.

Councillor Barker (Portfolio Holder for Regeneration) addressed the Committee.

Councillor Chesters advised that as well as requiring planning permission the proposed beer garden would also require a premises licence. She confirmed that she was Chair of the Licensing Committee. However, she had attended this meeting in her capacity as Member of the Planning Committee and had not previously considered the proposal in her role as Chair of the Licensing Committee.

Councillors Lane and Yabsley declared personal interests as Members of the Executive.

RESOLVED (10 for, 3 against and 0 abstained) that the application be DEFERRED pending further negotiations to be undertaken with the applicant to seek a reduction in the scale of the scheme and to take into account the needs of the users of buildings located around the site.

89. 66037: 2 BUTCHERS ROW, BARNSTAPLE, EX31 1BW

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Place (circulated previously – now appended).

The Senior Planning Officer reported that since the publication of the report, Barnstaple Town Council had recommended approval of the application.

RESOLVED (unanimous) that the application be APPROVED as recommended by the Head of Place.

4 Page 14 Agenda Item 2 Planning Committee - 13 March 2019

Chairman The meeting ended at 12.36 pm

5 Page 15 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6

App. No.: 63167 Reg. : 06/06/2017 Applicant: ACORN BLUE L. Bldg. : Expired: 05/09/2017 Agent : PLANNINGSPHERE LTD Parish : ILFRACOMBE Case Officer : Mr. R. Pedlar

Proposal: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOTEL, ERECTION OF 21 DWELLINGS, FORMATION OF NEW PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, EXTENSION TO EXISTING CAR PARK, ERECTION OF CAFE & WC BLOCK & ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING, DRAINAGE & HIGHWAY WORKS (AMENDED PLANS & DOCUMENTS) (REVISED INFORMATION) (ADDITIONAL INFORMATION) (AMENDED PLANS AND DOCUMENTS) Location: LEE BAY HOTEL LEE ILFRACOMBE EX34 8LR

INTRODUCTION

When the application was last considered at the meeting on 13 th February 2019 it was resolved that consideration of the application should be deferred to enable statutory consultation to be undertaken with consultees and the public on the revised plans received on 12 th February 2019. That consultation period has now expired.

Following an earlier deferment, the applicant was reminded that at the October 2018 meeting members resolved that separate from the viability consideration, the applicant should take on board other elements of concern relating to: • A reduction of the number of units • Re-design of the scheme to open up the centre of the site • Provision of affordable housing • A section 106 agreement to be agreed in principle for contributions for public open space and education.

It was reported to the last meeting that in respect of bullet point 4, the applicant has confirmed that the commuted sum contributions towards POS and Education are agreed and can be secured by a S106 agreement.

Since a previous meeting in November 2018, a Housing Needs Report (copy attached) has been published which establishes the need in Lee for 7 affordable homes within the next 5 years. The applicant has been made aware of this in relation to bullet point 3.

In response to a request of the applicant for an update on the proposals, taking on board the above points including bullet points 1 and 2, the agent sent an email on 29 th January, which is attached for information.

In terms of viability a further updated appraisal was submitted by JLL at the beginning of March on behalf of the applicant and made publicly available. A copy has been sent to Plymouth City Council (PCC) for independent assessment.

PROPOSAL

Following various revisions, the applicant advises that the amended scheme comprises a residential-led scheme of 21 dwellings comprising a mix of flats, maisonettes and houses that could be accommodated together with the elements outlined below:

• An Arrival Building similar in scale to that of the original hotel (without the 70s extension) comprising a mix of 2/3 and 4 bed maisonettes, apartments, and Page 17 Agenda Item 6

penthouses. This new building will allow for greater public/highway/building interface give more openness and presence to the frontage. The break between it and the next block will align with the junction of the lane which is the route of the SW Coastal Path and this will allow an open vista across to the woodland on the far side of the valley to those moving down the lane.

• A Middle Building comprising 4 No. 2-storey houses;

• An Upper Building comprising 2 No. flats and 2 No. houses.

• Two parking areas for residents, one between the buildings along the alignment of the former hotel and one on the site of the existing former hotel car park.

• Restored gardens and an enhanced public seating area on the beach frontage.

• Extension and enhancement of the beach carpark and the erection of a café which will house the relocated public toilets. The existing toilet block will be demolished. Seating and open space will create a stopping point that contributes to the proposed new public frontage at the bay end. This stopping point will act as a node for those visiting the bay, for those parking and moving on, or for those on their way through via foot or bike. The total of 0.64ha of the overall site will be publicly accessible.

Associated landscaping, drainage and highway works are also proposed.

The applicant explains ‘The concept behind the design will capture the opportunities that the site presents as follows: • The development will be kept to the valley sides to minimise the impact on the openness of the setting. • Generous breaks in the built form will allow views across the landscape towards the valley floor. • Further views open up in line with the tourist path and road at right angles to the valley side. The replacement building is pulled away from the road edge to open up the road and allow better views of the sea front. • Highway improvements through additional pavement route to the sea front. • A large area of the site is left free of built form to maintain the natural green landscape. • Existing stream reworked to provide a natural feature as well as increasing biodiversity and improving flood risk conditions. • Proposed public open space is extended from the bay into the grounds of the former hotel to help bring the seafront further up the valley with valuable space for visitors to take a pause and enjoy the views. • A new building housing a café and public toilets marks the end of the newly surface and reorganised car park. This subtle but well detailed building helps mark the end of the journey and the arrival to Lee Bay. • Proposed new footpaths running through the site will connect the existing public routes on either side of the site and encourage people to experience the green landscape and reworked stream. • Proposed routes link to the wider network of existing footpaths. • Existing Car Park upgraded with improved landscaping, access and additional spaces added’.

Page 18 Agenda Item 6

In support of the application the agent states that the key public benefits of the proposals can be summarised as follows: • Regeneration of a derelict / eyesore site that is on the Council’s ‘stalled sites’ list and highlighted for regeneration in the Council’s Draft Lee Bay Conservation Area Appraisal.

• Replacement of the redundant hotel building with domestic scale and contextually designed new residential development that works with the site topography creating new views and vistas.

• Provision of 21 No. residential units.

• A landscape-led design with integrated ‘blue’ and ‘green’ infrastructure.

• A net biodiversity gain as confirmed in the biodiversity metric analysis.

• The proposed redevelopment of the site will generate significantly fewer vehicle movements than the extant Hotel use.

• New footway provision and associated highway safety betterment.

• Provision of new public open space on the sea frontage and a publicly accessible area of the site extending 0.64ha.

• Provision of a new landscaped public car park.

• Provision of a new cafe building also providing public toilets to replace the existing.

• Private Management Company to ensure long term maintenance of the extensive grounds.

RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The existing site comprises an imposing empty hotel building which has been unused as such since 2005 that previously provided accommodation in 56 guest rooms, plus ancillary facilities. The main building is primarily arranged over three floors and is sited on the north side of the site, linear in footprint, looking out on to extensive grounds which have now become overgrown and contain Japanese Knotweed. Immediately to the east is a car park. The grounds are divided by a stream and pond. On the south side of the grounds, are a former open-air swimming pool and a car park, used by the public.

The site is located at the bottom of a valley next to the sea, to the west of Ilfracombe. The application site is located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Coastal Preservation Area, Heritage Coast and Lee Conservation Area. At the northwest corner of the site on the opposite side of the road is a grade 2 listed building.

Page 19 Agenda Item 6

A number of dwellings are located on higher ground to the north of the hotel and there is also a cluster of properties along the seafront to the west. To the south of the site on the valley side is an area of woodland. Further dwellings and commercial premises are located to the east, in the main part of the village.

The principal access to the site is from Ilfracombe, with minor routes to Mortehoe and Woolacombe. The South West Coast Path runs between the hotel site and the sea and a public footpath linking the sea front with the village, runs to the south of the site.

REASON FOR REPORT TO MEMBERS

This is a ‘major’ application that has attracted comment both in support and objection, which the Head of Place considers should be determined by Planning Committee.

POLICY CONTEXT

The North Devon and Torridge Local Plan has recently been adopted and the following policies are relevant:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (2011-2031)

ST01: Principles of Sustainable development ST02: Mitigating Climate Change ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience ST04: Improving the Quality of Development ST05: Sustainable Construction and Buildings ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy ST10: Transport Strategy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets ST15: Conserving Heritage Assets ST16: Delivering Renewable Energy and Heat ST17: A Balanced Local Housing Market ST18: Affordable Housing on Development Sites ST19: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites ST22: Community Services and Facilities ST23: Infrastructure DM01: Amenity Considerations DM02: Environmental Protection DM03: Construction and Environmental Management DM04: Design Principles DM05: Highways DM06: Parking Provision DM07: Historic Environment DM08: Biodiversity and Geodiversity DM08A: Landscape & Seascape Character DM09: Safeguarding Green Infrastructure DM10: Green Infrastructure Provision DM17: Tourism and Leisure Attractions DM24: Rural Settlements DM27: Re-use of Disused and Redundant Rural Buildings Town Strategy - Ilfracombe

Page 20 Agenda Item 6

Devon County Waste Local Plan W4: Waste Prevention W21: Making Provision for Waste Management

National Planning Policy Framework

Lee Conservation Area Character Appraisal 2018

AONB Management Plan

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Ilfracombe Town Council: (19/3/19) Recommendation – members would like to see the results of all the viability studies. Until a compromise is found between residents and the developer, this application was moved for Refusal and with 3 members in favour and 1 against, the motion was carried.

Planning Policy: (5/4/19) Thank you for consulting the Planning Policy team concerning the above planning application for the demolition of the existing hotel and the erection of 21 dwellings, public open space, extension to car park, new café and toilet block and associated landscaping and infrastructure provision..

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that if regard is to be had to the development plan in the determination of a planning application then the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As you are aware, the Council have a recently adopted Local Plan (October 2018) which was considered by the Inspector to be ‘Sound’ and in general conformity with the NPPF; therefore, policies in the Local Plan are up to date. The NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions.

Firstly, in policy terms this is a relatively large previously developed site which has been left derelict for a number of years and where its current condition is having a negative impact on this environmentally sensitive area (AONB, Heritage Coast, Coast & Estuarine Zone, adj. Marine Conservation Zone – Policy ST14). Paragraph 5.11 recognises ‘there are a number of large rural brownfield sites across northern Devon that are not subject to specific site allocations. The Local Plan recognises and supports opportunities to regenerate these sites where it secures economic growth and contributes to and enhances the natural and local environment’ . Also, paragraph 118(c) of the NPPF seeks to ‘ give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land’ It is clear that the re-use of sites such as this are encouraged by both national and local planning policy (Policies ST01 and ST02) and therefore I would suggest there is clear policy support in principle for the sites redevelopment but you must be assured that the current scheme is policy compliant in terms level of development proposed within a rural settlement; and the potential impacts of the development on environmental and heritage assets.

As mentioned above, the village of Lee is a recognised Rural Settlement where Policy ST07 (3) will apply. The status of Lee is further clarified by paragraph 4.15 which states

Page 21 Agenda Item 6

‘Beyond Local Centres and Villages, the opportunity to achieve sustainable development is diminished by the increasing absence of services and facilities. It is however recognised that there is a further tier of generally small settlements, with and without services, which contribute to the overall sustainability of the rural area. Appropriately scaled and located development to meet locally generated housing needs will be supported in qualifying Rural Settlements (requiring the settlement to have at least one service or community facility from the following:- community/village hall, post office, public house, convenience shop, place of worship, sports playing field, primary school), as enabled by Policy DM24: Rural Settlements’ . As Lee has at least one prescribed community facility there is no contention over its status within the settlement hierarchy of the Local Plan. Within a Rural Settlement, appropriately located development of a modest scale will be enabled to meet locally generated needs.

In terms of the erection of a new café and extended car park Policy ST12 (5) will support the provision of new locally important shops, services and community facilities where they are appropriately scaled. It is also recognised that within Rural Settlements, the development of individual shops or small groups of shops to serve neighbourhood or village needs will be supported provided that: it is of a scale and location appropriate to serve the shopping needs of the local community; the operation of the retail unit(s) would not be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring residents; and the local highway network can accommodate additionally generated traffic and the safety of public highway users is maintained (Policy DM21). It could also be argued that as Lee Bay is considered a tourist destination where opportunities to support tourism in this area would be supported in principle subject to the stated criteria within Policy DM17. Also, the provision of open space within the development is fully supported subject to the proposal meeting the standards within Table 13.1 and Policy DM10 as well as the views of Lucy Wheeler. Therefore, with regard to this element of the proposed redevelopment I would suggest there is policy support in principle.

Policy DM24 will support local occupancy dwellings in order to meet a locally identified housing need subject to the stated criteria (a) to (f). Paragraph 13.132 recognises that in ‘Rural Settlements residential development will be supported by means of infilling, the conversion or replacement of appropriate buildings, re-development and small scale rounding off. Any acceptable development scheme should maintain the settlement's rural character and setting’ . The current scheme is proposing 21 open market dwellings which would appear are not being restricted to meeting a locally identified housing need as required by Policy DM24. I should point out that new local needs housing secured under Policy DM24 are not necessarily considered as affordable housing only but the open market housing will be subject to secure arrangements to ensure occupancy is limited both initially and in the future to residents meeting the stated criteria. Also, I am concerned that this level of growth for Lee is far too high for a Rural Settlement (approximately 37% growth) above the existing baseline number of households within Lee (57 households) which have been indicatively identified from Cliffe to west, Briarwood / The Coash House to the east and Home Lane to the north. Therefore, I am concerned this number of residential units would not maintain the settlement’s rural character and setting and I am of the opinion this level of new housing and car parking, particularly to the east of the existing hotel would start to erode the rural character and create a more urbanised feel in this part of Lee.

I note the agent / applicant has set out the argument that vacant building credit will apply in this instance and no affordable housing should be sought. However, I do not fully accept that VBC should apply to the former Lee Bay Hotel as the PPG (Paragraph: 028

Page 22 Agenda Item 6

Reference ID: 23b-028-20190315) clearly sets out that ‘the vacant building credit applies where the building has not been abandoned’ . I would suggest there is an argument here that the former Lee Bay Hotel has been abandoned and has been so for a number of years and its poor state of repair is a reflection of the building not being maintained to a satisfactory standard over many, many years. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the agent / applicant to provide the necessary evidence that the referenced building is not considered as an ‘abandoned building’ or vacated solely for the purpose of redevelopment. In my opinion the onus should be on the applicant to demonstrate this, although I would suggest this could be very difficult to successfully evidence. The PPG further clarifies the factors the LPA should take into account when determining abandonment which are as follows: i) the physical condition of the building; ii) the length of time that the building had not been used; iii) whether it had been used for any other purposes; and iv) the owner’s intentions.

Therefore, from a policy perspective there should not be a general acceptance of the implications around vacant building credit when assessing the need to deliver a policy compliant scheme in terms of on-site affordable housing in accordance with Policy ST18 without conclusive justification as set out above regarding abandonment. However, I do accept that where viability is likely to be an issue then it would be more appropriate to secure a long term viable future for this site as opposed to securing an element of affordable housing or other financial contributions as required by policy but this would still preclude allowing an over intensive form of development. Such an approach is also advocated by paragraph 202 of the NPPF which states ‘Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies’ although I would still consider further justification is required regarding the lack of affordable housing delivery.

The site, as currently proposed falls within the threshold of being considered as major development (10 or more dwellings or at least 0.5 hectares), subject to any amendments following the initial policy concerns with the current proposal, there is a policy requirement for any future planning application to be supported by a Building for Life 12 assessment (BfL12) where optimum design outcomes will minimise ‘amber’ scores and ‘red’ scores should be avoided. The site of the Lee Bay Hotel is within the defined conservation area as well as being with close proximity to a number of listed buildings (The Old Mill-Grade II; Smugglers Cottage – Grade II and White House – Grade II). You must ensure the proposed development would conserve and enhance the character and appearance of the heritage assets, including their setting in accordance with Policies ST15 and DM07. The overall design and layout of the development should be considered against Policies ST02, ST03, ST04, ST05, ST15, DM01, DM04 and DM07 of the adopted Local Plan.

As set out in paragraph 6.5 of the Local Plan, ‘all development will be expected to provide a net gain in biodiversity where feasible. Where biodiversity assets cannot be retained or enhanced on site, the Councils will support ‘biodiversity offsetting’ to deliver a net gain in bio-diversity off-site’ . If there is some loss of existing habitat then this should be mitigated against by providing additional planting on or off site. The Defra metric should be used to ensure there is an overall net gain in biodiversity. All issues around ecology should be considered against ST14 and DM08.

Page 23 Agenda Item 6

On balance, the principle on redeveloping this brownfield site is potentially acceptable subject to the above considerations being adequately addressed. However, I would suggest the current proposals are contrary to policy and should not be supported although there would be less of a policy objection to the redevelopment of this previously developed site if it included greatly reduced housing numbers, maybe involving a number of townhouses on the footprint of the existing hotel and maybe a very small number of larger detached properties on the site of the former car park, reflecting the general character and appearance of Lee but again this housing would be subject to Policy DM24 unless a compelling case can be made for an element of unrestricted open market housing due to concerns around viability.

All highway issues should be considered against Policies ST10, DM05 and DM06 of the adopted Local Plan.

Designing Out Crime Officer: (21/3/19) Police have no further comments to add to those of 20th June 2017 which remain relevant from a crime reduction and anti ‐social behaviour perspective.

(21/6/17) Police have no objections in principle, I note and welcome the inclusion of a Crime and Disorder Summary within the Design & Access Statement and its commitment to safety and security including the proposal for the use of ‘secure certified’ locks for all external doors and windows. Please could it be confirmed that this is indeed referring to Secured By Design products and if so, I would request that this level of certification, PAS24 2012 or PAS24 2016 for example, applies to all external door and window sets, not just the locks. (Secured by Design (SBD) is a crime prevention initiative owned by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) on behalf of the UK police services. SBD aims to reduce crime, the fear of crime and opportunities for ASB and conflict within developments by applying the attributes of Environmental Design (as above) in conjunction with appropriate physical security measures)

Apartments & Houses I have concerns regarding the proposal for informal garden spaces and in particular the apparent open access to the rear of dwellings. This does not address possible issues with security, privacy and keeping young children and dogs secure and safe. I would recommend that all rear gardens are enclosed with 1.5m close boarded fencing, topped with 300mm trellis. This combination would provide both security and privacy for residents but still allow neighbour interaction. The likelihood is that when presented with the open informal gardens, residents will feel the need to install, in some cases unsightly boundary treatments of their own.

Care is required when providing communal parking areas as experience shows they can become unofficial play parks and targets for crime, vandalism and anti-social behaviour, forcing residents to park on the street. The proposed resident’s car parks are overlooked at each end from gable end windows, whilst this is welcomed, it does place the burden of surveillance on the occupants of these dwellings. Regrettably, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that unless a crime directly involves a member of the public, many will not report it for fear of repercussions. I recommend the carparks have gated entrances for both vehicles and pedestrians, not only restricting access to the car parks but further into the proposed development and the rear of the properties. Car parking areas should be well illuminated to provide the potential for natural surveillance during hours of darkness and make them feel as safe as possible for users.

Page 24 Agenda Item 6

Café, toilets & public car park As previously stated, the isolated position of the café and public toilets leaves the building potentially vulnerable to crime, damage and anti-social behaviour. I therefore reiterate the advice given;- • Toilets being closed to public when café is closed • Consideration of materials and fittings used in toilets (stainless steel for example) • Level of enhanced security for café, including monitored alarm system. Consideration should be given to gating all or part the car park in line with operating hours of the café.

Gates / barriers help prevent potential misuse of the car park particularly by groups of young drivers gathering in their cars, not an altogether uncommon problem for car parks elsewhere in North Devon which can arise at any time.

Flood and Coastal Risk Management Team: (Re-consulted 15/2/19) No response.

(20/6/17) Although we have no in-principle objection to the above planning application at this stage, the applicant must submit additional information, as outlined below, in order to demonstrate that all aspects of the proposed surface water drainage management system have been considered.

If the Planning Case Officer is minded to grant planning permission in this instance, I request that the following pre-commencement planning conditions are imposed:

1. The swale design as shown in 'Drawing No. C14641 - C001, Revision D, Date 17/06/2015' is acceptable, however we would like further detailed drawings of these SuDS features in accordance with The SuDS Manual, CIRIA C753 . Required design information will include headwalls, vegetation, gradients and show its suitability for filtration.

2. Within the given 'Flood Risk Assessment, R/C14641/001.05, Section 6.2', the existing car park to the south of the watercourse is to be reconstructed with permeable materials. This is acceptable; however there is no mention for the same to be undertaken to the car parks adjacent to the residences at the north of the site. I understand that it is the intention for the swale draining the residential area to allow pollutants to settle, however we would like this added precautionary measure of permeable paving to be introduced.

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

4. It is noted that within the 'Flood Risk Assessment, R/C14641/001.05, Section 4.3', any works in, over, under or within 8m of the watercourse will require the prior consent of the EA. As the watercourse in question is classed as an ordinary watercourse, any consent must be directed through consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority.

Page 25 Agenda Item 6

SWW: (22/2/19) I refer to the above application and would advise that South West Water has no comment.

Project and Procurement Officer Parks, Leisure and Culture: (18/2/19) Revised calculation is £103, 615.

(27/2/18) Thank you for the update – it’s most helpful.

Firstly I attach a revised calculation which takes into account the seafront public open space of 164sq.m, which generates a slightly reduced request of £92,468.37, down from £94,714.40.

In terms of point 5, highlighted on the covering letter requesting a reduction in £20k against the now £92k contributions, on what grounds is there request coming forward and how has this figure been arrived at. We do not normally reduce an open space contribution which enables the application to pay for on-site delivery. I am unclear as to why this has been request and as to the level of the financial reduction request.

In terms of the National Trust, if they have a number of projects for the area, then yes it is something we can consider in conjunction with the area priorities and ward member consultation. Please forward any relevant information over to me.

(14/6/17) I have reviewed the above application and attach an initial POS calculation. I note a significant area will now be provided as lawned resident’s gardens rather than public open space, therefore no offsetting of on-site POS has taken place. The existing public terrace appears to be retained. With no on-site public open space being secured an off-site contribution (£94,714.40) would be requested.

Sustainability: (Re-consulted 15/2/19) No response.

(27/6/17) The Ecological Appraisal (24 September 2014) and Protected Species Survey Report (6 August 2015) have been submitted alongside a Verification Survey Report (16 February 2017) which provides an appropriate update and clarifies that the site has not changed significantly since habitats/species were described in the original reports.

The Verification Survey Report states that a CEMP, LEMP and Reptile Mitigation Strategy are required prior to commencement of works on site and should be submitted as part of the current application. The reports should set out specific measures to ensure all identified habitat and species impacts are appropriately mitigated and side wide ecological enhancement is deliverable This should include a detailed lighting plan for both the construction and operational phases of the development to ensure vegetation around buildings will be retained, and kept dark to provide corridors for bats and other wildlife to move across the site.

Housing Market Balance: (26/2/19) The applicant’s Planning and Regeneration Statement Rev C states in Appendix A – Vacant Building Credit that the total proposed floor space is less than the existing floor space and that consequently the affordable housing requirement is negated by the application of Vacant Building Credit.

Page 26 Agenda Item 6

Further to my responses dated 26 June 2017 and 1 September 2017, I confirm that if the proposed floor space is less than the existing floor space then Vacant Building Credit means that no affordable housing would be required (provided that the floor space figures include any usable space, such as garages, attics, outbuildings, etc. that could at a future date be converted into living accommodation).

(6/3/19) If it were determined that VBC would not apply then the requirement would be for 30% affordable housing provision. 30% of 21 is 6.3. There should therefore be 6 affordable dwellings and an off-site financial contribution equivalent to 0.3 of a dwelling. The formula we use to establish an off-site financial contribution figure is (Open Market Value – Registered Provider price) x % of affordable housing required.

The tenure mix of the affordable dwellings would need to be at least 75% social rent (in accordance with policy) and the remainder intermediate (shared ownership, intermediate rent or discounted sale).

Those who are allocated or buy the housing would need to meet a local connection criteria. As Lee is a rural area within the parish of Ilfracombe, the cascading process for this would need to be established.

The affordable homes should be designed and of the same material and construction as the open market – including car parking.

The table below shows the policy requirement for dwelling mix, occupancy levels and the range of absolute minimum size values accepted locally depending on the Registered Provider chosen. If they are within this minimum range the applicant should ensure they find a Registered Provider sooner rather than later to (1) ensure that the Registered Provider will want the homes and (2) work with the chosen Housing Association to make most efficient use of the space. The best solution is to ensure the homes are built above the highest minimum size indicated in the range.

Bed s ize & Occupancy NDC dwelling The minimum range of dwelling type mix requirement RPs who work in North Devon (m2) (inc. storage, internal walls; exc. party and external walls, chimney breast & any floor area where ceiling height is <1.5m) 4 bedroom house 6 person 5-10% 95-106 (2-storey) or bungalow 3 bedroom house 5 person 20-25% 82-93 (2-storey) or bungalow 2 bedroom house 4 person 35-40% 70-79 (2-storey) or bungalow 1 bedroom house 2 person 30-35% 45-58 (2-storey) or bungalow

Page 27 Agenda Item 6

A housing needs survey report for Lee and Lincombe dated December 2018 identified a need for 7 affordable homes within the next five years.

Natural England: (21/2/19) Based on the additional information provided, we do not have any additional observations to make at this time further to our previous detailed comments. If however you consider there are implications for the natural environment as a result of any changes, or have specific questions, we would be happy to consider them.

In our response of 9th March 2016 we noted the technical note from Environmental Gain (eg14632) and welcomed the proposal to create a wetland to receive the discharge from the package treatment plant before it enters the stream. This removed our concerns about any possible eutrophication of the foreshore and the Bideford to Foreland Point Marine Conservation Zone. This wetland does not appear to be included in the revised landscape masterplan (LEE ‐003 rev L dated February 2019) unless the area of reed on the south bank of the stream represents the wetland.

Natural England advises that the planning authority consults the North Devon AONB partnership, giving their advice careful consideration alongside national and local policies to determine the proposal.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss this further.

Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment then, in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England should be consulted again. Before sending us the amended consultation, please assess whether the changes proposed will materially affect any of the advice we have previously offered.

(21/09/17) Thank you for your email of 19 th September 2017 consulting Natural England on further information/amended plans for the above proposal.

The submitted documents now include reference to the creation of reed beds (technical note eg14632-2 reed bed design parameters Engain 6 th September 2017) to receive the discharge from the package treatment plant before it enters the stream. This removes our concerns about any possible eutrophication of the foreshore as a result of the current application. Our advice is that the wetland habitat should be secured as a condition of any permission.

(For a copy of the full letter 26/6/17 see Inserts) Summary of Natural England’s advice Further information required to determine impacts on designated sites As submitted, the application could have potential significant effects on Bideford to Foreland Point Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ). Natural England advice is that further information is required in order to determine the significance of these impacts and the scope for mitigation. The following information is required:
Bideford to Foreland Point MCZ – detail of proposed wetland to receive the discharge from the package treatment plant before it enters the stream. Without this information, Natural England may need to object to the proposal. Please re-consult Natural England once this information has been obtained.

Page 28 Agenda Item 6

Natural England’s advice on other issues is set out in Annex A.

AONB: (22/3/19) As the revised proposals do not appear to constitute a change in design or location of the proposed buildings and infrastructure on the former Lee Bay hotel site, as a result the North Devon Coast AONB Partnership has no further comments to make.

Should this not be the case, please let me know and we will arrange to send further comments through to you as soon as possible.

(27/2/18) Thank you for contacting us regarding our lack of response to the amended plans relating to the redevelopment of Lee Bay Hotel.

However, we were of the opinion that the additional information submitted in February was related to the viability of the site regarding its operation, or non-operation as a hotel, rather than any material changes to the application as submitted.

We therefore stand by our most recent response to this application which was submitted in September 2017.

However, should this not be the case and you feel you require further information from the AONB Partnership please do not hesitate to contact me again.

(25/09/17) Thank you for consulting the North Devon Coast AONB Partnership, with regard to the Amended Plans for this planning application, for the redevelopment of the old Lee Bay Hotel. We have the following observations to make.

In our initial response to the application in July (enclosed for your review), we raised a number of issues of concern, most of which appear to have been addressed in this amendment and in discussions with interested parties in the intervening period these were: 1. Detailed design of the West Elevation: - Changes to the design of the western elevation of the main building will in our opinion reduce its impact on views from the beach and we therefore withdraw our objection on these grounds. We would be happy to follow the lead of the District Council Conservation Officer on the impact of the revised design on the significance of the Old Mill, which is a listed building and a building of some significance within the settlement of Lee. 2. Detailed treatment of the pavement and its impact on character: It would appear that no additional information has come forward, however, we would be content for the detail to be dealt with by condition 3. Viability of the proposed cafe: Having studied the amended application, we are now reassured that a sustainable, long term operator for the cafe would appear to have been secured and our concerns about the sustainability of the cafe have been allayed; 4. Design of the toilets: Our advice is that the layout proposed is not the most conducive for ease of management, but understand that this is not necessarily a planning issue. However we would suggest that the existing toilets are not demolished, and remain available for use, until the new toilets have been built.

Page 29 Agenda Item 6

5. Pedestrian link between cafe and footpath to Lee village: Our view is that the proposed application reduces accessibility of the toilets from the existing situation, especially in the case of people accessing the beach on the public footpath from Lee village. We would therefore urge you to try to address this relatively minor point with the applicants. Currently, this is the only outstanding area of objection to the application as it stands. In addition, we would draw your attention to the Protected Species Report submitted with the application. The area in and around the current site is an important area for Bats, something which was borne out by a recent Bat Walk that the AONB team undertook. We would therefore ask that appropriate lighting and mitigation measures, in terms of providing alternative and new roosting sites for bats, be conditioned, if the planning application were approved.

Finally, we have much sympathy with the view of the Lee Bay Residents Association that the site offers opportunities for affordable housing in the village. New, affordable dwellings would help to increase the balance of permanent residents in Lee and would support the sustainability of the settlement in line with AONB Management Plan policies. However, we are aware that because of the empty building credit scheme, you are not able to require any affordable housing as part of this development.

We trust you will make note of our comments when considering this application.

(10/7/17) Thank you for giving the AONB Partnership the opportunity of commenting on the latest planning application for this site. As with previous proposals, the application covers the demolition of the existing Lee Bay Hotel, the erection of new housing (23 units), a public car park, public open space café and toilet block.

Our concerns with previous schemes as outlined in our previous submission for the site were:

• The scale, height and design of new buildings being out of keeping with local character and the setting of heritage assets;

• The suburbanising effect of a pavement on the northern site boundary;

• The long term sustainability of the café business and the toilet block layout;

• The missed opportunity for affordable housing.

Having studied the submitted plans we are of the opinion that the revised scheme has responded to some of these comments. The main elements of the project that have changed in response to AONB concerns are:

• The scale and height of the lower, westernmost building has been reduced and the building has moved slightly further back away from the beach;

• There is more separation between the middle and upper (easternmost) buildings and the buildings have been redesigned. In our opinion, the design of the proposed residential accommodation reflects the local pattern of large, individual properties seen throughout Lee. The three buildings have clear differences in architectural style and design when seen from the road frontage so that they will be perceived as three, large separate and individual buildings. A common palette of

Page 30 Agenda Item 6 materials is proposed on all buildings and this will help to provide harmony between these elements.

The glazing in the northern elevations is more restrained than in previous versions, the use of slate, stone and render to walls, stone lintels and composite windows and natural slate to roofs matches the local vernacular. The southern elevations are more glazed, but views of these from public areas will be heavily filtered by trees and the impact on the local landscape will not be that great.

However, the western elevation (overlooking the bay and close to the listed Old Mill) has a high proportion of glazing that does not appear appropriate to its context. Other buildings locally seem to respect the wild power of the sea by being built defensively - with strong walls and small windows. The western elevation as proposed does not continue that tradition and, as a result, does not respect the vernacular and its coastal setting. With the exception of this last point, we believe that the revised scheme responds well to its setting within Lee Bay and the designated AONB.

Other concerns that we raised with regard to the previous planning application still stand however, you may be able to deal with these by condition or by seeking further clarification from the applicants:

• We remain concerned about the long term viability of two café businesses so close to each other. It would provide us with some comfort to know that a long term tenant had been secured for the café.

• We have concerns about the layout of the public toilets, but recognise that this is a management issue for the management company.

• The detailed design of the proposed pavement will be key in ensuring that it does not have a suburbanising impact on the local area.

• We also believe that a pedestrian link between the proposed café/toilets and the public footpath to Lee village would encourage greater public use of the new facilities. In conclusion, we are of the opinion that this is a much improved application, if it were possible to address the design of the main building western elevation and to deal with the issues noted above, then we would have little grounds for recommending refusal of the planning application.

We hope that these comments are of assistance to you in helping to determine the application.

Lee & Lincombe Residents Association: (22/2/19) The Association and its members continue to strongly oppose planning application 63167 submitted by Acorn Blue. We have carefully studied the amendments and all our previous objections still stand. However, given the introduction of the new North Devon and Torridge Local Plan, a revised National Planning Framework, the Lee Conservation Area Character Appraisal, and many additional documents including the viability assessments, we wish to reiterate and emphasise the following specific objections in light of the changes to PA 63167. (Full response attached as an Insert).

(25/2/19) Please read the forwarded email from Devon and Cornwall Police. You’ll see they have responded to an incident of squatters. They state that the site is insecure and Page 31 Agenda Item 6 there have been other similar reports. Acorn Blue have not responded to their calls. We have had a similar experience, with no response from Acorn Blue.

The Hotel is derelict with plumbing and internal infrastructure stripped. Windows have been removed.

This has occurred during their tenure since 2010 and is a result of deliberate neglect. There are serious breaches of National Planning Guidance: 1. Paragraphs 130 and 190 of National Planning and Policy Frameworks (2012 & 2019) clearly both state: “Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of or damage to a heritage asset the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision” 2. The Planning and Regeneration Statement (Amended 2019) submitted by Acorn Blue repeatedly (5.49, 5101, 5.103, 6.1 and 6.4) refers to the derelict state of the hotel as evidence for its compliance with the NPPF and the Local Plan (exceptional circumstances and public interest). THIS IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE NPPF. 3. The evidence of the police and of their own regeneration and planning statement surely amounts to ‘abandonment’ both literally and technically for the purposes of negating vacant building under the National Planning Guidance?

(Previous response of 30/8/17 attached as an Insert)

Heritage & Conservation Officer : (14/3/19) This application, for the erection of 21 dwellings, formation of new public open space, extension to existing car park, erection of café and w/c block and associated works, is an amendment to the scheme submitted in June 2017 which was for a scheme for 23 dwellings. The reduction in numbers and consequent amendment to the design has arisen following discussion of the application at NDC planning committee.

My consultation response to the original application number 63617 was made on 26.7.17, and has been supplemented by further responses on 19.9.17, 20.6.18 and 17.8.18. This response is an addition to those earlier responses.

The current proposal for the 21 units involves amended designs for the upper and middle buildings. The design for the apartment block next to the beach and the grade II listed Old Mill stays the same. The alterations to the designs for the upper and middle buildings both involve a reduction in height from two and a half and three storeys to two storeys. The long elevation of the middle building has increased, in the amended design, by one metre, whilst the long elevation of the upper building remains the same. The widths of the side elevations remain approximately the same. The amended designs are generally simpler, have more regular patters of fenestration, and are more traditional in appearance. In my view these amended designs are an improvement on the original submission, and fit better into the context of the Lee Conservation Area.

My consultation response of 19.9.17 outlined my concerns about the impact of the proposal on heritage assets: In summary these are: • The loss of the non-designated heritage asset, the core of the Hotel, still remains a fact of the proposal. • The effect on the setting of the grade II listed Old Mill adjacent. The footprint of the Apartment building has been moved further away from the listed building than the existing Hotel, which is welcomed. The treatment of the western end of the arrival building is,

Page 32 Agenda Item 6 however, not as successful in complementing the local vernacular as the existing hotel building, in my view, and therefore a degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the listed building arising from the contribution made by its setting can be identified. • The effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. As stated previously, the Hotel is in a poor condition and there is scope, through the redevelopment of the site (whether this involves retaining the existing building or not) either to preserve or enhance the character of this part of the Conservation Area. The question, relating to paragraph 134 of the NPPF, is whether the proposed development achieves this, or whether it causes a degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the Conservation Area.

As discussed above, the designs and massing for the middle and upper blocks has been improved, and my concerns about these elements have been allayed to a degree. The design for the apartment building has, however, remained the same, so concerns expressed in my consultation response of 19.9.17 about the design, detailing and massing for this element still hold.

On the whole, I remain of the view that the development will result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage assets, and that therefore, under the terms of paragraph 196 of the NPPF (updated February 2019), “this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use”. Paragraph 194 of the NPPF states that “Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification.” This justification will be strongly, but not exclusively, influenced by financial considerations. To this end, the applicants have provided an amended viability report. If this is to be used to provide ‘clear and convincing justification’ then it needs to be verified by an independent professional. This process has been undertaken on previous financial submissions, and I would suggest that in order for the LPA to be properly informed in its decision making process, the amended viability report does need to be subject to the same scrutiny.

The justification also needs to take into account other factors: the proposal also involves the loss of the undesignated heritage asset – the Lee Bay Hotel itself. I have previously acknowledged that the later eastern elements of this building are not of interest, and could be removed, but the western elements, nearest the sea, do have some significance. In my consultation response of 17.8.18 I gave comments on the ‘Conversion Option’ report which, in summary, I did not feel had explored the potential for retaining the core building sufficiently. I would again suggest that the contents and conclusions of this report should be given further scrutiny.

It is worth pointing out that, if the core of the Hotel building were retained and converted, minus the eastern element and the southern arched extensions, then taking into account the amended designs for the middle and upper blocks, the concerns on heritage grounds would be largely addressed – the undesignated heritage asset would not be lost, and the effect on the setting of the listed building would be much reduced.

(17/8/18) I last responded to this application on 12th June 2018 and that response, plus previous responses, are still relevant.

Page 33 Agenda Item 6

In particular, I would draw your attention to the paragraph which refers to the conclusion reached by the independent review of the viability of the scheme, which was that a reduced scheme for 18 units will also be viable.

Since my last response, we have received a new report, ‘Conversion Option’, which is, I assume, the additional information upon which we are now being consulted. The Conversion Option report looks at the possibility of converting the existing building. It assumes that the eastern section will be removed, but retains the modern extensions on the southern, garden front, which are not of historic or architectural value, and which we have said at various times, could be removed without detriment to the character of the historic element of the building, or of the Conservation Area. Retention of these elements does make the lighting of the rear, northern elements on the Lower Ground floor very difficult and these areas are therefore shown as non-habitable space on the plan. If the later extensions were removed, however, and the ground floor taken back to the line of the original building, it might become rather easier to light the northern parts of this floor, particularly if borrowed light and open plan apartments were designed. In my view it is not beyond the wit of a competent architect to achieve a better use of this part of the building, or to identify a way of protecting against damp.

The Conversion Option report states that there are no structural drawings for the building, therefore there are some uncertainties about the need for new structural supports. It also makes the point that there have been 10 years of progressive moisture damage. Both of these points are true; the first can be remedied through the provision of a structural survey and the second could have been addressed if the building had been maintained, rainwater goods cleared etc. From the appearance of the building it is evident that this has not been the case.

There are several relevant paragraphs in the NPPF, among them: P191 “Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of, or damage to, a heritage asset, the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision.” (Note that ‘heritage asset’ includes non-designated heritage assets) P197 “The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.”

I am not convinced that the Conversion Option Report provides sufficient certainty that there is no viable means of retaining the historic core of the building. I would suggest that, in the same way that the viability assessment has been scrutinised by an independent professional, the contents and conclusions of this Report should also be subject to the same process.

(12/6/18) This application proposes the demolition of the existing Lee Bay Hotel, and the erection of 23 dwellings, formation of new public open space, extension to existing car park, erection of café and WC block, and associated highway and landscaping works. It was received by the LPA in May 2017, following the refusal, in November 2016, of application 59766 for demolition of the hotel and erection of 20 dwellings.

I have already made comments on the current application in my email of 19.9.17. To my knowledge, the plans and elevations for the buildings have not changed, so my previous comments relating to those elements still hold. To summarise, I identified that the scheme

Page 34 Agenda Item 6 would cause harm to the significance of heritage assets on three counts: the loss of the core of the Hotel, which is a non-designated heritage asset; the effect on the setting of the grade II listed Mill House adjacent; and the net effect on the Conservation Area. In relation to the latter, although I acknowledge that there are some benefits bought by the scheme, my conclusion was that on balance it does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

The current consultation relates to various documents submitted by the applicant in relation to the viability of the scheme. These documents have been scrutinised by various consultees, among them Historic England, who made a response on 23.4.18. In general I do agree with the comments made in their letter. Page 3 of the letter includes the following: “A summary of the Alder King Report has been provided. The full report has been submitted to the council on a confidential basis. It is the Local Planning Authorities responsibility as part of their assessment of the proposals to robustly interrogate the viability assessment provided by the developer…. Through that robust analysis it will establish whether there is sufficient justification for the harm caused to the heritage asset and whether the quantum of development proposed is the minimum necessary to secure the regeneration of the site (Para 132 NPPF). It will also need to demonstrably outweigh the harm caused to the conservation area as identified under Para 134 NPPF, which includes securing the assets optimum viable use as well as associated public benefits. …”

The LPA has accordingly sought an independent review of the viability of the scheme, undertaken by Plymouth City Council. That review considers the various costs and benefits of the scheme. The review considers the current scheme for 23 units, and on page 5 concludes that this is “comfortably viable”. The review also considers a reduced scheme for 18 units and states “the results from our appraisal indicate that this reduced number of units will also be viable and return an industry acceptable profit level”.

From the above, it is apparent that the proposed scheme for 23 units is not the “ minimum necessary to secure the regeneration of the site ” to repeat the words from Historic England. It appears that this could be achieved with a reduced scheme of 18 units. Therefore, in my view, the level of harm which will arise from the current proposal is not justified.

Given that the density of the proposed development and the levels of ancillary structure needed, particularly parking areas, are one of the factors that are judged to cause harm to the significance of the heritage assets, it would seem obvious that a reduced scheme could potentially cause less harm, and therefore be more acceptable in heritage terms. If this is considered I would suggest that the opportunity to retain and convert the historic core of the hotel (again referred to in both responses from Historic England and myself) is investigated, and that if any units are to be removed from the scheme, the central block and associated parking would be the better candidates.

The Lee Conservation Area Character Appraisal has been adopted whilst this application has been open, and does contain a section on the Lee Bay Hotel (Paragraphs 9.4 to 9.10). Any amended application should take the advice contained in these paragraphs on board.

(19/9/17) My original consultation response to this application was made on 26.7.17, but was withdrawn pending clarification by the applicant of figures contained within the Planning and Regeneration Statement. The applicant also amended some design details

Page 35 Agenda Item 6 of the scheme. The response below is my updated response and relates to the amended plans and Planning and Regeneration Statement sent to NDC on 11th August 2017.

This application, for the demolition of the Lee Bay Hotel and the erection of 23 dwellings, café and wc block, associated car parks and landscaping is the second recent application for the redevelopment of this site. The earlier application, 59766 for the erection of 20 dwellings, café and wc block, car parks and landscaping, was refused permission in November 2016. The first reason for refusal related to the impact on heritage assets, specifically: less than substantial harm in relation to the impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and the setting of the grade II listed Old Mill adjacent, and the loss of significance of a non-designated heritage asset (the Hotel). The public benefits of the scheme were not considered sufficient to outweigh the identified harm. My consultation response to that application should be read in conjunction with the comments below:

The current scheme is a revision of the previous scheme, and does appear to have taken on board several of the points which caused concern in relation to heritage issues. For example, the overall heights have been reduced, and the appearance of the middle block has been altered to remove the row of staggered gable ends facing the street. More local materials have ben introduced, and the landscaping of the public area at the west end of the site has been softened. All of these revisions are welcomed, but do not allay concerns about the impact on heritage assets. In summary these are: • The loss of the non-designated heritage asset, the core of the Hotel, still remains a fact of the proposal. • The effect on the setting of the grade II listed Old Mill adjacent. The footprint of the Apartment building has been moved further away from the listed building than the existing Hotel, which is welcomed. The treatment of the western end of the arrival building is, however, not as successful in complementing the local vernacular as the existing hotel building, in my view, and therefore a degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the listed building arising from the contribution made by its setting can be identified. • The effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. As stated previously, the Hotel is in a poor condition and there is scope, through the redevelopment of the site (whether this involves retaining the existing building or not) either to preserve or enhance the character of this part of the Conservation Area. The question, relating to paragraph 134 of the NPPF, is whether the proposed development achieves this, or whether it causes a degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the Conservation Area.

To elaborate on the last point: The established character of Lee is of a dispersed settlement, with individual buildings set in generally large plots, with open spaces between. The sizes and styles of the historic buildings vary greatly from modest cottages to small country houses. The Lee Bay Hotel as existing is by far the largest building within the Conservation Area, and as such its bulk, when viewed from surrounding areas, does not fit well with the overall character of the historic surroundings. This element of discord is mitigated to a degree by the architectural interest of the historic element of the building, and the positive contribution that this aspect makes, despite its dilapidated condition, to the character of the street scene. Given the low intensity of development within the Conservation Area, and the size of the existing building, it is not difficult to see that any proposals which involve an increase in built form and associated hard surfacing are unlikely to maintain the character of this particular locality.

Page 36 Agenda Item 6

The revised Planning and Regeneration Statement, in paragraph 3.3, sets out a comparison between the footprints, floor-space and volume of the existing hotel and the residential proposal. It shows that the residential proposal is slightly smaller on all counts than the existing Hotel. This is noted, however, the comparison does not appear to take account of the increased areas of car parking that are needed, or the increase in perceived level of development over the site arising from the splitting of the accommodation into three separate blocks, and the provision of the café and car park to the south. These elements are likely to combine to form an increase in development over the whole site.

Turning to the overall design, in my view the proposals for the upper building are the most successful in complementing the overall character and appearance of the Conservation Area. I would suggest that the pitch on the dormer and porch roofs should match that of the main roof and that the central inset row of three glazed doors and balcony on the upper floor of the south-west elevation should be reduced in size so that it is smaller than the doors on the floor below (does not appear to have been addressed in latest amendments). This comment is made, however, on the basis that the building is sunk down into the site, and the landscaping on the northern boundary is strong and viable, given the amount of windows that are likely to face onto trees and the earth bank. The Landscape and Countryside Officer will no doubt give a view on this.

In my view the middle building is less successful; the south west elevation, which will be prominent in views across the valley, has large amounts of glass with no legible hierarchy of proportions, large glazed doors inset into the roof, and an asymmetrically glazed gable on the western end, all of which do not fit well with the more traditional character of surrounding buildings, The north east elevation is more standardised, following the recent amendments, and has the look of a terrace of houses. The south east elevation now incorporates a large flat roofed area with a railing around it on the second floor, which I think is less successful than the earlier version.

The apartment building has incorporated some traditional details such as the fish scale slate hanging, to advantage, but this is offset by elements which are less harmonious with the surroundings, such as the glazing patterns on the south elevation which appear random with no legible hierarchy of proportions. The north elevation remains unchanged, and resembles a row of terraced houses fronting a pavement. As highlighted in the last application, this is an urban form of development which does not have a precedent in Lee, and is not appropriate to the character of the Conservation Area. The western quarter of the apartment building, perhaps because the ground level drops abruptly so that the full three storeys are evident on the road side, appears somewhat disjointed from the rest of the building, which at two storeys on the roadside and east elevation at least, appears to have a more domestic scale. The large windows and glazed doors on the west elevation together with the large areas of balcony and terrace on the upper storeys do tie in the with south elevation, but as per the comments on the above, not necessarily with the surrounding Conservation Area, nor do they maintain the qualities of the setting of the adjacent listed building.

The design for the public area to the west of the site has changed, and again our Landscape and Countryside Officer will no doubt give a view on the suitability of the scheme. I am assuming that more detailed plans of the walls, seats and surface materials will be provided for this area. This area does offer an opportunity to reflect the local vernacular, so if stone walls and paving are to be used, it would make sense to reflect locally distinctive patterns and materials here.

Page 37 Agenda Item 6

In summary my view in relation to the effect on the Conservation Area is that the proposal will result in less than substantial harm to the significance of this heritage asset. As detailed above I consider that the proposal will not preserve the setting of the listed building, leading to a degree of less than substantial harm in this respect. The proposal will also result in the total loss of a non designated heritage asset. Therefore, under the terms of the NPPF, a balanced judgement which takes into account the scale of harm, the significance of the assets affected, and the public benefits of this proposal will need to be made.

Historic England: (13/3/19) Thank you for your letter of 15 February 2019 regarding further information on the above application for planning permission. On the basis of this information, we offer the following advice to assist your authority in determining the application.

Historic England has had a long running involvement with this application at the former Lee Bay Hotel. The site is within Lee Bay Conservation Area, a lush sheltered valley with a craggy inlet along the North Devon coast. This letter should be read in conjunction with the previous advice provided by Historic England on this application.

Historic England's Advice Since our last engagement in August 2018, further amendments have been received including a revised design of the upper and middle buildings following an updated viability assessment reducing the number of units from 23 to 21. The amendments have taken steps to moderate aspects of the design that appeared more conspicuous within the landscape.

Historic England remains of the view that the loss of the historic hotel, identified as a positive building within the conservation area, will result in harm. The Hotel is a significant and landmark structure within the bay, and is a key phase of the settlement’s development in to a holiday destination.

Historic England maintains the concerns regarding the visual intensification of development through the introduction of a landmark building and two additional sizable structures including associated car parking into this lush rural landscape.

We acknowledged that the steps taken through the revised designs have looked to moderate the visual prominence of the two sizable buildings within the valley setting. Increased level of tree planting has also been incorporated into the landscaping scheme around the car-parking. Therefore, the harm identified in the previous correspondence has been reduced. However, it has not been avoided and this harm will need to be considered within the planning balance.

Policy As the application affects the conservation area, the council has a statutory requirement to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area (S72 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990.

Historic England considers that the proposal will continue to result in harm to the conservation area. This is through the loss of the positive contribution made by the former hotel as well as the visual intensification of development on the site.

Page 38 Agenda Item 6

The NPPF makes it clear that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be ) (Para 193). It goes on to say that all harm should be clear and convincingly justified (Para 194). Therefore the council need to robustly assess the evidence provided for the loss of the hotel to ensure that it has been rigorously justified.

Para 201, identifies that the loss of a building … which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the conservation area should be treated either as substantial harm under paragraph 195 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 196, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site as a whole . The hotel is a landmark building within the conservation area and reflects a key aspect of the settlement’s development. Its loss will result in harm. The visual intensification of development will erode the open character of this large plot in a prominent location within the village, and although overgrown, it contributes positively to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Subsequently, its loss will result in harm.

This harm would be quantified as less than substantial; however, it does not mean that it is acceptable harm. Consequently, if the harm can be justified then it will need to be considered against the public benefits presented by the scheme, including the optimum viable use for the site. In assessing the proposals, the council need to rigorously assess the public benefit to ensure that it demonstrably outweigh the identified harm as required under Para 196 NPPF.

Recommendation Historic England has identified that this scheme will result in harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Therefore the council need to rigorously assess that this harm can be shown to be clear and convincingly justified (Para 194) and if it can be, that there is sufficient public benefit to outweigh that harm (Para 196).

The council should be mindful of their requirement to have great weight for an asset’s conservation (Para 193) and also their statutory requirement to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area (S72 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990.

Your authority should take these representations into account in determining the application. If there are any material changes to the proposals, or you would like further advice, please contact us.

(For a copy of the full letters dated 17/7/17, 20/9/17 and 23/4/18 see Inserts)

Senior Historic Environment Officer: (26/3/19) My comments are the same as previously made - see attached.

(11/07/17) I refer to the above application. I have no additional comments to make to those made on the earlier planning application 59766, namely:

The proposed development lies within the Lee Conservation Area and the Lee Bay Hotel contributes to the Conservation Area. As such, in the first instance I would advise that the North Devon Council’s Conservation Officer was consulted with regard to any comments

Page 39 Agenda Item 6 she will have on the proposed development and the impact of the demolition of this significant building within the Conservation Area.

The following comments are made without prejudice to any comments made by the North Devon Council’s Conservation Officer.

The desk-based assessment indicates that the site on the Lee Bay Hotel has been occupied by since at least the late 17th century. Historic maps show the northern part of the site to have contained a mill leat as well as a millpond that fed the Old Mill to the north- west which possibly dates to the late 16th century. Prehistoric activity in the wider landscape is demonstrated by the presence of a standing stone to the north-east. As such, groundworks associated with the construction of the proposed development have the potential to expose and destroy archaeological and artefactual deposits associated with the occupation of the site and with any archaeological features associated with the mill on the northern part of the site.

For this reason and in accordance with Policy ENV14 of the North Devon Local Plan and paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) I would advise that any consent your Authority may be minded to issue should carry the condition as worded below, based on model Condition 55 as set out in Appendix A of Circular 11/95, whereby:

‘No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.’

The development shall be carried out at all times in strict accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Reason 'To ensure, in accordance with Policy ENV14 of the North Devon Local Plan and paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework, that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development'

I would envisage a suitable programme of work as taking the form of the archaeological monitoring and recording of all groundworks associated with the proposed development to allow for the identification, investigation and recording of any exposed archaeological or artefactual deposits. In addition, further historic building recording may be required of the Lee Bay Hotel prior to its demolition. The results of the fieldwork and any post-excavation analysis undertaken would need to be presented in an appropriately detailed and illustrated report.

I will be happy to discuss this further with you, the applicant or their agent. The Historic Environment Team can also provide the applicant with advice of the scope of the works required, as well as contact details for archaeological contractors who would be able to undertake this work. Provision of detailed advice to non-householder developers may incur a charge. For further information on the historic environment and planning, and our charging schedule please refer the applicant to: https://new.devon.gov.uk/historicenvironment/development-management/.

Environmental Health:

Page 40 Agenda Item 6

(26/2/19) I have reviewed the amended plans and additional information in relation to Environmental Protection matters and comment as follows:

1 Foul Drainage Proposals The revised proposals, as described within the Planning and Regeneration Statement dated February 2019, retain proposals to install a new package treatment plant to deal with foul sewage from the development. The statement mentions discussions with the Environment Agency.

My previous comments on this application (email to you on 17 July 2017) raised concerns about the lack of information on proposals for dealing with foul drainage and on potential health risks depending on detailed proposals. Those comments stand.

2 My Previous Comments Notwithstanding the above, I have nothing to add to comments I made on this application by email on 17 July 2017. Those comments stand.

(15/3/19) I think the Applicant will need to provide a specialist assessment of potential risks to public health that considers the specific circumstances involved. The assessment would need to be prepared by a suitably qualified person and make reference to relevant standards and guidance. The aim will be to consider where the proposals might create any unacceptable health risks (for example whether members of the public such as young children might be exposed to unacceptable levels of pollution risk when using publically accessible areas of the beach / watercourse) and to propose monitoring and mitigation options to address any significant health risks identified. The assessment should consider risks associated with normal operation of any proposed system and also risks associated with any potential malfunctioning of the system along with how any malfunctioning risks could be monitored for and controlled. It may be helpful if the assessment can refer to comparable sites at which similar circumstances have been successfully addressed.

Once the above assessment has been prepared and assuming an acceptable scheme can be identified; implementation, operation and maintenance of the scheme could then be conditioned on any planning permission.

Any proposed scheme will clearly need to meet Environment Agency permit requirements.

Concerns raised by Natural England and associated responses relate to protection of natural habitats. They do not consider risks to public health.

(22/3/19) I have no major issue with dealing with this via a pre-commencement condition but such an approach might create additional work down the line if the assessment throws up any significant problems. This is a very particular set of circumstances so I can't prejudge whether significant difficulties are likely to arise - that's the point of the assessment. Ultimately, I am concerned to ensure that potentially significant risks to human health are properly investigated and any unacceptable risks are adequately addressed prior to any system going into operation.

(For a copy of the full letter of 17/7/17 see Inserts)

Devon Fire & Rescue: (Re-consulted 15/2/19) No response.

Page 41 Agenda Item 6

(10/8/17) The access route to the proposed development for fire appliances along the public roadway is restricted, the provided plans are unclear as to available access for fire appliances into the site for access to each type of property.

The fire authority consider that matters regarding provision of access for fire fighting vehicles and provision of fire hydrants are given full consideration, to ensure that adequate access to both property and water supplies can be provided within the proposed development.

Currently the roadway to the northwest and west of the site is provided with fire hydrants. The fire authority considers that due to the restricted vehicle access along the public roadway to the site, further provision of hydrant facilities should be considered to meet the requirements for firefighting for premises to the north eastern area of the proposed development.

The fire authority will comment on these matters as part of the statutory consultation process under the Building Regulations 2010.

Development Management (Highways): (Re-consulted 15/2/19) No response.

(19/9/17) There are no objections in principle to the proposed development. It is advisable to obtain confirmation from the applicant's that the provision of the 1.2 metre footway is to be provided with no encroachment onto the running carriageway. The submission indicates there is no existing footway but there is in part between the Upper Car Park and the Public Terrace. The footway will need to be secured by a Section 38/278 Agreement with full engineering submissions to be agreed with the Local Highway Authority in due course.

The following conditions are recommended: 1) The proposed footway shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before its construction begins. For this purpose, plans and sections, indicating, as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.

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

2) No other part of the development hereby approved shall be commenced until the footway on the public highway frontage required by this permission has been completed in accordance with details previously submitted for approval.

Reason In the interest of the safety of users of the adjoining public highway and to protect the amenities of adjoining residents.

Strategic Planning Children’s Services: (25/3/19) DCC Education originally replied to this application on 01/09/17 based upon the original 23 dwellings. Please see the updated response below based upon the now proposed 21 dwellings.

Page 42 Agenda Item 6

I can advise that 21 family-type dwellings can expect to produce an additional 5 primary pupils & 3 secondary school pupils which would have a direct impact on Ilfracombe Infants School, Ilfracombe Junior school and Ilfracombe College.

In order to make the development acceptable in planning terms, an education contribution to mitigate its impact will be requested. This is set out below:

We have forecast that the nearest primary and secondary schools have not got capacity for the number of pupils likely to be generated by the proposed development. Therefore, Devon County Council will seek a contribution towards this additional education infrastructure to serve the address of the proposed development.

The contribution sought towards primary is £80,095 (based on the DfE new build rate of £16,019 per pupil). As a new primary school is required, we would also need to request a proportionate land contribution of 10sqm per family-type dwelling. Based upon a land value of £320,000 per hectare, this land contribution would equate to £6,720, (or £320 per family type dwelling), and would be used towards the procurement of the new school site.

In addition, a contribution towards Early Years education is required to ensure delivery of provision for 2, 3 and 4 year olds. The contribution sought is £5,250 (or £250 per dwelling). This will be used to provide additional early years provision for children expected to be generated by the proposed development.

Since the original submission of this application, the designated secondary provision at Ilfracombe Academy is now at capacity. Therefore Devon County Council seek a contribution to extend existing secondary provision of £65,763 (based on the DfE extension rate of £21,921 per pupil). These contributions will relate directly to providing additional education facilities for those living in the development.

Finally, DCC seek a school transport contribution for both primary and secondary pupils due to the development being further than the statutory distances of 1.5miles from Ilfracombe primary schools and 2.25 miles from Ilfracombe Academy, and not on a safe walking route. The transport costs required are as follows: -

Primary 5 primary pupils = £3.98 per day x 5 pupils x 190 academic days x 7 years = £26,467

Secondary 3 secondary pupils = £3.98 per day x 3 pupils x 190 academic days x 5 years = £11,343

All contributions will be subject to indexation using BCIS, it should be noted that education infrastructure contributions are based on March 2015 prices and any indexation applied to contributions requested should be applied from this date.

The amount requested is based on established educational formulae (which related to the number of primary and secondary age children that are likely to be living in this type of accommodation) and It is considered that this is an appropriate methodology to ensure that the contribution is fairly and reasonably related in scale to the development proposed which complies with CIL Regulation 122.

Page 43 Agenda Item 6

If this application reaches the stage of preparing a Section 106 agreement, it is considered that the contribution can be allocated in accordance with the pooling regulations set out in the CIL Regulation 123.

In addition to the contribution figures quoted above, the County Council would wish to recover legal costs incurred as a result of the preparation and completion of the Agreement. Legal costs are not expected to exceed £500.00 where the agreement relates solely to the education contribution. However, if the agreement involves other issues or if the matter becomes protracted, the legal costs are likely to be in excess of this sum.

Environment Agency: (1/3/19) We confirm that we have no objection to the proposal. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) by Hydrock dated April 2017 has correctly identified the flood risks and suggested suitable mitigation measures, which include taking a sequential approach to siting, appropriate finished floor levels and landscaping measures. You may wish to include a planning condition to secure the implementation of these measures.

We also refer the applicant to our previous advice relating to foul drainage in our response dated 9 October 2017 (attached).

(15/3/19) We would agree that they will need to assess the potential risks as David (Environmental Health) has suggested. We would be happy to review any details submitted to ensure they satisfy our requirements with regard to impacts on the water environment.

(9/10/17) We have no objection to the proposal. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) by Hydrock dated April 2017 has correctly identified the flood risks and suggested suitable mitigation measures, which include taking a sequential approach to siting, appropriate finished floor levels and landscaping measures. You may wish to include a planning condition to secure the implementation of these measures.

We also have the following advice in respect of the proposed foul drainage arrangements and recommend that you consult with your Environmental Health team on these before the application is granted.

Advice – Foul drainage Any non-mains foul drainage system associated with this development will require an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010. Appropriate permit conditions will be agreed through the permitting process. However, the applicant should be aware that there is no guarantee that a permit will be granted.

At this stage we can offer the following advice. Given the location of the site, it is unlikely that it would be reasonable to connect to the public sewer, and the development will therefore need to be served by a private treatment system. Given the footprint of the site, effluent from the proposed sewage treatment plant will probably be discharged to the watercourse south of the site which then drains to the sea, rather than being discharged to ground.

Whilst we have no objections to this in principle, we advise that, although the beach is not a designated bathing water, because there will be public access to both the watercourse and the beach, we have to be mindful of risk to public health and nuisance issues. We

Page 44 Agenda Item 6 recommend that you consult with your Environmental Health team to obtain their views on the proposal to discharge onto the beach. The applicant should also be aware that they may need to consider what additional treatment may be required to mitigate against risk to public health.

The applicant is advised to contact our National Permitting Service on 03708 506 506 for further advice and to discuss the issues likely to be raised. Additional ‘Environmental Permitting Guidance' can be accessed online at https://www.gov.uk/permits-you-need-for- septic-tanks.

Economic Development: (Re-consulted 15/2/19) No response.

(7/3/18) Thanks for sending us the details for the above planning application.

Looking at the application, it has not changed significantly since the last (two?) iterations. Therefore our comments from previous consultations still stand.

We get the feeling that the applicant will keep on putting in what is essentially the same application repeatedly until everyone is worn down, and no longer has the resource to respond in any meaningful way. It has also been suggested that the proposed scheme is “better than nothing” – not a sentiment we agree with. It would be a shame to see such a development in this location go through because no one has the will to keep responding and looking at the applications.

Please feel free to come back to me if you need any further information, or if I can help in any other way.

Countryside & Landscape Officer : (5/4/19) As requested I have reviewed the Ecology Technical Note dated 01.03.19 in relation to our policy expectation for new development to demonstrate biodiversity net gain (BNG) using the DEFRA metric.

Unfortunately the technical note has not calculated the habitat gains correctly as the post development habitat values need to take into account the baseline value of the habitat that is being modified/enhanced. As a consequence of not taking account existing habitat values of the areas to be enhanced the numbers provided appear to give a much higher gain figure.

I have discussed this issue with the ecologist and hope that they will be able to provide a revised figure prior to planning committee as irrespective of the calculation error I am reasonably content that the habitat creation and management proposed within the landscape strategy should enable effective delivery of biodiversity net gain.

As stated previously, whilst content with the strategy proposed, the level of detail provided does not constitute a fully detailed and enforceable landscape scheme and if the proposed development is to be approved I would suggest that we impose a precedent condition to secure a detailed landscape and ecological management plan (LEMP ) by using the condition below. This would also secure a revised BNG figure for the detailed scheme.

Provision, implementation and maintenance of detailed landscape and ecological management plan (LEMP)

Page 45 Agenda Item 6

Prior to [ insert appropriate trigger point] a detailed landscape and ecological management plan (LEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. The content of the LEMP will address and expand upon the provision and management of all landscape and biodiversity avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measures of the development as set out within the ecological appraisal and preliminary ecological appraisal shall include:

a) A description and evaluation of landscape and ecological features to be created and managed and the ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management; b) A biodiversity impact assessment in accordance with the North Devon UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve Offsetting Strategy 2013-2018 / DEFRA Methodology c) Aims and objectives of the proposed landscape and ecological provisions; d) Appropriate management options for achieving the stated aims and objectives; e) Detailed hard landscape proposals including proposed finished levels or contours, means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc.); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc.). f) Soft landscape proposals including planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants (noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities); Implementation and management programme. g) Prescriptions for management actions; h) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over an initial 10- year period); i) Details of the body or organization responsible for implementation of plan; j) Details of ongoing landscape and ecological monitoring and implementation of any necessary remedial measures; k) Means reporting of landscape and ecological monitoring results to the Local Planning Authority and provisions for seeking written agreement to any changes to the management actions and prescriptions that may be necessary to ensure effective delivery of the aims and objectives of the LEMP over time.

The LEMP shall also include details of the mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body (is) responsible for its delivery. The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning landscape and biodiversity objectives of the scheme. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

(9/10/18) My comments from the earlier applications in relation to this site still apply;

I do not consider that the proposed tree removals to facilitate the proposed development raise a significant conflict with policy and can be appropriately mitigated for through the provision of new planting in association with the proposed development. Similarly I have no objections to the hard/soft landscape design proposals but would wish to see further Page 46 Agenda Item 6 detail in respect of these matters which could be secured through the imposition of an appropriate condition. (I believe previously we merely sought a detailed landscape scheme – but in terms of securing ‘net gains’ for biodiversity we may wish to use the more recent landscape and ecological management plan approach.)

Overall I would consider the proposed development of the site to provide an opportunity to secure a net gain in respect of how the grounds could contribute to a more naturalistic appearance and ecological enhancement of the site over the previous/existing position.

PROW: (Re-consulted 15/2/19) No response.

(Comments on previous application 59766) Thank you for consulting me on this application, I make the following observations:

• The main impact on the public rights of way network by the proposed development is at the beach access to the public car park area, where Ilfracombe Footpath 36 leaves the road and runs through to The Grampus. This is a very well used public footpath, referred to in the supporting documents and the Design and Access Statement. Not only is it used by people moving between the village centre and the car park / beach, it is also used to connect into the footpath network in Borough Valley, with walkers using the car park / toilet facilities here. • Should the development go ahead in line with the submitted plans, measures must be put in place to protect users of the footpath at the access point by the sea wall from site traffic. All contractors and delivery vehicles should be pre-warned that members of the public may be walking here, and reinforced with onsite safety signs. Should it be necessary to close the public right of way at any stage during the development (for example the laying of tarmac as outlined in the submitted documents) then a formal temporary closure must be in place. This can be obtained from Devon County Council if required. • I cannot determine from the plans and documents whether the footpaths across the site, mentioned in the Design and Access Statement, will be designated as public footpaths connecting to the public highways etc, or will be restricted to use by residents. If routes are to be made public, they will need to be the subject of an adoption process as part of any highway measures agreed, and/or a creation agreement in the case of unmetalled surfaces. Could this be clarified by the applicants please? • Also I cannot determine whether there will be any direct link from the line of Ilfracombe Footpath 36 into the site in the area of the proposed café and toilet block, as the public toilets are currently accessed directly off the footpath here. Could this be clarified by the applicants please?

I have copied this response to my colleague in Highway Development Control, as any future corporate responses on reserved matters etc would be coordinated through that section.

REPRESENTATIONS

At the time of preparing this report 256 letters of objection, 11 letters of comment and 6 letters of support have been received relating to the application (copies of all the letters have been made available prior to the Planning Committee meeting in accordance with

Page 47 Agenda Item 6 agreed procedures). A petition with 1237 signatories has also been received setting out objections to the application.

Main Issues

Objection • Likely to be second homes/holiday lets/lack of permanent residents/no affordable housing. • Increase in housing in Lee/no need for 23. • Does not comply with planning policy for housing. • Does not preserve or enhance the extended Conservation Area. • Heritage asset (building) demolished. • Design does not blend with adjoining listed building. • Visual impact of the development on the character of the village and the local area in terms of style and material. • Scale, massing, height and design contrary to AONB, CPA. Larger footprint than last time. Third block of houses. Suburbanised. • Not in the public interest/major development in the AONB. • Not sustainable development in terms of DVS1A. • No benefit to local economy/no tourism element of consequence. • Inadequate infrastructure – roads, shops, schools, bus service, phone signal. • Traffic generation unacceptable (as with previous use), difficulties for emergency vehicles. • No need for extra parking. • No benefit to the community. • No access for locals to the site/more public space required/gated community. • Nothing for hikers and kayakers visiting Lee. • Little provision for tourists/walkers. • Increased crime likely. • Less opening hours for the toilet. • Loss of employment. • Damage to eco system/area of scientific interest. • Loss of trees. • Knotweed problem is not a reason for development/intentional neglect. • Superficial revisions. • Previous refusal. • Local opinion ignored lack of support/lack of engagement on this application. • Already being marketed. • Decision could be liable to JR. • Alternative schemes available, including tourism, local housing and conservation friendly. • Lack of transparency with VA. • Impact on the seascape. • The café is wrongly located and too small. • The building has been abandoned. • Light pollution. • Public health risk from foul drainage. • Content of Building for Life Assessment.

Observations

Page 48 Agenda Item 6

• Any dwellings should be restricted to holiday use and some local occupancy. • Café/Restaurant should be at the sea front/larger. • Café toilets should be open 24 hours. • Needs affordable housing. • Access road improvements are required. • NT in advanced discussions regarding the café, toilet and car park element.

Support • The site is an eyesore. • In keeping with the character of Lee. • Gradual deterioration has a negative impact on the AONB • The existing building had lost any character. • Life will be brought to the village. • Construction jobs created for local tradesmen. • Improvement on previous plans. • Benefits from public seating area, car park and toilets. • Possible alternative plans are from a small company in Lancashire. • A step in the right direction.

See attached list for representation names and addresses.

PLANNING HISTORY

Decision Reference Proposal Decision Date ND AD 153 Proposed advertisement sign CC 21.11.62 ND AD 257 Proposed advertisement sign R 15.09.67 ND 945 Proposed erection of Public Conveniences W ND 1065 Proposed Public Conveniences CC 19.12.62 ND 1279 Proposed swimming pool, cubicles & pump house CC 25.02.64 ND 1403 Proposed extension to hotel UC 08.12.64 ND 1426 Proposed staff quarters UC 19.10.64 ND 1517 Proposed sewage disposal works CC 21.07.65 ND 1557 Proposed car parking facilities & improved access CC 02.07.65 ND 1673 Proposed garages & store CC 21.02.66 ND 1746 Proposed car park CC 26.10.66 ND 1870 Proposed conversion of shop & flat to dwellinghouse CC 24.05.67 ND 1874 Proposed covering & enlarging outside passage CC 23.05.67 ND 2572 Proposed hardening of footpath for public use on OS R 23.02.71 2239 & engineering works on part OS 2233 ND 2615 Proposed provision of private footpath for public use W 06.04.71 through amenity area & provision of service access to Chapel Cottage ND 3286 Proposed private drive & pond (Chapel Cottage) CC 13.09.73 74/0002/34/3 Proposed construction of 2no. tennis courts CC 08.05.74 75/257/34/3 Proposed fire prevention work CC 04.03.75 75/394/34/5 Proposed illuminated single sided box sign W 75/445/34/5 Proposed single sided illuminated box sign CC 12.11.75 77/120/34/3 Proposed conversion of store to form 2no. bedrooms, CC 02.03.77 shower room and toilet

Page 49 Agenda Item 6

Decision Reference Proposal Decision Date 77/748/34/3 Proposed foul drain to serve 4no. dwellings and CC 17.06.77 discharge to existing sewage works within grounds of Lee Bay Hotel, OS 2546, 3144 & pt 2851 79/188/34/3 Proposed additional staff accommodation R 26.06.79 Appeal Allowed 28.01.80 79/1315/34/3 Proposed alterations and extension to existing hotel CC 06.02.80 0/1040/34/3 Proposed revised entrance (amendment to CC 07.07.80 2/79/1315/34/3) 83/1924/34/3 Proposed enclosure of existing swimming pool together W with the provision of additional leisure facilities and alterations to access 84/845/34/3 Proposed alteration to existing access CC 28.08.84 84/1685/34/3 Proposed swimming pool extension to existing CC 20.02.85 premises 85/293/34/3 Proposed conversion of gift shop to form dwelling R 10.06.85 85/2043/34/3 Proposed alterations and extension to existing CC 27.03.86 swimming pool 86/1516/34/3 Proposed store for garden machinery R 16.09.86 86/2161/34/3 Proposed replacement car park kiosk and change of R 15.01.87 use to sale of beach goods from Easter to end of September each year 2104 Proposed conservatory CC 13.10.87 2105 Proposed replacement of LPG storage tanks CC 26.11.87 7423 Proposed glazed covered walkway link between hotel R 04.01.89 and proposed leisure complex for disabled persons 7424 Proposed extension to hotel to form 7no. double R 07.03.89 bedrooms with en-suite facilities for disabled persons and new reception area 7425 Proposed erection of building to enclose existing R 07.03.89 swimming pool and to provide leisure complex 11800 Proposed demolition of stone wall and re-building of CC 25.06.90 same 11801 Conservation Area Application: Proposed demolition of CC 25.06.90 a non-listed wall in a Conservation Area 12096 Proposed temporary siting of 6no. caravans for staff R 10.07.90 accommodation 28983 Notification of works to trees situated in a Conservation CC 11.05.00 Area in respect of felling of 4no. Sycamore & 1 no. Oak trees (Lee Manor) 29579 Proposed formation of tennis court (Chapel Cottage) W 27.07.00 35198 Proposed formation of tennis court for community use CC 12.08.03 (amended plans) (Chapel Cottage) 45227 Extension & alterations including minor demolition, slate W 18.12.07 terracing & formation of turning area (amended & additional plans) 49712 Redevelopment of redundant hotel complex to form 19 FDO 15.11.12 shared ownership holiday apartments, 5 further new build holiday apartments in grounds together with associated cafe/bistro/bar, restaurant, spa, pool complex, kiosk & associated works (amended drawings & flood risk assessment)

Page 50 Agenda Item 6

Decision Reference Proposal Decision Date 59766 Demolition of existing hotel & public wc block; erection R 01.11.16 of 20 Dwellings; formation of new public open space; extension to Existing car park; erection of cafe & wc block; & associated Landscaping, drainage & highway works

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

• Previous Decision • Policy Context • Housing • Ecology • Design • Heritage Assets • Landscape • Amenity • Drainage • Transport • Other issues • S106

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Previous Decision

Members will recall that a previous similar planning application 59766 was refused for the following two reasons:

1. The proposed development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the designated Lee Conservation Area contrary to the statutory requirement set out in the Planning (Section 72 Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area; neither would the proposal preserve the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed Old Mill contrary to the requirements of Section 16 (2) of the Act and its advice that LPAS have ‘special regard’ to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings. Specifically, the proposal would result in the loss of significance of a non-designated heritage asset (NPPF paragraph 135), less than substantial harm to a designated asset (NPPF paragraph 134) in adversely affecting the setting of the grade II listed Old Mill and would result in a high degree of less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the designated conservation area. In this instance, the benefits of the proposed development are not considered such as to outweigh the harm caused to the heritage interest. In these respects the proposal is accordingly considered to be contrary to Policy ENV 16 (Development in Conservation Areas) and Policy ENV17 (Listed Buildings) of the adopted North Devon Local Plan.

2. The proposed development, by reason of its scale, massing, height and design would be detrimental to the conservation and enhancement of the designated Area of

Page 51 Agenda Item 6

Outstanding Natural Beauty in conflict with Policy DVS1 (Design) of the adopted North Devon Local Plan and Policy ENV2 (The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). The proposal would also be in conflict with the conservation, protection and enhancement of the Heritage Coast contrary to Policy ENV3 (The Heritage Coast) of the adopted North Devon Local Plan and would detract from the unspoilt character and appearance of the Coastal Preservation Area contrary to Policy ENV5 of the adopted North Devon Local Plan. As the development represents major development within the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the proposal therefore conflicts with the advice set out in paragraphs 115 and 116 of the NPPF.

3. In the opinion of the LPA the proposal would not represent sustainable development contrary to the principles set out in Policy DVS1A of the adopted North Devon Local Plan having particular regard to the adverse environmental impact on the designated heritage assets noted and the loss of use of the site for tourism purposes to the detriment of the sustainable economy of the area.

This previous decision is a material planning consideration.

Policy Context

In the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (NDTLP) the supporting text explains that beyond Local Centres and Villages, the opportunity to achieve sustainable development is diminished by the increasing absence of services and facilities. It is however recognised that there is a further tier of generally small settlements, with and without services, which contribute to the overall sustainability of the rural area.

Appropriately scaled and located development to meet locally identified generated housing needs will be supported in qualifying Rural Settlements (requiring the settlement to have at least one service or community facility from the following:- community/village hall, post office, public house, convenience shop, place of worship, sports playing field, primary school), as enabled by Policy DM24: Rural Settlements. Lee has three of the aforementioned facilities.

However, it must also be recognised that Policy DM24 is intended for local occupancy dwellings to meet a locally identified housing need, which will be supported where: (a) the development site forms part of a small closely grouped or contiguous built form of housing that is physically separate from urban areas of other defined settlements; (b) the scale is proportionate to the settlement’s size, form and character; (c) the site is within or directly adjoining the built form of the settlement; (d) the size of the dwellings are no larger than can be justified by the established need; (e) it would not harm the settlement’s rural character and setting; and (f) secure arrangements are made to ensure the dwellings remains available to meet the locally identified housing needs of the local community both initially and in the long term provided the need exists;

The proposal does not comply with this policy.

On the other hand it must be recognised that this is not a greenfield site but previously developed land. The NDLP states ‘The Plan aims to maximise the re-use of previously developed sites and the existing building stock in order to promote urban regeneration and minimise the loss of countryside. Generally, all forms of development will be encouraged

Page 52 Agenda Item 6 to make use of previously developed land and buildings where appropriate and practical to their circumstances in preference to using greenfield sites’.

This approach is reflected in paragraph 117 of the NPPF which requires that planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land (Except where this would conflict with other policies in this Framework, including causing harm to designated sites of importance for biodiversity).

In terms of potential alternative uses of the site, the Economic Development Officer confirms her previous comments on the last application 59766, which questions the exclusion of tourism use of the site and the impact of a large housing scheme on the attractiveness of the area and the tourist economy.

A further review of the viability of the re-use of the site for on-going holiday use was submitted in February 2018 which concludes that a proposed hotel use would be unviable due to the location, associated high wage costs and challenging occupancy. It was also considered whether the site could be redeveloped as 24 self-catering holiday apartments, but this was also found not to be viable. The opinion from Savills is that there is no viable future holiday use for the Lee Bay site.

The AONB team who had initially raised concerns about the viability of the proposed café are now reassured that a sustainable long term operator would appear to have been secured.

It is worth noting that the last tourism led scheme proposed for the site (49712), including retention of the historic core of the hotel did not materialise, despite a resolution to grant planning permission.

Generally in terms of alternative uses, the applicant advises that ‘Colliers have identified that the site has been unsuccessfully marketed in the past, since the closure of the hotel. Colliers have considered the possible reuse of the building for residential care, offices, medical, educational or other leisure uses but because of the relative remoteness of the location and the high associated rebuilding cost it is highly unlikely that any alternative use could be achieved for the site.

In conclusion, market advice as outlined above, and the experience of seeking funding for the previous scheme has confirmed that re use of the site as a hotel, an apart hotel and/or scheme of holiday-let apartments or other alternative uses would not be viable in this location. Acorn Blue and its consultant team has reasonably concluded that the only way in which the site can be regenerated will be through a residential-led scheme of regeneration. To ensure that a scheme is viable, and can maximise opportunities to deliver an appropriate package of community benefits and address the technical constraints, it will be necessary to develop a range of residential units from flats through to family homes’ .

Further comment on viability issues is set out in the section Heritage Assets below.

Whilst it is accepted that the loss of tourism use is regrettable, no alternative tourism based schemes have been submitted to the Council for consideration since the last

Page 53 Agenda Item 6 planning application either as informal pre-application enquiry, or formal planning application.

Housing

North Devon Council considers that they are able to demonstrate a 5YHLS in accordance with the provisions of their adopted development plan, as evidenced through their North Devon 2016/2017 Authority Monitoring Report (AMR). On this basis the “tilted balance” need not apply to decision taking in North Devon and the demonstration of a joint 5YHLS at adoption of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan simply reinforces that position.

In terms of housing proposals in the adopted Local Plan, the site is an unallocated brownfield site outside the development boundary. The site has not been identified in the SHLAA.

In rural settlements such as Lee, the policy is that the occupancy of any dwellings will be restricted to meeting the needs of the local community in accordance with the occupancy restrictions set out in paragraph 13.133 of the Plan. Consideration of Policy DM24 is set out above and is related to spatial strategy Policy ST07 which supports development in Rural Settlements which contain at least one prescribed service or community facility, appropriately located development of a modest scale will be enabled to meet locally generated needs.

Clearly the proposal is at odds with the general approach to housing provision in Lee, because the scheme is for 21 open market dwellings. Consequently, there is an understandable concern locally that the dwellings proposed will become second and holiday homes. The LPA does not have the ability to prevent this type of occupancy, whether in new or existing open market dwellings.

A concern expressed in some public representations is that the scheme lacks any element of affordable housing.

It will be noted that the Housing Officer accepts that Vacant Building Credit means that there is no requirement of affordable housing in this instance.

It should be noted that the Housing Officer has also provided guidance on what is required in terms of affordable housing, should it be considered that VBC does not apply in this case.

The Written Ministerial Statement relating to thresholds for affordable housing contributions and more significantly in this case Vacant Building Credit, has been re- introduced by the government and incorporated into the NPPF and NDTLP in Policy ST18.

Planning practice guidance advises that the vacant building credit applies where the building has not been abandoned.

The Council needs to consider whether any building is not an ‘abandoned building’ or vacated solely for the purpose of redevelopment and the factors to take into account include: i) The physical condition of the building; ii) The length of time that the building had not been used;

Page 54 Agenda Item 6 iii) Whether it had been used for any other purposes; and iv) The owner’s intentions. The policy is intended to incentivise brownfield development, including the reuse or redevelopment of empty and redundant buildings. In considering how the vacant building credit should apply to a particular development, local planning authorities should have regard to the intention of national policy. In doing so, it may be appropriate for authorities to consider:

• Whether the building has been made vacant for the sole purposes of re-development.

• Whether the building is covered by an extant or recently expired planning permission for the same or substantially the same development.

On the basis that the hotel has not been ‘abandoned’ in planning terms, there will be no affordable housing requirement. This is because the existing hotel floor space of 2,772 sqm (GIA) is greater than the cumulative proposed residential floor space across all 23 units of 2,666 sqm (GIA). The cumulative residential floor space is therefore 106 sqm (GIA) less than the total floor space of the former hotel building.

Objectors to the scheme suggest that the hotel has been abandoned and consequently, VBC does not apply. The applicant has been asked to comment further on this matter and comments ‘I recall that the Council sought its own legal advice on the matter of abandonment in 2016 prior to the consideration of planning application 59766. There has been no material change in circumstance at the application site since the provision of this advice in 2016. The building’s superstructure remains substantially intact. It is our view that the building could be brought back into use through the reinstatement of services, repairs and refurbishment – if it were viable to do so’.

As stated in the Introduction to this report, members were keen to see affordable housing included in the scheme, whether vacant building credit applies or not. On the question of affordable housing need, the recently completed Lee & Lincombe Housing Needs Report concludes that there is a need for 7 dwellings over the next 5 years comprising 6 one or two bedroom properties and 1 five bedroom property.

The applicant has been made aware of this, but the latest response is ‘the application of Vacant Building Credit negates any requirement to provide affordable housing. Furthermore, the Viability Appraisal will confirm that neither the current 23 No. scheme, or proposed revised 21 No. unit scheme, would generate sufficient revenue to enable the provision of affordable housing’.

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).

The application is accompanied by an Ecological Appraisal and Protected Species Survey Report, supplemented by a further update survey in February 2017. The Appraisal concluded that the existing ecological value of the propsed development site is moderate.

Page 55 Agenda Item 6

It is likely that the site is used by bats, badgers, nesting birds and reptiles, which led to the Protected Species Survey Report.

The following enhancement measures were proposed and have been re-confirmed by the 2017 survey: • The inclusion of appropriate locally native plant species in landscape garden planting plans. The Devon Biodiversity Action Plan will be used as a guide to the appropriate species mix; • Habitat improvements to the stream corridor and culvert including landscaping incorporating locally native aquatic and water-margin plants; • Installation of bat and bird boxes in existing trees, and installation of artificial features for bats, birds and insects within the development • The management and enhancement of hedgerows to improve ecological quality and structure and the retention and protection of mature trees .

Slow worms have also been found on site, which will require translocation.

A concern was initially raised by Natural England about potential impact on the Marine Conservation Zone, but this has been allayed by confirmation that the proposal includes creation of a reed beds to receive discharge from the packet sewage treatment plant before it enters the stream. This is again mentioned in the latest consultation response, but the wetland/reed bed although not specifically shown as such in latest landscape plan, is still included in the earlier Engain Reed bed details and Hydrock FRA, Drainage and Hydraulic Modelling Report, which form part of the application submission.

With regard to Biodiversity, Policy ST14 and DM08 of the NDTLP requires that losses to biodiversity must be minimised, fully mitigated and compensated for by the creation or enhancement of habitat and the Government policy set out in section 15 of the NPPF is to minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains.

Following adoption of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan, Policy DM08 relating to Biodiversity and Geodiversity states at (8) ‘Development should avoid adverse impact on existing features as a first principle and enable net gains by designing in biodiversity features and enhancements and opportunities for geological conservation alongside new development. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable they must be adequately and proportionately mitigated. If full mitigation cannot be provided, compensation will be required as a last resort’.

‘New development will contribute towards a net gain in northern Devon's biodiversity. All development will be expected to provide a net gain in biodiversity where possible. Where biodiversity assets cannot be retained or enhanced on site, the Councils will support ‘biodiversity offsetting’ to deliver a net gain in biodiversity off-site in accordance with adopted protocols. The DEFRA metric (Technical Paper: The metric for the biodiversity offsetting pilot in England, DEFRA (2012) or subsequent revisions) will be used to assess the extent of any net gain and acceptability of developments having an impact on biodiversity’. The applicant has submitted a Biodiversity Offsetting Metric for consideration and a response from the Landscape & Countryside Officer is awaited.

Natural England welcomes the proposal to deal with invasive species such as Japanese knotweed.

Design Page 56 Agenda Item 6

Criticism of design remains an issue with the public and certain consultees, with the suggestion that this will have a detrimental impact on the character of the conservation area. The criticisms relate primarily to scale, massing, height and materials. Heritage issues are specifically considered in the next section.

Part 12 of the NPPF establishes the parameters for new design, identifying at paragraph 127 that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well- being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users46; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

This approach is echoed in Policy DM04 of the NDTLP which relates to Design Principles.

A summary of the design is set out in the Proposals section above, changes having been made to the detailed design in August and September 2017 and more recently in February 2019.

The ‘Arrival Building’ comprising apartments, stands on the area occupied by the core of the existing hotel. The ridge of the roof of this building will be for the most part no higher than that of the existing building. At the western end the new building is set 4 metres back from the site boundary, reducing impact on the listed building opposite.

With regard to the most recent amendments to the design, the agent advises ‘Further to the decision of the Council’s Planning Committee to defer consideration of the application for three months at its November 2018, the scheme was amended. The design and dwelling mix of the previously proposed ‘Middle’ and ‘Upper’ Buildings have been revised with the loss of two residential units, and removal the upper storeys. The changes to the scheme are summarised below: • The Middle Building now comprises a terrace of 4 No. 2-storey houses: 2 No. 3-beds; and 2 No. 4-beds.

Page 57 Agenda Item 6

• The Upper Building comprises a block comprising 2 No. 4-bed houses and 2 No. 3-bed flats. • The reduction in units has enabled all residential car parking and visitor spaces to be accommodated within the residential part of the site’.

The Middle Building is now 2.6 metres longer, but the road facing gable at the lower western end has been reduced in height, which has lowered the ridge line by 1.75m. A road facing gable has been introduced at the eastern end and the ridge height at this end is unchanged. Removing roof level accommodation has resulted in a greater expanse of roof, but also the opportunity to step it down halfway along the building. On the south side of the building, the change is significant as a consequence of removing the top floor, resulting in a more appropriate elevation in terms of the locality. Timber cladding and fish tail slates no longer feature on the middle building.

The Upper Building has changed more significantly in terms of the roadside view, with a simpler façade and again the opportunity taken to step the roof down towards the sea front. A gable at the western end has been omitted, resulting in a drop in ridge height of 1.5m. As with the Middle Building, on the south side of the building, the change is significant as a result of removing the top floor, resulting in a simpler, more compact elevation and a scale more representative of the locality. Timber cladding and fish tail slates no longer feature on the upper building.

The palette of materials used, which is reflected in the appearance of the apartment block, the middle and upper blocks to the east and the café can be found in the village, comprising render, substantial areas of natural rubble stone and natural fish tail slate detailing (to the apartment block only), under a natural slate roof, although the use of timber cladding in some elevations to the apartment block and café is less prevalent.

The overall appearance of the buildings in terms of detailing, arrangement of materials and proportions does not exactly reflect existing buildings in the village and has a distinctive style of its own, although the middle and upper blocks have moved a long way towards an appearance which is more sympathetic to the character of Lee. The merits or otherwise of this approach is to some extent subjective, but the existing hotel building is also unique in terms of the village, in its scale and appearance.

The design is discussed further in the next section of the report relating to Heritage Assets.

Policy DM04 (2) requires that ‘All major residential proposals will be expected to be supported by a Building for Life 12 (BfL12) (or successor) assessment. High quality design should be demonstrated through the minimisation of "amber" and the avoidance of "red" scores’. The applicant has now submitted a Building for Life Review, although the content of the document has drawn criticism from objectors.

With regard to Policies ST01 to ST05 and ST16 relating to sustainable development and renewable energy as applied to the buildings to be constructed, the Design & Access Statement sets out energy considerations and how sustainable construction will be achieved.

The Designing Out Crime Officer has no objections in principle, but seeks clarification in respect of Secured By Design requirements and has some concerns about informal garden spaces, communal parking areas and arrangements for the café, toilets and public

Page 58 Agenda Item 6 car park. Some of the enhanced security suggestions are welcome, but additional fencing and gates, for the apartments and housing and car parking, is likely to have a detrimental effect on the openness of the valley.

A landscaping scheme has been submitted which is intended to ‘integrate the proposed landscape into its context and reconnect the existing alluvial landscape with the water’. The proposals include: private tarmac car parks; back gardens with informal shrub boundaries; terrace to the café; reinforced grass café service area; central pond and stream; public car park with a porous surface; central meadows and woodland; wild stream garden; stone paved public terrace; shared front gardens; and, wild front gardens. These proposals are acceptable in principle to the Landscape & Countryside Officer.

Heritage Assets

A designated heritage asset can be a listed building (including curtilage listed building), Conservation Area, Registered Park or Garden or Scheduled Ancient Monument.

An undesignated heritage asset is one that has been identified by the Local Planning Authority. These can include locally listed buildings, archaeological sites, and buildings or structures considered to have local heritage significance.

A Core Planning’ principle of the NPPF in terms of sustainable development is to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment (paragraph 8).

In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out a general duty on a Local Planning Authority in respect of conservation areas in the exercise of their planning functions. In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a designated conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area which may be identified in a Character Appraisal .

Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act states that 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 same duty is repeated relating to planning permissions affecting listed buildings at Section 66 of the Act and applies to all decisions concerning listed buildings.

Page 59 Agenda Item 6

The Act enshrines a strong presumption against harm to the significance of a heritage asset. If harm is likely to be caused by a proposal, paragraphs 193 to 197 of the NPPF will need to be applied.

It will be noted from the response from Historic England (27/2/18) following submission of additional information, that there are concerns about the visual intensification of development within the location, which conflicts with the character and appearance of the conservation area.

In response to the structural report from Savills they take the view that although the site has been made secure, there has clearly been no maintenance carried out on the building since its closure. They consider that the building could be reused and comment that ‘The cost of full repair and renovation put forward in the application is significant. However, it is not clear how this compares to the cost associated with the demolition and construction of the proposed new buildings within the locality. They query the potential difference in expense and maintain that ‘the building could be converted and adapted to reflect some of its former glory. The structural report does identify some concerns but we are not convinced that the associated costs would defer substantially from that of the new builds. Consequently, we would question the justification present through the associated costs compared to the current proposals’.

(Further information was submitted on 24 th July 2018 including a Conversion Option Report for a scheme of 14 residential units and confidential appraisal of the hypothetical conversion scheme).

With regard to the Financial Viability Assessment, concern is maintained about the visual density of development along the north-east side of the site and HE comment that through robust analysis it will establish whether there is sufficient justification for the harm caused to the heritage asset and whether the quantum of development proposed is the minimum necessary to secure the regeneration of the site. It will also need to demonstrably outweigh the harm caused to the conservation area as identified in the NPPF, which includes securing the assets optimum viable use as well as associated public benefits. The council should be mindful that in the Planning Practise Guide optimum viable use does not relate to the most profitable solution but the one most compatible with the long term conservation of the asset.

In terms of the previously amended plans, the Heritage & Conservation Officer view (19/9/17) was that in summary ‘my view in relation to the effect on the Conservation Area is that the proposal will result in less than substantial harm to the significance of this heritage asset. As detailed above I consider that the proposal will not preserve the setting of the listed building, leading to a degree of less than substantial harm in this respect. The proposal will also result in the total loss of a non designated heritage asset. Therefore, under the terms of the NPPF, a balanced judgement which takes into account the scale of harm, the significance of the assets affected, and the public benefits of this proposal will need to be made’ .

The Lee Conservation Area Character Appraisal has recently been adopted and any development schemes for the Lee Bay Hotel should seek to:

• Maintain a robust sense of enclosure along the northeast side of the site along the main road;

Page 60 Agenda Item 6

• Maintain a varied roof-scape, as this will be prominent from elevated viewpoints around the village – mixtures of roof-forms and junctions including steps in both eaves and ridge could be used to add interest; • Attain a high architectural standard which takes design cues from prevalent local styles where possible; • Reflect the varied and eclectic forms of development within the village, avoiding standard urban designs with no local distinctiveness; • Provide publically accessible, and appropriately landscaped open space overlooking the beach frontage; • Enhance, through water and landscape design, the condition of the valley setting; • Maintain open elements within the site to avoid harm to the significant contribution undeveloped spaces make to local character.

The original full Financial Viability Assessment was considered by the Council’s independent adviser and subsequent discussions took place to see if an agreed position could be reached. The Council adviser was of the view that a scheme for 18 dwellings rather than 23 would be viable based on that FVA.

The issue here is the comment from Historic England that the main justification for the loss of the building and the quantum of development is the viability of the scheme. The optimum viable use does not relate to the most profitable solution but the one most compatible with the long term conservation of the asset (Planning Practice Guide).

Therefore, the LPA need to robustly assess the viability of the proposals and ensure that the quantum of development proposed is the minimum necessary to secure the regeneration of the site. This assessment needs to be considered along with any public benefits offered by the scheme and should demonstrably outweigh the harm identified to the heritage assets affected.

With reference to the Conversion Option Report, it is noted that it is feasible to convert the building into 14 apartments, but the applicant sets out a number of technical and financial points stemming from the Report stating why in the applicant’s view this would not be practicable.

Additionally, the applicant’s view was that if the 14 unit conversion scheme were to be included, it would still be necessary to construct 10 new build units in the middle and upper blocks, plus an additional 250 sqm of GIA, resulting in more than 24 units.

The Heritage & Conservation Officer and Historic England were re-consulted on the Conversion Option Report and their views are set out in the letters included as Inserts.

Essentially, the comments were:

• The independent review of the viability of the scheme, which was that a reduced scheme for 18 units will also be viable.

• The Conversion Option report assumes that the eastern section will be removed, but retains the modern extensions on the southern, garden front, which are not of historic or architectural value which could be removed without detriment to the character of the historic element of the building, or of the Conservation Area.

Page 61 Agenda Item 6

• It is not beyond a competent architect to achieve a better use of this part of the building, or to identify a way of protecting against damp.

• The Conversion Option report states that there are no structural drawings for the building, therefore there are some uncertainties about the need for new structural supports. It also makes the point that there have been 10 years of progressive moisture damage. Both of these points are true; the first can be remedied through the provision of a structural survey and the second could have been addressed if the building had been maintained, rainwater goods cleared etc. From the appearance of the building it is evident that this has not been the case. • There are several relevant paragraphs in the NPPF, among them: • P191 “Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of, or damage to, a heritage asset, the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision.” (Note that ‘heritage asset’ includes non-designated heritage assets) • P197 “The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.” • I am not convinced that the Conversion Option Report provides sufficient certainty that there is no viable means of retaining the historic core of the building.

The comments of Historic England on this matter are set out in their letter of 22 nd August 2018.

The applicant disagreed with the appraisal produced by the Council adviser and maintained that 23 units was the minimum required to produce a viable scheme and that the adviser is wrong to have indicated that the loss of 5 units would still be viable. The applicant’s letter confirmed that there remained areas of disagreement, principally in terms of GDV and developers profit.

The letter was accompanied by a shadow appraisal Rev B in which it is stated an 18 unit scheme renders the Council adviser’s appraisal as -£72,139 in deficit. The Council adviser does not agree with the conclusions in that letter, other than where it also concludes that an impasse has been reached.

His view was that the previous VA that he carried out still showed that a lesser scheme of 18 units would be viable based on his figures as opposed to those used by the applicant’s consultant.

On the basis of the above, it appeared that no further progress could be made on this issue and the proposal would not comply with policy relating to heritage assets.

As referred to in the Introduction an updated appraisal has been submitted by JLL on behalf of the applicant and made publicly available. A copy has been sent to PCC for independent assessment.

The applicant states that the result of this engagement (with PCC), was a difference of opinion in respect of the scheme costs. To address this matter the applicant has sought a detailed construction quote from a local well-reputed contractor, Classic, and a detailed full costing appraisal from a nationally renowned Quantity Surveyor, Taylor Lewis’.

Page 62 Agenda Item 6

In response to correspondence from the applicant, the view from NDC’s viability adviser at the time of the last Planning Committee was ‘The NPPF/PPG states that an applicant must demonstrate why a proposed development is not able to comply with the policies adopted in the current Local Plan, and the LPA as the decision maker, consider how much weight to attach to such an application.

Following the deferment of the original application Acorn Blue decided to update their viability submission, and instructed JLL to present a viability report, which was produced in November 2018. PCC had been engaged to carry out an independent review of the original viability report submitted and asked to comment on this updated appraisal from the deferred application.

The results from the JLL appraisal demonstrate that the application for a 23 unit scheme provides an acceptable profit level and is therefore viable. Whilst considering alternative inputs PCC also reach the same conclusion, and therefore there is ‘no case’ to consider on viability terms.

The Applicant also requested JLL to consider the hypothetical case of 18 units (through the removal of one of the 5 unit blocks) and concluded that the profit level would not be sufficient, and therefore not viable.

Obviously an 18 unit scheme will produce a lower total sales income (GDV) but PCC believe that the removal of one of the blocks will show additional savings in build cost, and still result in a profitable development in accord with the NPPF.

In order to reach an agreement on the predicted build cost for a reduced unit development, PCC proposed that an independent local QS be engaged to review the cost plan, but this has yet to be undertaken.

PCC understand that the applicant is considering a further reduction in the impact of the structure by introducing an alternative 21 unit scheme. Perhaps this proposal will be more acceptable from a landscape and heritage point of view, and provide the profit levels required.

However planning policy requires that the viability review is to consider the application as submitted, and the only validated application at this date is the 23 unit scheme, which both JLL acting for Acorn Blue, and PCC as the independent consultant concur is viable’.

In terms of both heritage and design considerations, there was a request from members that the applicant look at opening up the centre of the site through re-design of the layout, that could possibly include moving, reconfiguration and resizing of the accommodation in the different blocks. This is to reduce impact on the Conservation Area relating to the concerns of conservation officers. If the number of units was reduced to 18 this would have allowed removal of the middle block, further opening up views.

The applicant response was, ‘noting the Planning Committee’s clear preference to secure an amendment to the scheme that would further reduce the quantum of the development, the applicant has examined alternative options relating to the design and mass of the proposed ‘Upper’ and ‘Middle’ buildings. I can advise that it is the applicant’s intention to submit further and final revised plans ‘compromise’ proposal for 21 No. dwellings which

Page 63 Agenda Item 6 will reduce the ‘Upper’ and ‘Middle’ buildings by one storey whilst retaining the absolute minimum quantum of proposed development to enable a viable scheme’.

Amended drawings have now been received.

From the responses of the HCO and HE set out above, a number of points are made: • The amended designs to the middle and upper buildings are an improvement, but concerns about the apartment building remain in respect of design, detailing and massing. • Concerns remain about: loss of the non-designated heritage asset, which results in less than substantial harm but harm nonetheless; impact on the setting of the adjoining listed building; effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. • Any justification for the development needs to take account of the Viability Assessment and scrutiny of the Conversions Options Report. • Visual intrusion into the Conservation Area will result from the landmark building, upper and middle buildings which are sizeable structures, and parking areas. • Justifiable harm must be considered against public benefits, including optimum viable use, requiring a rigorous assessment of public benefit.

Returning to the question of viability, PCC have analysed the latest information and conclude: PCC has undertaken a review of the original Alder King financial viability assessment of the Acorn Blue application for a 23 unit scheme last year. PCC has subsequently considered the viability advisor’s report of November 2018, and also the subsequent revised 21 unit scheme of February 2019. PCC concur with JLL that both the 23 and 21 unit schemes are viable.

PCC conclude that there is sufficient headroom within scheme to allow for all the requested S.106 contributions.

It appears that the cost information supplied by the applicants’ consultants is confusing and misleading. Therefore PCC will reply on the opinion by Gates, the independent local expert QS, whose conclusion is that assessment “indicate that the rate used in Cost Estimate 3, is very high and includes preliminary costs.”

PCC have also commented on the possible reduction to provide 17 units. As mentioned this is based on a further re-run of the appraisal. We have made the assumption that there will be an adjustment of the abnormal costs which are still applicable, and have been incorporated in our appraisal.

PCC has undertaken additional research into the local property sales market, and been informed of sales of properties in the Bay in excess of previous comparable data.

As mentioned, PCC have reviewed prices achieved in other exclusive seaside locations and are of the opinion that the sales values exceed the figures suggested in the VA submitted by JLL and consequently have increased some of the GDV in line with this research.

PCC has reviewed the data supplied by the applicant and their advisors, and believe that some of this information is conflicting and potentially confusing.

Page 64 Agenda Item 6

In conclusion, based on the observations outlined above reviewed by Gates, PCC has analysed both the 21 unit and the potential 17 unit scheme and conclude that both developments are viable.

Landscape

The site is located within an area that is designated as Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Coastal Preservation Area and Heritage Coast. Consequently, policies ST09 and ST14 are relevant, as is paragraph 172 of the NPPF.

The NPPF states at 172 that ‘Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads. The scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited. Planning permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: a) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy; b) the cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated’.

For the purposes of paragraphs 172 and 173, whether a proposal is ‘major development’ is a matter for the decision maker, taking into account its nature, scale and setting, and whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated or defined.

It is worth noting that on the question of whether this proposal is EIA development, partly on the basis of potential impact on the AONB, whilst not commenting on the merits of the scheme, a response from DCLG states ‘having taken into account the selection criteria in Schedule 3 to the 2017 Regulations the Secretary of State does not consider that the proposal is likely to have significant effects on the environment’ further commenting: ‘While this essentially involves redevelopment of a previously developed site, the Secretary of State recognises that the scheme would still involve building works in an area of environmental sensitivity, which raises issues on scale, massing, height and design. However, given the nature of the proposal, he considers that any impact on sensitive areas would be largely visual and he considers that these matters could be handled through the normal planning process, by considering the documents supporting the planning application for example, without subjecting the scheme to full EIA’.

North Devon Coast AONB originally raised concerns about certain design aspects, whilst accepting that this was an improved application compared to the previous proposal.

On consideration of the amended plans their view was that the revised plans addressed those areas of concern relating to: detailed design of the west elevation; detailed treatment of the pavement and its impact on character, which could be conditioned; viability of the

Page 65 Agenda Item 6 proposed café; and design of the toilets. A pedestrian link between the café and footpath to Lee village was their only outstanding area of objection. They also expressed sympathy with the view of the L&LRA about the opportunity for affordable housing.

Taking into account the tests in paragraph 172, clearly the condition of the existing building and its grounds is not in the public interest and redevelopment of the site in some form would be. In proposing the current scheme the applicant cites in support of the proposals: failure to find an alternative use; limited loss of historic features; landscape improvement to the hotel grounds and watercourse; the opening up of views across the valley; new public open space; improved and extended public car park; provision of housing; new sewage treatment plant; café provision; re-use of recycled materials; employment opportunities; and, energy efficient buildings. The development could have a positive impact on the local economy. On the other hand the need for 23 open market dwellings in Lee is questionable.

There is scope for developing this level of housing outside the designated area, now that the Planning Inspector has found the NDTLP to be sound and the Council position that a 5 year housing land supply can be demonstrated. Alternative sites are available for housing within the parish, but it is the case that no other similar brownfield redevelopment sites are available in Lee.

The existing hotel building which has been the subject of extension is of a scale that is untypical of the rest of the village. The amended proposals in terms of buildings comprise three blocks of dwellings. The largest westernmost building is three storey viewed from the south, two storey for the most part viewed from the north, with a terraced cottage character. Horizontal features help to reduce the sense of height. A palette of materials mostly found elsewhere in the village is to be used. The middle and eastern blocks are smaller, but are similar in design. The latter block is also largely hidden from the road by a tree screen. Views of all three blocks are available from the south, but are seen against the backdrop of the north side of the valley and other dwellings higher on the hillside. The café and toilet building to the south of the site is single storey and again uses an appropriate palette of materials. On balance, it is considered that the scale, massing, height and design of the development will not have a detrimental effect on the AONB or other landscape designations.

Amenity In consideration of environmental protection matters, the Environmental Health Officer recommends the inclusion of conditions relating to: Contaminated Land survey and reaction; Construction Management Plan; Demolition/Construction Times; and Asbestos survey and removal.

With regard to Policy DM01 and DM02 it is not considered that the development will adversely increase impacts on the occupiers of neighbouring residential property.

Drainage

The EA advise that ‘We have no objection to the proposal. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) by Hydrock dated April 2017 has correctly identified the flood risks and suggested suitable mitigation measures, which include taking a sequential approach to siting, appropriate finished floor levels and landscaping measures. You may wish to include a planning condition to secure the implementation of these measures’.

Page 66 Agenda Item 6

With regard to surface water drainage SUDS is not a feasible option on this site. It is therefore proposed to discharge surface runoff rate at the existing greenfield runoff rate to mimic the existing situation. All impermeable areas will be positively drained via gulleys and rainwater downpipes to dedicated surface water sewers discharging to the existing watercourse. The discharge from the development will be via a headwall outfall structure to the existing watercourse which then immediately discharges to Lee Bay via an existing culvert under the main road. Excess volumes of water generated by the restricted discharge flow rates will be contained within cellular storage tanks which will be located outside of the 100 year flood plain to the existing watercourse. The existing car park to the south of the watercourse will be revised in terms of layout and will be reconstructed using permeable materials that will allow water to percolate direct to ground. The Flood and Coastal Risk Management Team recommend conditions.

Foul drainage requires improvement and it is proposed to site a new foul package treatment plant beneath the car park to the south. This will need to include provision for some properties to the north of the hotel that link in to the existing hotel system, including a small private pumping station on-site. There are no objections from consultees in principle, but the Environment Agency and Environmental Health raise a concern about public health implications from the foul drainage and suggest the need for further information. Environmental Health comment that the applicant will need to provide a specialist assessment of potential risks to public health that considers the specific circumstances involved. The assessment would need to be prepared by a suitably qualified person and make reference to relevant standards and guidance. The aim will be to consider where the proposals might create any unacceptable health risks (for example whether members of the public such as young children might be exposed to unacceptable levels of pollution risk when using publically accessible areas of the beach / watercourse) and to propose monitoring and mitigation options to address any significant health risks identified. The assessment should consider risks associated with normal operation of any proposed system and also risks associated with any potential malfunctioning of the system along with how any malfunctioning risks could be monitored for and controlled. It may be helpful if the assessment can refer to comparable sites at which similar circumstances have been successfully addressed.

Once the above assessment has been prepared and assuming an acceptable scheme can be identified; implementation, operation and maintenance of the scheme could then be conditioned on any planning permission.

Any proposed scheme will clearly need to meet Environment Agency permit requirements.

This approach is confirmed by the Environment Agency.

In response, the applicant suggests the use of a pre-commencement condition, which is acceptable in principle to officers, but may require a significant amount of additional work by the applicant to provide an acceptable standard of drainage.

Transport

The Transport Statement originally submitted with the application reaches the following conclusions:

• It is proposed that the former Lee Bay Hotel site at Lee Bay near Ilfracombe be redeveloped from the current 56 bedroom Hotel to 23 residential dwellings consisting of

Page 67 Agenda Item 6

a mixture of detached houses, terraced houses, and apartments. Of these, ten are proposed to be 2-bed units, seven are 3-bed units, and six are 4-bed units. • Lee and Lee Bay benefit from a small local store located within the Grampus Inn from which a limited range of convenience goods are available. This is located within an easy walking distance of the development site. Public transport services are also available to and from the nearest town of Ilfracombe. • The parking needs of the proposed development can be readily accommodated on the site. A total of 41 residential parking spaces are proposed within two proposed car parks. In providing this level of parking, the area of existing hard standing located to the west of the former Hotel building can be closed off to vehicular traffic and converted to a public terrace. • The existing public car park accessed from the Sea Front will be resurfaced and rationalised to improve the quality of the parking area and to increase the number of spaces available to the general public from approximately 40 to 75 (including 3 spaces for disabled drivers. This will help to reduce on-street parking in the local area which can take place in inappropriate and / or illegal locations. • The proposed access arrangements to the site involve the creation of two new priority junctions on the site’s northern boundary to provide access to the two new car parks associated with the residential aspects of the scheme. Access to the publically accessible car park and the proposed commercial aspects of the scheme on the southern edge of the site will remain the same as currently exists. • Traffic flows associated with the proposed development have been shown to be considerably less than those that might otherwise be associated with the extant Hotel use of the site. This provides a considerable benefit to highway safety on the local roads in the vicinity of the site particularly given the removal of coach trips previously associated with the extant Hotel use.

No objections have been received from the Local Highway Authority, which recommend conditions to be used if approval is granted.

In the meantime, the scheme has been reduced by 2 dwellings to 21.

No response has been received from the PROW officer, but in response to the previous application he requested protection is put in place for users of the public footpath adjoining the site during construction. This can be required as part of Construction Management Plan (CMP) condition.

Other Issues

Section 143 of the Localism Act amends Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 so that when determining planning applications, Local Planning Authorities should also have regard to any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application. Local finance considerations means a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will or could be provided to the relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown, or Sums that a relevant authority has received, or will or could receive, in payment or a Community Infrastructure Levy. In respect of this proposal consideration should be given to the fact that a New Homes Bonus may be generated by this application.

S106

Page 68 Agenda Item 6

DCC as education authority have requested a contribution totalling £195,638 plus legal costs in respect of secondary and primary school provision and transport costs in respect of both primary and secondary schools serving the site, plus early year’s provision.

In consideration of Policy DM10, a revised contribution of £103, 615 is requested by the Project and Procurement Officer Parks, Leisure and Culture, part of which could be used in conjunction with National Trust schemes, provided they meet the relevant tests.

CONCLUSION

As reported to previous meetings, this site comprises an empty hotel, grounds and car park located behind the beach at Lee Bay.

Paragraph 47 of the NPPF states that planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development means that Councils should approve development proposals that accord with an up to date development plan without delay and that development that is considered sustainable should be supported.

Local planning authorities may take decisions that depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material considerations in a particular case indicate that the plan should not be followed.

The NPPF is clear that Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible (paragraph 38).

In this instance, as detailed in the committee report, the development now proposed has attracted a large number of objections from local residents and beyond, although it is also recognised that the Town Council have recommended approval in the past, albeit their most recent recommendation was one of refusal.

The NPPF reflects Government policy that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and to boost the supply of homes and to take a positive approach to applications for residential development in sustainable locations.

When considering whether development is sustainable, it is necessary to look at the NPPF as a whole, considering all of the policies contained in the NPPF and the actual assessment of whether a development is sustainable or not comes from the weighing up exercise of the impacts and benefits and is not a separate assessment. All relevant issues must be considered as part of this, including the NPPF.

The three dimensions of sustainable development are economic, social and environmental and as a Local Planning Authority it is necessary to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development and to consider whether the present development would deliver such an outcome.

In applying a balanced approach to decision making, issues relating to ecology, amenity, drainage and transport, whilst drawing some criticism in representations, are supported by consultees and are not seen as a hindrance to the proposed development. Circumstances will in fact be improved in these areas.

Page 69 Agenda Item 6

Representations question the loss of tourist use provided by the hotel or an alternative tourism use, but tourist accommodation uses are shown by the applicant to be unviable and no alternative schemes have been submitted. The scheme includes an element of tourism use in the form of a proposed café.

A number of public benefits identified by the applicant stem from the application that can be summarised as:

• Regeneration of a derelict / eyesore site that is on the Council’s ‘stalled sites’ list and highlighted for regeneration in the Council’s Draft Lee Bay Conservation Area Appraisal. • Replacement of the redundant hotel building with domestic scale and contextually designed new residential development that works with the site topography creating new views and vistas. • Provision of 21 No. residential units. • A landscape-led design with integrated ‘blue’ and ‘green’ infrastructure. • A net biodiversity gain as confirmed in the biodiversity metric analysis. • The proposed redevelopment of the site will generate significantly fewer vehicle movements than the extant Hotel use. • New footway provision and associated highway safety betterment. • Provision of new public open space on the sea frontage and a publicly accessible area of the site extending 0.64ha. • Provision of a new landscaped public car park. • Provision of a new cafe building also providing public toilets to replace the existing. • Private management company to ensure long term maintenance of the extensive grounds.

On the other hand the dis-benefits of the scheme are:

• This is an un-allocated housing site outside any development boundary. • Lee is a settlement where only limited residential development would be expected to take place. • On the basis that Vacant Building Credit applies, no affordable housing is included in the scheme. • A scheme for 21 open market dwellings in Lee represents a significant increase in the size of the village. • Alternative allocated sites are available for the proposed level of housing within the parish. • The effect on the Conservation Area is that the proposal will result in (less than substantial) harm to the significance of this heritage asset. • The proposal will not preserve the setting of the listed building, leading to a degree of (less than substantial) harm in this respect. • The proposal will also result in the total loss of a non designated heritage asset, when it appears feasible to convert the older (historic core) part of the existing building. • A scheme for 18 dwellings rather than 23 originally proposed could be viable, bearing in mind that optimum viable use does not relate to the most profitable solution but the one most compatible with the long term conservation of the asset.

There are conflicts with the policies in the adopted Local Plan, particularly in terms of those relating to the distribution of housing, the AONB and the impact on heritage assets.

Page 70 Agenda Item 6

The NPPF is a material consideration which includes a presumption in favour of sustainable development, taking into account the three dimensions: economic, social and environmental.

The NPPF advises that planning applications should be approved unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against this Framework taken as a whole.

Of particular concern is that under the terms of the NPPF, with regard to heritage assets a balanced judgement which takes into account the scale of harm, the significance of the assets affected, and the public benefits of this proposal will need to be made.

Following earlier consideration by members, issues to be explored further were: • Independent review of the latest viability assessment • A reduction of the number of units • Re-design of the scheme to open up the centre of the site • Provision of affordable housing • A section 106 agreement to be agreed in principle for contributions for public open space and education.

The earlier indications were that a scheme for 18 units, including some reduction in financial contributions, would be financially viable bearing in mind government advice that 15-20% of GDV is a suitable developer return and would allow for a proposal that would resolve the first two issues, which may mean a scheme on such a scale could be supported by officers.

However, the latest indication is that the applicant is unwilling to pursue this option or provide affordable housing.

The independent assessment from Plymouth City Council concurred with the view that a scheme of 23 units is viable. Whilst they accepted that an 18 unit scheme would produce a lower total sales income, the removal of one of the blocks would show additional savings in build cost, and still result in a profitable development in accord with the NPPF. PCC proposed that an independent local QS be engaged to review the cost plan, subject to the receipt of further detailed cost information, but this has been slow in forthcoming.

PCC has analysed both the 21 unit and the potential 17 unit scheme and conclude that both developments are viable.

In conclusion, although now more finely balanced as a result of the latest design amendments, your officers conclude that the benefits of the proposals do not outweigh the disadvantages and the recommendation remains one of refusal.

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

Page 71 Agenda Item 6

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDATION

Refuse, for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the designated Lee Conservation Area contrary to the statutory requirement set out in the Planning (Section 72 Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area; neither would the proposal preserve the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed Old Mill contrary to the requirements of Section 16 (2) of the Act and its advice that LPAs have ‘special regard’ to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings. Specifically, the proposal would result in the loss of significance of a non-designated heritage asset (NPPF paragraph 197), less than substantial harm to a designated asset in adversely affecting the setting of the grade II listed Old Mill and would result in a high degree of less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the designated conservation area (NPPF paragraphs 192 and 196). In this instance, the benefits of the proposed development are not considered such as to outweigh the harm caused to the heritage interest. In these respects the proposal is accordingly considered to be contrary to Policy ST15 (Conserving Heritage Assets) and Policy DM07 (Historic Environment) of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

2. As the development represents major development within the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the proposal therefore conflicts with the advice set out in paragraphs 172 and 173 of the NPPF because the applicant has not demonstrated that there are exceptional circumstances or that the development is in the public interest. In these respects the proposal is accordingly considered to be contrary to Policy ST14 (Enhancing Environmental Assets) and Policy ST09 (Coast and Estuary Strategy) of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.

3. The North Devon and Torridge Local Plan contains Policy ST07: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Rural Area, which in Rural Settlements that contain at least one prescribed service or community facility, enables appropriately located development of a modest scale to meet locally generated needs. Policy DM24: Rural Settlements supports in qualifying Rural Settlements, proposals for local occupancy dwellings to meet a locally identified housing need. The proposed development is not considered to be of a modest scale or proportionate to the settlement’s size, form or character, does not meet an established housing need including secure arrangements and will harm the settlement’s rural character and setting. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to these policies.

INSERT(S) TO FOLLOW OVERLEAF 1. OS Location Plan 2. List of representation names and addresses 3. Natural England 26/6/17 4. Lee & Lincombe Residents Association 31/08/17 …. 5. Heritage and Conservation Officer 15/9/17 and 12/6/18. 6. Historic England 17/7/17, 20/9/17, 23/4/18 and 22/8/18. 7. Environmental Health 17/7/18 8. Conclusions page of Viability Assessment. Plymouth City Council 28/05/18 9. Housing Needs Report – December 2018 10. Summary of Viability – Plymouth City Council 31/1/19

Page 72 Agenda Item 6

11. Lee & Lincombe Residents Association 22/2/19 12. Financial Viability Assessment by JLL – March 2019 13. Lee Bay viability review 17 unit scheme – 28 February 2019 14. Lee Bay viability review 21 unit scheme – 28 February 2019 15. Viability Review – Plymouth City Council - 5/04/19

Page 73 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Appendix A

Copy Supplied to Accompany Planning 63167 - Lee Bay Hotel, Committee Report Scale: 1:5000 Lynton House, Commercial Road, Page 75 Date: 10/10/18 Barnstaple, EX31 1EA © Copyright and database right 2017 Ordnance Survey Licence No. 100021929. No unauthorised reproduction permitted. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Neighbour Representations List for ApplicationAppendix No B63167

256 LETTER(S) OF OBJECTION

PAULA BUSTIN SUNNYSIDE LEE Date Received: 12-Jul-17 Date Received: 27-Mar-18 Date Received: 08-Sep-17 MR & MRS PAUL THOM THE GWYTHERS LEE Date Received: 22-Aug-17 Date Received: 28-Jun-17 Date Received: 18-Mar-19 Date Received: 22-Mar-18 Date Received: 05-Oct-18 Date Received: 01-Mar-19 DAVID THEOBALD SHELL COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 12-Mar-18 RUPERT WILKINS MILLFIELD COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 09-Nov-18 Date Received: 10-Jul-17 Date Received: 19-Mar-18 NICKI CRUTCHFIELD ST ELOI LEE Date Received: 21-Jun-17 MRS H BOOKER THE GATE HOUSE LEE Date Received: 23-Mar-18 Date Received: 28-Jun-17 Date Received: 18-Feb-19 Date Received: 04-Sep-17 ANDREW WISLOCKI APPLEDORE HOME LANE Date Received: 25-Feb-19 Date Received: 12-Mar-18 Date Received: 03-Jul-17 PAUL SCARROT IVYBANK LEE Date Received: 12-Mar-18 Date Received: 31-Aug-17 Date Received: 28-Jun-17 Date Received: 18-Feb-19 DAVID RODD HIGHER BARN PLUDD Date Received: 14-Mar-18 Date Received: 29-Jun-17 PAT AND GED COATES WAYSIDE HOME LANE Date Received: 03-Jul-17 Date Received: 26-Feb-19 Date Received: 04-Mar-19 Date Received: 07-Sep-17 MRS GINNY POTTS THE ORCHARD LEE Date Received: 03-Jul-17 Date Received: 11-Sep-17 MR GEOFF POTTS THE ORCHARD LEE Date Received: 03-Jul-17 Date Received: 11-Sep-17 JANE JOHNCOCK WEST CLAYES LEE 08 April 2019 Page 77 Page 1 of 11 Agenda Item 6 Neighbour Representations List for ApplicationAppendix No B63167

Date Received: 22-Mar-18 Date Received: 22-Mar-18 Date Received: 08-Sep-17 Date Received: 04-Jul-17 JOSEF ERTMAN ULFRID LEE Date Received: 06-Jul-17 KATE MCCALLUM THE EAST WING THE GRANGE Date Received: 12-Mar-18 Date Received: 06-Jul-17 A HOLM-ANDERSSON THE CROFT LEE Date Received: 10-Jul-17 Date Received: 31-Aug-17 RICHENDA CARTER LINCOMBE HOUSE LINCOMBE Date Received: 19-Mar-18 Date Received: 10-Jul-17 PHILIP JOHNCOCK WEST CLAYES LEE Date Received: 23-Mar-18 Date Received: 08-Sep-17 Date Received: 11-Jul-17 ALAN & MARGARET BANNISTER 2 BROOKDALE VILLAS LEE Date Received: 31-Aug-17 Date Received: 11-Jul-17 Date Received: 26-Mar-18 ELEANOR SCARROT IVYBANK LEE Date Received: 22-Mar-18 Date Received: 22-Feb-19 Date Received: 31-Aug-17 Date Received: 11-Jul-17 PETER CRESSWELL GREY COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 22-Feb-19 Date Received: 11-Jul-17 Date Received: 22-Sep-17 Date Received: 06-Nov-18 GREGORY STAFFORD WINDCUTTER LEE Date Received: 12-Jul-17 Date Received: 25-Feb-19 MAVIS ROGERS THE BLUE MUSHROOM LEE Date Received: 07-Sep-17 Date Received: 08-Sep-17 MICHAEL ROGERS THE BLUE MUSHROOM LEE Date Received: 07-Mar-19 Date Received: 07-Sep-17 Date Received: 08-Sep-17 TREVOR GREAVES CHARLTON CLEAVE LEE Date Received: 26-Mar-18 Date Received: 27-Feb-19 Date Received: 11-Sep-17 Date Received: 12-Jul-17 D BIGGERSTAFF 6 THE GRANGE LEE Date Received: 28-Mar-18 08 April 2019 Page 78 Page 2 of 11 Agenda Item 6 Neighbour Representations List for ApplicationAppendix No B63167

Date Received: 13-Jul-17 Date Received: 18-Mar-19 GINA-LUISA HILBORNE THE COACH HOUSE LEE Date Received: 13-Jul-17 STUART GROCE THE COACH HOUSE LEE Date Received: 13-Jul-17 H THOMPSON FISHERMANS COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 19-Mar-18 Date Received: 09-Sep-17 KATE MADDEN ROCK END LEE Date Received: 13-Jul-17 Date Received: 01-Sep-17 Date Received: 15-Mar-18 Date Received: 10-Apr-18 SARAH WADDINGTON LOWER BARN LEE Date Received: 24-Jul-17 Date Received: 26-Apr-18 ANDREW AILES MYRTLE COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 01-Sep-17 JANE HAMILTON HIGHFIELD HOUSE LEE Date Received: 31-Aug-17 MARTHA SCARROTT IVYBANK LEE Date Received: 14-Jul-17 Date Received: 31-Aug-17 Date Received: 22-Mar-18 JOHN SCARROTT IVYBANK LEE Date Received: 14-Jul-17 LUCY SCARROTT IVY BANK LEE Date Received: 31-Aug-17 Date Received: 14-Jul-17 JEANETTE & STEVE MATTHEWS SEAL COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 14-Jul-17 BERNADETTE SMITHERS 6 THE GRANGE LEE Date Received: 11-Sep-17 Date Received: 27-Mar-18 Date Received: 18-Mar-19 Date Received: 14-Jul-17 FRANCIS WESTCOTT THE GRAMPUS INN LEE Date Received: 22-Mar-18 Date Received: 23-Mar-18 Date Received: 14-Jul-17 JOHN HARMAN DANE COTTAGE HOME LANE Date Received: 14-Jul-17 ANGUS HAMILTON HIGHFIELD LEE Date Received: 14-Jul-17 BY EMAIL

Date Received: 01-Sep-17

08 April 2019 Page 79 Page 3 of 11 Agenda Item 6 Neighbour Representations List for ApplicationAppendix No B63167

Date Received: 27-Mar-18 PAT & GED COATES WAYSIDE LEE Date Received: 26-Feb-19 Date Received: 11-Sep-17 Date Received: 14-Jul-17 JULIEN BUSSELLE DAMAGE HUE LEE Date Received: 26-Mar-18 Date Received: 14-Jul-17 IAN DUNBAR BRIARWOOD LEE Date Received: 14-Jul-17 IAN & CYNTHIA STUART COMBELYNCHET LINCOMBE Date Received: 23-Mar-18 Date Received: 14-Jul-17 JULIAN WITTS LITTLE RIDGE LEE Date Received: 26-Mar-18 Date Received: 14-Jul-17 MICHELLE JONES 64 HIGH STREET ILFRACOMBE Date Received: 14-Jul-17 MARGARET MOFFAT 5 COLE LANE STOKE SUB HAMDON Date Received: 14-Jul-17 KEVIN MCALLISTER OYSTERCATCHERS THE OLD COAST ROAD Date Received: 11-Sep-17 Date Received: 14-Aug-17 Date Received: 14-Jul-17 Date Received: 28-Mar-18 ALLAN CAMERON 14 SOUTH VIEW CHADDIFORD LANE Date Received: 17-Jul-17 SUSANNE EIBNER LITTLE RIDGE LEE Date Received: 17-Jul-17 Date Received: 26-Mar-18 MRS CAROLYN WEEKES ROSE COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 17-Jul-17 MRS LYNN MONEY 37 CROWHURST CRESCENT STORRINGTON Date Received: 13-Nov-18 Date Received: 17-Jul-17 MR & MRS R CLARKE OLD FARM COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 17-Jul-17 MILES YOUNG SENT VIA EMAIL

Date Received: 02-Aug-17 Date Received: 18-Jul-17 Date Received: 10-Oct-18 RON STAMP/DR RACHEL CHURCHIL PEBBLE HOUSE HOME LANE Date Received: 19-Mar-18 MRS C TITMAN ULFRID LEE Date Received: 25-Jul-17 ALLAN CAMERON THE HAVEN LEE

08 April 2019 Page 80 Page 4 of 11 Agenda Item 6 Neighbour Representations List for ApplicationAppendix No B63167

Date Received: 19-Mar-18 BILL HARVEY THE GRAMPUS INN LEE Date Received: 13-Nov-18 Date Received: 26-Mar-18 COL R C GILLIAT (RETD) THE OLD POST OFFICE LEE Date Received: 19-Mar-18 JEN STEER VINE COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 14-Mar-18 MR M PONSONBY HIGHVIEW HOME LANE Date Received: 24-Jul-17 Date Received: 08-Nov-18 Date Received: 01-Sep-17 E THOMPSON FISHERMANS COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 09-Sep-17 Date Received: 19-Mar-18 AMANDA ROBERTSON THE OLD VICARAGE LEE Date Received: 07-Aug-17 Date Received: 09-Mar-18 FRANK MULLARKEY 63 GLOUCESTER AVENUE LONDON Date Received: 07-Aug-17 MICHEAL BRADSHAW WESTRIDGE INGESTRE ROAD Date Received: 19-Mar-18 C M & M G M BRADSHAW received by email

Date Received: 12-Mar-18 Date Received: 09-Nov-18 CHARLES PONSONBY received by email

Date Received: 08-Nov-18 Date Received: 12-Mar-18 Date Received: 31-Jul-17 ELIZABETH IRWIN VIA EMAIL

Date Received: 07-Aug-17 JOHN HOBLYN 7 ST THOMAS'S GARDENS LONDON Date Received: 11-Aug-17 SOPHIE HAINES RECEIVED BY EMAIL

Date Received: 09-Aug-17 MR & MRS BRADSHAW RECEIVED BY EMAIL

Date Received: 29-Aug-17 JOHN HARMAN DANE COTTAGE HOME LANE Date Received: 31-Aug-17 JOHN SCARROTT IVY BANK LEE Date Received: 31-Aug-17 VICTOR FRANCISCO MARTINEZ STREET 36 6 POSTAL CODE 46020 Date Received: 04-Sep-17 Date Received: 12-Nov-18 PILAR FRANCISCO MARTINEZ STREET 36 6 POSTAL CODE 46020

08 April 2019 Page 81 Page 5 of 11 Agenda Item 6 Neighbour Representations List for ApplicationAppendix No B63167

Date Received: 04-Sep-17 DAPHNA IVRY 2A DARWIN COURT MELBOURNE STREET Date Received: 12-Mar-18 Date Received: 04-Sep-17 KIRSTY MCCASKILL SENT VIA EMAIL

Date Received: 13-Nov-18 Date Received: 04-Sep-17 Date Received: 23-Mar-18 VICTORIA WHEATLEY THE GRAMPUS INN LEE Date Received: 04-Sep-17 JOHN GERARD KENNEDY FLAT 1 9 KINGS ROAD Date Received: 04-Sep-17 ALIX HARVEY 65 COMPTON VALE PLYMOUTH Date Received: 04-Sep-17 Date Received: 14-Mar-18 ROBERT ROE 4 STRAWBERRY FIELD PULBOROUGH Date Received: 04-Sep-17 VERITY WISLOCKI 18 ELM TREE AVENUE ESHER Date Received: 04-Sep-17 LARA DONLADSON 11/3 RENNIE'S ISLE EDINBURGH Date Received: 04-Sep-17 KATE SHARKEY CROFT OF BLAIRWICK GLEN OF CULTS Date Received: 04-Sep-17 TRELAWNY KEAN 506 BARKLY ST GOLDEN POINT Date Received: 04-Sep-17 LYNDSAY SMITH SENT VIA EMAIL

Date Received: 14-Mar-18 Date Received: 04-Sep-17 RENNY CHAVEZ SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 04-Sep-17 ADELE BOUTHENE AVENUE DE LA VALLOMBREUSE 1008 PRILLY Date Received: 04-Sep-17 KARI MCCASKILL 2624 EL TORO DR OKLAHOMA CITY Date Received: 21-Mar-18 Date Received: 04-Sep-17 ALYSSA WENDT SENT VIA EMAIL

Date Received: 04-Sep-17 ELEANOR KNIGHT 45 SLADE VALLEY ROAD ILFRACOMBE Date Received: 04-Sep-17 JULIE WHITE 3 ROCK HOLLOW ROAD SHAWNEE Date Received: 04-Sep-17 KATHLEEN SAINT-AMAND 251 E29th STREET APT 6H BROOKLYN Date Received: 04-Sep-17 ROC VINAIXA C/ROQUES 9 MIRAVET 43747

08 April 2019 Page 82 Page 6 of 11 Agenda Item 6 Neighbour Representations List for ApplicationAppendix No B63167

Date Received: 04-Sep-17 BRANDY COOPER PO BOX 73 FLETCHER Date Received: 04-Sep-17 ELAINE BURCH 6 BEECHOMOUNT ROAD BT23 6LN Date Received: 04-Sep-17 CARLOTTAA SCHNAU KORFFSTRASSE 34 60437 FRANKFURT Date Received: 04-Sep-17 PHILLIP ADDISON 602 BROADSTREET FREDERICTON Date Received: 06-Sep-17 DEBORAH CONNELL 1321 W EMERSON ST 7 EATTLE Date Received: 14-Mar-18 Date Received: 04-Sep-17 ABBY GROSSLEIN APT 17 2023 CATON AVENUE Date Received: 04-Sep-17 MISHALE BOETTCHER KOCKSTRASSE 5 30451 HANNOVER Date Received: 05-Sep-17 RACHEL SMITH SENT VIA EMAIL

Date Received: 05-Sep-17 SHONA BURCH 6 BEECHMOUNT ROAD BALLYGOWAN Date Received: 05-Sep-17 ROBERT BIELEK PO BOX 231 STAR LAKE ROAD TIMMINS Date Received: 14-Mar-18 Date Received: 05-Sep-17 LUCY SANGERS ORCHARD HOUSE WINSHAM Date Received: 05-Sep-17 LAURA SANGERS SENT VIA EMAIL

Date Received: 05-Sep-17 DOMINIC MURPHY 4 THE TERRACE BICKINGTON Date Received: 05-Sep-17 KATIE SANGERS 1 GREAT EASTERN STREET LONDON Date Received: 06-Sep-17 CHARLES PONSONBY 6 HEATHVIEW GARDENS LONDON Date Received: 07-Sep-17 DI NEWELL RECEIVED BY EMAIL

Date Received: 11-Sep-17 ELENA FERNANDEZ VIA EMAIL

Date Received: 20-Sep-17 GILL WESTCOTT VENBRIDGE HOUSE CHERITON BISHOP Date Received: 19-Mar-18 Date Received: 02-Oct-17 ERIC COULING & PAUL SCARROTT RECEIVED BY HAND OBO LLRA

Date Received: 05-Jan-18 Date Received: 11-Feb-19

08 April 2019 Page 83 Page 7 of 11 Agenda Item 6 Neighbour Representations List for ApplicationAppendix No B63167

VICTOR & PILAR VIESRO RECEIVED BY EMAIL

Date Received: 14-Mar-18 DAPHNA IVRY RECEIVED BY EMAIL

Date Received: 14-Mar-18 KRISTY MCCASKILL 3 ROCK HOLLOW ROAD OKLAHOMA Date Received: 14-Mar-18 MISHALE BOETTCHER KOCHSTRAE 5 30451 HANNOVER Date Received: 14-Mar-18 RICKY KNIGHT 1 TAW VIEW TERRACE BISHOPS TAWTON Date Received: 26-Mar-18 Date Received: 14-Mar-18 ROC VINAIXA MOLINJS C/ROQUES 9 43747 MIRAVET Date Received: 14-Mar-18 MARISSA KING-HARRIS 4 REGENT PLACE ILFRACOMBE Date Received: 14-Mar-18 ODETTE GORRIE 36 HIGH STRATION ROAD FALKIRK Date Received: 14-Mar-18 MARION SMITH 2 CARNEGIE DRIVE FALKIRK Date Received: 14-Mar-18 DAWNDA MCCASKILL 2624 EL TORO DRIVE OKLAHOMA CITY Date Received: 14-Mar-18 ANT COLLAZO 31A MONTROSE PARK BRISLINGTON Date Received: 14-Mar-18 CLAIRE MEYRIEUX RECEIVED BY EMAIL

Date Received: 15-Mar-18 ANGUS EVELEIGH ROCK END LEE Date Received: 15-Mar-18 JANET HOPSON 7 HILLSBOROUGH PARK ROAD ILFRACOMBE Date Received: 15-Mar-18 JACKIE HAWKEN 32 WOODGROVE ROAD BRISTOL Date Received: 14-Mar-18 ANAT & ARIEL IVRY RECEIVED VIAL EMAIL

Date Received: 12-Nov-18 Date Received: 15-Mar-18 GEOFFREY & HEATHER MANNING 8 GLOUCESTER HOUSE WILDER ROAD Date Received: 15-Mar-18 STEVEN BERRY SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 14-Mar-18 ALEXANDER PATERSON SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 14-Mar-18 REBECCA TUNWELL 29 ST JAMES PLACE ILFRACOMBE Date Received: 14-Mar-18 BETSY HOSEGOOD DAMAGE HUE LEE 08 April 2019 Page 84 Page 8 of 11 Agenda Item 6 Neighbour Representations List for ApplicationAppendix No B63167

Date Received: 15-Mar-18 CHRISTOPH MERGERSON PO BOX 301 NEW BRUNSWICK Date Received: 19-Mar-18 ELEANOR SCARROTT IVYBANK LEE Date Received: 19-Mar-18 JANE HARVEY 7 VILLA GROVE HEWORTH GREEN Date Received: 19-Mar-18 PAUL MCDERMOTT 55 FIELDS ROAD ALSAGER Date Received: 19-Mar-18 GLYNIS WALKER 1 CHANNEL VIEW MORTEHOE Date Received: 19-Mar-18 ALLY POORE HIGHER TRAYNE ILFRACOMBE Date Received: 19-Mar-18 JOSEPH STEER VINE COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 19-Mar-18 DOMINIC WADDINGTON LOWER BARN LEE Date Received: 21-Mar-18 PATRICIA COATES WAYSIDE LEE Date Received: 21-Mar-18 GERARD COATES WAYSIDE LEE Date Received: 21-Mar-18 ROSEMARY HAWORTH-BOOTH OBO NORTH DEVON GREEN PARTY BARN COTTAGE Date Received: 26-Mar-18 Date Received: 11-Mar-19 SIMON AILES & PAULA BUSTIN SUNNYSIDE LEE Date Received: 26-Mar-18 RICK PULFORD 3 SEAWARDS BEACH ROAD Date Received: 23-Mar-18 ROBIN AILES MYRTLE COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 23-Mar-18 MATTHEW DEARDEN ROSE COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 25-Feb-19 Date Received: 23-Mar-18 MAIA NORMAN SOUTHCLIFFE HALL LEE BAY Date Received: 04-Apr-18 ERIC COULING OVERCLIFFE MORTEHOE STATION ROAD Date Received: 30-Jul-18 FRANCIS WESTCOTT GENERAL MANAGER THE GRAMPUS INN Date Received: 17-Aug-18 ALAN BANNISTER 2 BROOKDALE VILLAS LEE Date Received: 05-Oct-18 Date Received: 07-Mar-19 MR & MRS GODWIN THE OLD MILL LEE

08 April 2019 Page 85 Page 9 of 11 Agenda Item 6 Neighbour Representations List for ApplicationAppendix No B63167

Date Received: 09-Oct-18 CHRIS & MARCIA BRADSHAW BROMLEY HOUSE FORE STREET Date Received: 26-Feb-19 PATRICK & DEB CONNER THE GRANGE ILFRACOMBE Date Received: 18-Mar-19

6LETTER(S) OF SUPPORT

DR GWYN & MRS LINDA HUMPHRE CLIFFE LEE Date Received: 07-Jul-17 TONY SINCLAIR LEE MANOR LEE Date Received: 12-Jul-17 HELEN WRIGHT CHARLTON CLEAVE LEE Date Received: 14-Jul-17 TONI SINCLAIR E-MAIL

Date Received: 14-Jul-17 NATIONAL TRUST RECEIVED BY EMAIL

Date Received: 22-Mar-18 JO EDWARDS SENT BY EMAIL

Date Received: 18-Sep-17

11 LETTER(S) OF COMMENT

PAT AND GED COATES WAYSIDE HOME LANE Date Received: 27-Mar-18 MAVIS ROGERS THE BLUE MUSHROOM LEE Date Received: 12-Jul-17 MICHAEL ROGERS THE BLUE MUSHROOM LEE Date Received: 12-Jul-17 H THOMPSON FISHERMANS COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 13-Jul-17 ANDREW AILES MYRTLE COTTAGE LEE Date Received: 14-Jul-17 NATIONAL TRUST SOUTH WEST REGION KILLERTON HOUSE Date Received: 11-Aug-17 RAY KOSTEN 200 ST ANDREWS BLVD UNIT 912 WINTER PARK Date Received: 04-Sep-17 MAEVE BRENNAN 1 MOUNTJOY PARADE NORTH CIRCULAR ROAD Date Received: 04-Sep-17 CATHERINE TOOPE FLAT 1 9 KINGS ROAD Date Received: 06-Sep-17 BILL HARVEY THE GRAMPUS INN LEE Date Received: 05-Sep-17

08 April 2019 Page 86 Page 10 of 11 Agenda Item 6 Neighbour Representations List for ApplicationAppendix No B63167

HEATHER BOOKER RECEIVED BY EMAIL

Date Received: 08-Nov-18

08 April 2019 Page 87 Page 11 of 11 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Date: 26 June 2017 Appendix C Our ref: 218208 Your ref: 63167

Customer Services Mr. Robert Pedlar Hornbeam House Senior Planning Officer Crewe Business Park Strategic Development and Planning Electra Way Crewe North Devon Council Cheshire CW1 6GJ BY EMAIL ONLY [email protected] T 0300 060 3900

Dear Bob,

Planning consultation: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOTEL, ERECTION OF 23 DWELLINGS, FORMATION OF NEW PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, EXTENSION TO EXISTING CAR PARK, ERECTION OF CAFE & WC BLOCK & ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING, DRAINAGE & HIGHWAY WORKS Location: LEE BAY HOTEL LEE ILFRACOMBE GRID REF: 248056; 146499

Thank you for your consultation email dated and received by Natural England on 13 June 2017.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND’S ADVICE

FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IMPACTS ON DESIGNATED SITES

As submitted, the application could have potential significant effects on Bideford to Foreland Point Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ).

Natural England advice is that further information is required in order to determine the significance of these impacts and the scope for mitigation. The following information is required:

 Bideford to Foreland Point MCZ – detail of proposed wetland to receive the discharge from the package treatment plant before it enters the stream.

Without this information, Natural England may need to object to the proposal.

Please re-consult Natural England once this information has been obtained.

Natural England’s advice on other issues is set out in Annex A.

Additional Information required

Bideford to Foreland Point Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) – further information required The development site is adjacent to the Bideford to Foreland Point Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) with a stream connecting the development site directly to the MCZ.

Page 1 of 6 Page 89 Agenda Item 6 Appendix C All public authorities have a legal duty to further the conservation objectives for MCZs as far as is consistent with the proper exercise of their functions. MCZs are a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

We therefore recommend that the council ensures it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on the MCZ before it determines the application and ensures that the proposal accords with the relevant policies in the Local Plan.

We note that the proposal includes treatment of wastewater via a Package Treatment Plant (PTP) which will discharge directly to the stream which flows through the intertidal habitat.

Any new discharge into the stream that crosses the MCZ has the potential to affect the site’s intertidal features if it significantly alters the nutrient load of the stream. Of particular concern would be areas of intertidal rock in direct contact with the stream where there is the potential for increased nutrient loads to result in changes to algal communities.

Although PTPs are considered an acceptable option for discharge direct to a water course there is evidence that they are not so efficient at stripping nutrients and so discharge to ground is preferred. We would therefore welcome an additional stage in the drainage treatment train to include an area for discharge to ground before the discharge reaches the stream (separation distance should be 30m). This would provide the opportunity for nutrients to be stripped out before reaching the MCZ.

The submitted documents for the current application do not appear to include any reference to the previous proposal (your ref 57966) to create a wetland (technical note eg14632) to receive the discharge from the package treatment plant before it enters the stream (Natural England’s comments dated 15th September 2015 ref: 163052 and 9th March 2016 re: 180597).

 To remove any concerns about any possible eutrophication of the foreshore as a result of the current application, our advice is that the wetland habitat should be a requirement of the revised scheme.

Natural England would look to the Environment Agency to appropriately condition any discharge consent to ensure the quality of the effluent from the development was of high enough quality to ensure that no eutrophication of the foreshore occurs.

Mitigation in line with the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines should also be secured to minimise contamination/pollution of the surface water run-off during the demolition and construction phases.

Other advice

In addition, Natural England would advise on the following issues.

Protected Landscapes North Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) The proposed development is for a site within a nationally designated landscape namely North Devon AONB. It is also within the North Devon Heritage Coast and adjacent to the South West Coast Path National Trail.

Natural England recognises that this is an opportunity to remove a derelict building and eyesore. However, the location of the site within the AONB makes it very sensitive to change and great care needs to be taken to ensure that any redevelopment does not itself detract from the quality and character of its landscape and conflict with the statutory purpose of the AONB.

We would draw particular attention to the proposed extent of the new development and question whether the scheme as currently presented might be too dominant within this intimate narrow valley setting.

Page 2 of 6 Page 90 Agenda Item 6 Appendix C We would recommend that, given the need to respect local character, the proposed use of modern materials and contemporary design should be considered carefully, including with regard to the AONB Management Plan and Local Plan policies dealing with ‘local vernacular’.

Natural England advises that the planning authority consults the North Devon AONB partnership, giving their advice careful consideration alongside national and local policies to determine the proposal.

The policy and statutory framework to guide your decision and the role of local advice are explained at Annex A.

Further general advice on consideration of protected species and other natural environment issues is provided at Annex A.

Should the developer wish to discuss the detail of measures to mitigate the effects described above with Natural England, we recommend that they seek advice through our Discretionary Advice Service.

If you have any queries relating to the advice in this letter please contact me on the details below.

Should the proposal change, please consult us again.

Yours sincerely

Clare Guthrie Lead Adviser – North Devon Team Tel: 0208 0267 393 Email: [email protected]

Page 3 of 6 Page 91 Agenda Item 6 Annex A - Additional advice Appendix C

Natural England offers the following additional advice:

Protected Landscapes Your decision should be guided by paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework which gives the highest status of protection for the ‘landscape and scenic beauty’ of AONBs and National Parks. For major development proposals paragraph 116 sets out criteria to determine whether the development should exceptionally be permitted within the designated landscape.

Alongside national policy you should also apply landscape policies set out in your development plan, or appropriate saved policies.

The AONB Partnership’s knowledge of the location, its role within the AONB, its location on the South West Coast path National Trail and the relevance of the aims, objective and policies in the AONB Management Plan will be crucial to a fully informed determination of the scheme. This information can also help to inform any amendment to the proposals that may be required to make the scheme more acceptable.

Where available, a local Landscape Character Assessment can also be a helpful guide to the landscape’s sensitivity to this type of development and its capacity to accommodate the proposed development.

The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty. You should assess the application carefully as to whether the proposed development would have a significant impact on or harm that statutory purpose. Relevant to this is the duty on public bodies to ‘have regard’ for that statutory purpose in carrying out their functions (S85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000). The Planning Practice Guidance confirms that this duty also applies to proposals outside the designated area but impacting on its natural beauty.

Protected Species Natural England has produced standing advice1 to help planning authorities understand the impact of particular developments on protected species. We advise you to refer to this advice. Natural England will only provide bespoke advice on protected species where they form part of a SSSI or in exceptional circumstances.

Local sites and priority habitats and species You should consider the impacts of the proposed development on any local wildlife or geodiversity sites, in line with paragraph 113 of the NPPF and any relevant development plan policy. There may also be opportunities to enhance local sites and improve their connectivity. Natural England does not hold locally specific information on local sites and recommends further information is obtained from appropriate bodies such as the local records centre, wildlife trust, geoconservation groups or recording societies.

Priority habitats and Species are of particular importance for nature conservation and included in the England Biodiversity List published under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Most priority habitats will be mapped either as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, on the Magic website or as Local Wildlife Sites. Lists of priority habitats and species can be found here2. Natural England does not routinely hold species data, such data should be collected when impacts on priority habitats or species are considered likely. Consideration should also be given to the potential environmental value of brownfield sites, often found in urban areas and former industrial land. Further information including links to the open mosaic habitats inventory can be found here.

1 https://www.gov.uk/protected-species-and-sites-how-to-review-planning-proposals 2http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140711133551/http:/www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conser vation/biodiversity/protectandmanage/habsandspeciesimportance.aspx Page 4 of 6 Page 92 Agenda Item 6 Environmental enhancement Appendix C Development provides opportunities to secure a net gain for nature and local communities, as outlined in paragraphs 9, 109 and 152 of the NPPF. We advise you to follow the mitigation hierarchy as set out in paragraph 118 of the NPPF and firstly consider what existing environmental features on and around the site can be retained or enhanced or what new features could be incorporated into the development proposal. Where onsite measures are not possible, you may wish to consider off site measures, including sites for biodiversity offsetting. Opportunities for enhancement might include:

 Providing a new footpath through the new development to link into existing rights of way.  Restoring a neglected hedgerow.  Creating a new pond as an attractive feature on the site.  Where sustainable drainage systems are proposed their amenity and wildlife value can be increased with careful design https://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/SuDS_report_final_tcm9- 338064.pdf  Planting trees characteristic to the local area to make a positive contribution to the local landscape.  Using native plants in landscaping schemes for better nectar and seed sources for bees and birds.  Incorporating nest sites for swallow, house martin, house sparrow, swift boxes or bat boxes into the design of new buildings.  Designing lighting to encourage wildlife.  Adding a green roof to new buildings.

You could also consider how the proposed development can contribute to the wider environment and help implement elements of any Landscape, Green Infrastructure or Biodiversity Strategy in place in your area. For example:

 Links to existing greenspace and/or opportunities to enhance and improve access.  Identifying opportunities for new greenspace and managing existing (and new) public spaces to be more wildlife friendly (e.g. by sowing wild flower strips)  Planting additional street trees.  Identifying any improvements to the existing public right of way network or using the opportunity of new development to extend the network to create missing links.  Restoring neglected environmental features (e.g. coppicing a prominent hedge that is in poor condition or clearing away an eyesore).

We welcome the proposal to deal with invasive species such as Japanese knotweed. Devon County Council have provided comprehensive advice for dealing with Japanese knotweed which can be found at http://www.devon.gov.uk/japanese_knotweed.htm

Access and Recreation Natural England encourages any proposal to incorporate measures to help improve people’s access to the natural environment. Measures such as reinstating existing footpaths together with the creation of new footpaths and bridleways should be considered. Links to other green networks and, where appropriate, urban fringe areas should also be explored to help promote the creation of wider green infrastructure. Relevant aspects of local authority green infrastructure strategies should be delivered where appropriate.

Rights of Way, Access land, Coastal access and National Trails Paragraph 75 of the NPPF highlights the important of public rights of way and access. Development should consider potential impacts on access land, common land, rights of way and coastal access routes in the vicinity of the development. Consideration should also be given to the potential impacts on the any nearby National Trails. The National Trails website www.nationaltrail.co.uk provides information including contact details for the National Trail Officer. Appropriate mitigation measures should be incorporated for any adverse impacts.

Page 5 of 6 Page 93 Agenda Item 6 Biodiversity duty Appendix C Your authority has a duty to have regard to conserving biodiversity as part of your decision making. Conserving biodiversity can also include restoration or enhancement to a population or habitat. Further information is available here.

Page 6 of 6 Page 94 Agenda Item 6 Appendix D

LEE & LINCOMBE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

Chairman: Mr. Eric Couling Hon. Treasure: Mr. Paul Thom

Secretary: Mr. Paul Scarrott, Ivy Bank, Lee, EX34 8LN,

31st August 2017

Mr. R Pedlar Case Officer, Strategic Development and Planning, North Devon Council, Lynton House, Commercial Road Barnstaple, EX31 1DG

Subject: LEE BAY HOTEL amended planning application (63167)

Dear Mr Pedlar,

Lee and Lincombe Residents Association OBJECT to this planning application and its later amendments. The changes make no material difference to the reasons for our opposition, and are minimal and cosmetic in nature.

In summary, we feel that this amended proposal does not enhance or preserve the beauty and heritage of the Bay, the coastal path, and the Conservation Area. Nor does the proposal give anything back to the community at large or within the villages. We owe a ‘duty of care’ to the generations to come, our children’s children, that cannot be overcome for reasons of expediency.

There are alternatives. The residents understand the need to develop the site and the association has presented its desired outcomes to the Chief Planning Officer. Our preferences are for low density housing of a village style design, a bijou hotel or seafront café/restaurant, and open public gardens. A consortium of villagers has been working with the Community Land Trust and a developer to secure their aim of “delivering a high quality and well managed development that will enhance the heritage and beauty of the Bay, at the same time providing low cost housing for locals”. In short, we have an option that would meet the needs of residents and visitors that could be provided at a scale and mass that doesn’t ruin the Bay.

The suggested provision of 23 new dwellings in three blocks is completely at odds with the Lee Conservation Area Character Appraisal that the Council has commissioned and is looking to extend! The application does not meet any of the SEVEN success criteria for the hotel site described at paragraph 9.10 of the appraisal. In particular, the need to provide a varied roof scape, high architectural standard, public accessible open spaces, and by avoiding urban designs lacking local distinctiveness.

Page 95 Agenda Item 6 Appendix D

In detail, our case is:

1. This proposed development is in a Conservation Area. It fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area contrary to statutory requirements Planning (Section 72 Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Because - a. The heritage asset of the hotel will be demolished. It will not be replaced by anything equally aesthetic or of merit. b. The buildings’ materials and architecture do not enhance or blend with the Grade ll listed Mill, Smugglers’ Cottage and the White House directly adjacent. c. 23 new residences and three car parks will not provide a pleasing reception to tourists or walkers arriving at their destination on the coastal path or when visiting the bay. 2. This proposed development, because of its scale, massing, height and design would be detrimental to the conservation and enhancement of the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in conflict with Policies DVS1, ENV3 and ENV5, and paragraphs 115 and 116 of the NPPF. Our reasons are: a. The implausibility of 23 new residences with this design enhancing a heritage coastal path. b. This is a major development within an area of outstanding natural beauty and would represent a 23% increase in housing within Lee and Lincombe, and a 100% increase within the conservation area. c. This AONB has the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. d. There is no evidence that this development is in the public interest. e. There is no assessment of developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the perceived need for it in some other way. 3. This proposal does not represent sustainable development contrary to Policy DVS1A. Our reasons are: a. There are insufficient facilities and access for the community: much of the landscaped plot would be for the sole use of the owner occupiers; there is a small café placed at the rear of the public car park away from the seafront – this is derisory and completely insufficient; apart from a small terraced area and public toilets there are no other amenities for tourists, visitors, or village residents. b. There is no housing need assessment for 23 new homes at this location, or whether such homes will generate permanent residency. c. There is no provision for affordable housing – not even one. d. The design and location suggest their use would be as holiday lets or second homes; Lee and Lincombe only have permanent occupation of about 50% and this would decrease further. e. Once completed there is no evidence that there would be any significant benefit to the local economy. f. The infrastructure is insufficient to support 23 new homes: the roads are single track, there is insufficient paving, there is no village shop, and no school within reasonable distance. 4. The existence of the Hotel on the site is often given in mitigation. However, a hotel with open amenities, well designed, and aesthetically pleasing could be more sustainable and in keeping with heritage and visible assets.

Page 96 Agenda Item 6 Appendix D

5. The Crime and Disorder implication is that the public toilets should have similar opening to the café, this would be a diminution of the current availability of this important facility. 6. The survey undertaken by the LLRA in 2016 of all residents clearly expressed a wish for a restaurant or significant café on the sea front. 7. There is no facility for back packers or similar making their way along the coastal path. 8. There is no clear plan for the long-term maintenance of the site. 9. Despite repeated requests by the LLRA, to date there has been no contact with the LLRA from either the land owner or the developer. 10. The Lee Conservation Area Character Appraisal lays out seven criteria for the development of the site that this application does not comply with: a. A robust sense of enclosure along the main road b. A varied roof scape, as these will be prominent from elevated viewpoints c. A high architectural standard which takes design cues from prevalent local styles where possible d. Reflect the varied and eclectic forms of building within the village avoiding standard urban designs with no distinctiveness e. Provide open space accessible by the public f. Enhance through landscape design the condition of the valley setting g. Maintain open elements to avoid harm to the significant contribution undeveloped spaces make to local character. 11. The representations from Historic England describing the harm this application would bring to the conservation area and questioning: a. Whether the viability of the site has been thoroughly tested by the council to secure not the most profitable one but the one most compatible with conservation b. The scale and massing of the existing hotel that is not a typical feature within the conservation area, and therefore the loss of which does not justify a replacement of similar size.

Yours sincerely,

Eric Couling

Chair LLRA

Page 97 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Appendix E Mel Southwell

From: Collette Hall Sent: 19 September 2017 11:25 To: Planning Cc: Bob Pedlar Subject: 63167 Lee Bay Hotel

My original consultation response to this application was made on 26.7.17, but was withdrawn pending clarification by the applicant of figures contained within the Planning and Regeneration Statement. The applicant also amended some design details of the scheme. The response below is my updated response and relates to the amended plans and Planning and Regeneration Statement sent to NDC on 11th August 2017.

This application, for the demolition of the Lee Bay Hotel and the erection of 23 dwellings, café and wc block, associated car parks and landscaping is the second recent application for the redevelopment of this site. The earlier application, 59766 for the erection of 20 dwellings, café and wc block, car parks and landscaping, was refused permission in November 2016. The first reason for refusal related to the impact on heritage assets, specifically: less than substantial harm in relation to the impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and the setting of the grade II listed Old Mill adjacent, and the loss of significance of a non-designated heritage asset (the Hotel). The public benefits of the scheme were not considered sufficient to outweigh the identified harm. My consultation response to that application should be read in conjunction with the comments below:

The current scheme is a revision of the previous scheme, and does appear to have taken on board several of the points which caused concern in relation to heritage issues. For example, the overall heights have been reduced, and the appearance of the middle block has been altered to remove the row of staggered gable ends facing the street. More local materials have ben introduced, and the landscaping of the public area at the west end of the site has been softened. All of these revisions are welcomed, but do not allay concerns about the impact on heritage assets. In summary these are: • The loss of the non-designated heritage asset, the core of the Hotel, still remains a fact of the proposal. • The effect on the setting of the grade II listed Old Mill adjacent. The footprint of the Apartment building has been moved further away from the listed building than the existing Hotel, which is welcomed. The treatment of the western end of the arrival building is, however, not as successful in complementing the local vernacular as the existing hotel building, in my view, and therefore a degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the listed building arising from the contribution made by its setting can be identified. • The effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. As stated previously, the Hotel is in a poor condition and there is scope, through the redevelopment of the site (whether this involves retaining the existing building or not) either to preserve or enhance the character of this part of the Conservation Area. The question, relating to paragraph 134 of the NPPF, is whether the proposed development achieves this, or whether it causes a degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the Conservation Area.

To elaborate on the last point: The established character of Lee is of a dispersed settlement, with individual buildings set in generally large plots, with open spaces between. The sizes and styles of the historic buildings vary greatly from modest cottages to small country houses. The Lee Bay Hotel as existing is by far the largest building within the Conservation Area, and as such its bulk, when viewed from surrounding areas, does not fit well with the overall character of the historic surroundings. This element of discord is mitigated to a degree by the architectural interest of the historic element of the building, and the positive contribution that this aspect makes, despite its dilapidated condition, to the character of the street scene. Given the low intensity of development within the Conservation Area, and the size of the existing building, it is not difficult to see that any proposals which involve an increase in built form and associated hard surfacing are unlikely to maintain the character of this particular locality.

Page1 99 Agenda Item 6 The revised Planning and Regeneration Statement, in paragraph 3.3, sets out a comparisonAppendix between E the footprints, floor-space and volume of the existing hotel and the residential proposal. It shows that the residential proposal is slightly smaller on all counts than the existing Hotel. This is noted, however, the comparison does not appear to take account of the increased areas of car parking that are needed, or the increase in perceived level of development over the site arising from the splitting of the accommodation into three separate blocks, and the provision of the café and car park to the south. These elements are likely to combine to form an increase in development over the whole site.

Turning to the overall design, in my view the proposals for the upper building are the most successful in complementing the overall character and appearance of the Conservation Area. I would suggest that the pitch on the dormer and porch roofs should match that of the main roof and that the central inset row of three glazed doors and balcony on the upper floor of the south-west elevation should be reduced in size so that it is smaller than the doors on the floor below (does not appear to have been addressed in latest amendments). This comment is made, however, on the basis that the building is sunk down into the site, and the landscaping on the northern boundary is strong and viable, given the amount of windows that are likely to face onto trees and the earth bank. The Landscape and Countryside Officer will no doubt give a view on this.

In my view the middle building is less successful; the south west elevation, which will be prominent in views across the valley, has large amounts of glass with no legible hierarchy of proportions, large glazed doors inset into the roof, and an asymmetrically glazed gable on the western end, all of which do not fit well with the more traditional character of surrounding buildings, The north east elevation is more standardised, following the recent amendments, and has the look of a terrace of houses. The south east elevation now incorporates a large flat roofed area with a railing around it on the second floor, which I think is less successful than the earlier version.

The apartment building has incorporated some traditional details such as the fish scale slate hanging, to advantage, but this is offset by elements which are less harmonious with the surroundings, such as the glazing patterns on the south elevation which appear random with no legible hierarchy of proportions. The north elevation remains unchanged, and resembles a row of terraced houses fronting a pavement. As highlighted in the last application, this is an urban form of development which does not have a precedent in Lee, and is not appropriate to the character of the Conservation Area. The western quarter of the apartment building, perhaps because the ground level drops abruptly so that the full three storeys are evident on the road side, appears somewhat disjointed from the rest of the building, which at two storeys on the roadside and east elevation at least, appears to have a more domestic scale. The large windows and glazed doors on the west elevation together with the large areas of balcony and terrace on the upper storeys do tie in the with south elevation, but as per the comments on the above, not necessarily with the surrounding Conservation Area, nor do they maintain the qualities of the setting of the adjacent listed building.

The design for the public area to the west of the site has changed, and again our Landscape and Countryside Officer will no doubt give a view on the suitability of the scheme. I am assuming that more detailed plans of the walls, seats and surface materials will be provided for this area. This area does offer an opportunity to reflect the local vernacular, so if stone walls and paving are to be used, it would make sense to reflect locally distinctive patterns an d materials here.

In summary my view in relation to the effect on the Conservation Area is that the proposal will result in less than substantial harm to the significance of this heritage asset. As detailed above I consider that the proposal will not preserve the setting of the listed building, leading to a degree of less than substantial harm in this respect. The proposal will also result in the total loss of a non designated heritage asset. Therefore, under the terms of the NPPF, a balanced judgement which takes into account the scale of harm, the significance of the assets affected, and the public benefits of this proposal will need to be made. Collette Hall 15.9.17

Page2 100 Agenda Item 6 Appendix E Mel Southwell

From: Collette Hall Sent: 12 June 2018 11:57 To: Planning Cc: Bob Pedlar Subject: 63167 Lee Bay Hotel

This application proposes the demolition of the existing Lee Bay Hotel, and the erection of 23 dwellings, formation of new public open space, extension to existing car park, erection of café and WC block, and associated highway and landscaping works. It was received by the LPA in May 2017, following the refusal, in November 2016, of application 59766 for demolition of the hotel and erection of 20 dwellings.

I have already made comments on the current application in my email of 19.9.17. To my knowledge, the plans and elevations for the buildings have not changed, so my previous comments relating to those elements still hold. To summarise, I identified that the scheme would cause harm to the significance of heritage assets on three counts: the loss of the core of the Hotel, which is a non-designated heritage asset; the effect on the setting of the grade II listed Mill House adjacent; and the net effect on the Conservation Area. In relation to the latter, although I acknowledge that there are some benefits bought by the scheme, my conclusion was that on balance it does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

The current consultation relates to various documents submitted by the applicant in relation to the viability of the scheme. These documents have been scrutinised by various consultees, among them Historic England, who made a response on 23.4.18. In general I do agree with the comments made in their letter. Page 3 of the letter includes the following: “A summary of the Alder King Report has been provided. The full report has been submitted to the council on a confidential basis. It is the Local Planning Authorities responsibility as part of their assessment of the proposals to robustly interrogate the viability assessment provided by the developer…. Through that robust analysis it will establish whether there is sufficient justification for the harm caused to the heritage asset and whether the quantum of development proposed is the minimum necessary to secure the regeneration of the site (Para 132 NPPF). It will also need to demonstrably outweigh the harm caused to the conservation area as identified under Para 134 NPPF, which includes securing the assets optimum viable use as well as associated public benefits. …”

The LPA has accordingly sought an independent review of the viability of the scheme, undertaken by Plymouth City Council. That review considers the various costs and benefits of the scheme. The review considers the current scheme for 23 units, and on page 5 concludes that this is “comfortably viable”. The review also considers a reduced scheme for 18 units and states “the results from our appraisal indicate that this reduced number of units will also be viable and return an industry acceptable profit level”.

From the above, it is apparent that the proposed scheme for 23 units is not the “ minimum necessary to secure the regeneration of the site ” to repeat the words from Historic England. It appears that this could be achieved with a reduced scheme of 18 units. Therefore, in my view, the level of harm which will arise from the current proposal is not justified.

Given that the density of the proposed development and the levels of ancillary structure needed, particularly parking areas, are one of the factors that are judged to cause harm to the significance of the heritage assets, it would seem obvious that a reduced scheme could potentially cause less harm, and therefore be more acceptable in heritage terms. If this is considered I would suggest that the opportunity to retain and convert the historic core of the hotel (again referred to in both responses from Historic England and myself) is investigated, and that if any units are to be removed from the scheme, the central block and associated parking would be the better candidates.

Page1 101 Agenda Item 6 The Lee Conservation Area Character Appraisal has been adopted whilst this applicationAppendix has Ebeen open, and does contain a section on the Lee Bay Hotel (Paragraphs 9.4 to 9.10). Any amended application should take the advice contained in these paragraphs on board.

Collette Hall 12.6.18

Page2 102 Agenda Item 6 Appendix F

SOUTH WEST OFFICE

Mr Robert Pedlar Direct Dial: 0117 975 0725 North Devon District Council Planning and Development Services Our ref: P00600355 Civic Centre, North Walk Barnstaple Devon EX31 1EA 17 July 2017

Dear Mr Pedlar

T&CP (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 & Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990

LEE BAY HOTEL LEE ILFRACOMBE DEVON EX34 8LR Application No. 63167

Thank you for your letter of 13 June 2017 regarding the above application for planning permission. On the basis of the information available to date, we offer the following advice to assist your authority in determining the application.

Summary Lee Bay is a unique conservation area stretching up the lush sheltered valley from the craggy inlet along the North Devon coast. The redevelopment of the hotel on the valley floor includes the demolition of the existing Arts and Crafts building and its replacement with three substantial blocks along the north- east edge of the plot with associated infrastructure and regeneration of the garden.

The Local Planning Authority (LPA) has a statutory requirement to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area (S72 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 (P(LBCA)Act 1990)). Historic England considers that the proposal will continue to result in less than substantial harm to the conservation area. This is due to the loss of the hotel building, which is a positive contributor to the conservation area, as well as the intensification of development due to the massing of the replacement buildings. A number of steps have been identified within the letter that should be undertaken to minimise the harmful impact. However, this will not avoid the harm that the proposal will cause and does not justify that the scheme is acceptable.

The main justification for the loss of the building and the quantum of development is the viability of the scheme. The optimum viable use does not relate to the most profitable solution but the one most compatible with the long term conservation of the asset (Planning Practise Guide). Therefore, the LPA need to robustly assess the

29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA or EIR applies. Page 103

Agenda Item 6 Appendix F

SOUTH WEST OFFICE

viability of the proposals and ensure that the quantum of development proposed is the minimum necessary to secure the regeneration of the site. This assessment needs to be considered along with any public benefits offered by the scheme and should demonstrably outweigh the harm identified to the heritage assets affected (Para 134, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)).

Historic England remains concerned due to the impact of the development on the special character and appearance of the Lee Conservation Area.

Historic England Advice Significance Lee village nestles within the sheltered lush green combe above the secluded bay of the same name. The striking rocky coastline of the cove provides a picturesque backdrop to the conservation area, contributing to an isolated and rugged character that strongly reflects the cove’s close association to the local maritime and smuggling traditions.

The village of Lee has a tightly developed core of incremental vernacular properties, whose positioning amongst the valley slopes within established gardens provides the settlement with an enclosed and sheltered domestic character.

Between the village core and the cove, the character changes to a much looser grain, predominantly consisting of moderate sized dwellings situated within substantial plots, intermixed with open farm land and bordered by the plantation of Winkle Wood, which provides a picturesque rural quality to the area.

The cove has a more intimate quality, with functional vernacular properties, anchored into the rugged landscape and clustered along the edge of the bay. The main exception to this is the Arts and Crafts Lee Bay Hotel, which is the subject of this application. Its prominent location, scale and massing, with the additional modern extension, means that the current building has a level of discord with the existing character and appearance of the Lee Conservation Area.

Although the existing building conflicts with aspects of the conservation area’s character, it is a key focal point within the valley, retaining aesthetic value within the original structure, through its use of architectural features and detailing, as well as the sensitive use of complimentary materials. The site holds an illustrative role with the changing social and economic dynamics of Lee Bay: from its origins as a functioning harbour and agricultural landscape, when the site had been the location of a simple farmhouse, through to its evolution into a small isolated tourist destination and the subsequent growth in popularity in the mid-20 th century, in which the hotel had an integral role. The hotel site is also likely to result in some communal value.

The surrounding curtilage to the hotel contributes significantly to the conservation

29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA or EIR applies. Page 104

Agenda Item 6 Appendix F

SOUTH WEST OFFICE

area, covering much of the valley around the bay and stretching back towards the village. It remains largely open, although unmaintained, with some further interventions through the car parking and tennis courts, now largely lost within the garden’s vegetation. The contribution of the site and its importance has been captured within the Design and Access Statement, which reads that the hotel site is “ arguably the most important area of landscaping within Lee as it occupies the majority of the valley floor within its grounds, whilst the former hotel building is one of the principle focal points in the valley .” This relatively open nature of the site contributes to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Impact The former hotel site in Lee Bay has been the subject of several planning applications related to its regeneration. The current scheme is similar to the scheme in 2016, for a residential development, that was refused. This scheme continues to result in the loss of the existing hotel and increases the density of development on the site through the addition of two new blocks.

Historic England appreciates the need for regeneration on this site due to its importance within the Lee Conservation Area. However, we would stress that any scheme needs to consider within its proposals the important contribution the existing building and surrounding curtilages makes to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

We remain disappointed that the application looks to demolish the hotel. The main conflict appears to be the density of development aspired to by the applicant and the constraints that are imposed by the property, through the existing configuration of the rooms, damp along the retaining wall and the provision of light into the back of the building at lower ground floor level. We maintain that the building could be converted and adapted to reflect some of its former glory, although this would result in the reduction in the number of units within the existing structure. Consequently, the loss of the hotel would result in harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Notwithstanding our strong reservations to the loss of the hotel, the revisions to the design has taken steps to address the concerns raised by the positioning and design of the new buildings, through the reduction to the overall height of the focal structure (the hotel replacement), the use of a more contextual material palette as well as the variations in designs to try and emphasis the appearance of independent structures located within the lush gardens. However, the pressure in terms of the increase in units needed on the site means that we maintain our concerns regarding the overall increase in the visual density of development along the north-east side of the plot.

The southern block works more successfully in terms of its contextual approach as it sits independently from the focus of development along the cove and nestles below

29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA or EIR applies. Page 105

Agenda Item 6 Appendix F

SOUTH WEST OFFICE

the road line due to the increase in topography along the road.

The relationship between the focal building and the central block is less comfortable due to the proximity and the scale of the central building. We appreciate that steps have been taken to open up the views further across the valley through the plot. However, due to the robust massing of the two buildings to satisfy the amount of development proposed and the modest distance separating them which is open due to the intervening cap-park, it continues to create intensification of development within the plot, which will result in harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

There are some steps that should be taken to minimise the impact of the proposals further. This includes the modulation of the roof scape of the central building, by lowering the main bulk of the roof while retaining the gable details above it to create a greater sense of hierarchy within the built form and a more subservient appearance.

The car parks positioned between the three buildings are utilitarian designed features, which create open and stark environments that further exacerbate the visual appreciation of the new block’s massing in views from the cove and on the approach along the road. We appreciate the need for car parking and that they provide important breaks and separation between the two buildings. However, these need to be integrated more successfully into the overall scheme, reinforcing the sense of independent structure within the garden setting rather than a suburban modern estate. We would stress the need for additional planting in and amongst the parking spaces, helping to break up the stark appearance of this area as well as creating a greater sense of depth to the garden and allowing them to further screen and break up the mass of the proposed buildings.

The scale and massing of the existing hotel structure is not a typical feature within the conservation area, therefore, the loss of the structure does not justify a replacement similar in size. Instead, any new proposals should reflect the more open context experienced within the rest of the transition between the village core and the cove, with modest dwellings set within large green gardens. Unfortunately the focal building remains a substantial structure reflecting the scale of the former hotel, minus the later extension. The LPA should be mindful of their statutory duties to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, which we would question whether the proposed scale of the new focal building achieves.

In terms of the approach sought with the design of the focal building, it has created a more unified appearance reflecting features within the existing location. The north- west elevation with its complicated configuration of projections, plains and balconies, could benefit from rationalisation. One of the easiest steps to take would be to turn the central projection into a chimney. This would help provide some solidity and rationality to the façade, reflecting the existing buildings within the area. At present, the

29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA or EIR applies. Page 106

Agenda Item 6 Appendix F

SOUTH WEST OFFICE

projection contains two small windows and we are not convinced that the windows are a necessity within the design.

The other point to raise is the treatment of the elevation along the road side of the focal building. This needs to be rationalised to give it the impression of being a single entity like the garden elevation, rather than the appearance of terraces. The number of materials and their use to provide vertical emphasis as well as the provision of independent porches and the regular bay rhythm across the building need further consideration.

Policy Historic England considers that the proposals will still result in harm to the character and appearance of the Lee Conservation Area through the loss of the hotel building and the increase in development of the new scheme.

The LPA has a statutory requirement to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area (s.72, 1990 Act).

Under Para 138, the loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to the significance of a conservation area should be treated either as substantial harm or less than substantial harm under paragraphs 133 and 134 of the NPPF as appropriate. It needs to take into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area as a whole (para.138 NPPF). The hotel and the open quality of the site form a positive contribution in a prominent location within the Lee Conservation Area. In this instance, the harm has been identified as less than substantial, but that does not mean that this harm is acceptable.

Under the NPPF, Para 132, any heritage asset is irreplaceable, therefore any harm or loss to its significance should require clear and convincing justification . While under para 134, any harm needs to be outweighed by the public benefit of the scheme, including optimum viable use.

We have not been party to the viability aspects of the proposal but this forms the main justification for the current loss of the hotel as well as the overall quantum of development on the site. The viability of the scheme needs to be thoroughly examined by the local planning authority, to ensure that it secures the optimum viable use of the site. This does not mean the most profitable one but the one most compatible with the long term conservation of the asset and therefore, we would ask whether the quantum of development proposed is the minimum necessary to secure the regeneration of the site (Planning Practise Guidance). This needs to be considered along with any public benefits to consider whether this outweighs the harm caused to the significance of the heritage assets. If the assessment does not adequately demonstrate this, then the

29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA or EIR applies. Page 107

Agenda Item 6 Appendix F

SOUTH WEST OFFICE

council should refuse the application.

Position Historic England considers that although steps have been taken to address our concerns in terms of design, the scheme will result in harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area through the loss of the hotel and the intensification of development.

We would strongly advise that the points raised in our letter regarding changes to the scheme are implemented in order to mitigate some of the aspects of harm identified. It should be stressed that these steps will not avoid harm to the conservation area caused by the scheme and consequently, the council needs to consider that harm against Legislation and National Planning Policy. They should robustly consider the justification provided for the loss of the hotel, a positive contributor to the conservation area as well as the public benefits offered by the scheme, ensuring that they demonstrably outweigh the harm identified (Para 132 & 134).

Should the council approve the scheme, much of the success of a development on its site, will be down to the quality of material and detailing. We would stress the importance that any works here needs to be undertaken to the highest possible standard to ensure that the harm caused is not exacerbated. The details should therefore be conditioned accordingly, should you be minded to consider this approach.

Recommendation Historic England has concerns regarding this application due to the harm to the conservation area. We would strongly advise that the steps identified in our letter are implemented. Although the harm is less than substantial, it does not mean that this is acceptable harm. The council needs to robustly test that the harm against the public benefit offered by the scheme, to ensure it outweighs the harm identified. This should include a thorough assessment of the viability of the scheme in order to secure the optimum viable use.

Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in our advice. If there are any material changes to the proposals, or you would like further advice, please contact us.

Yours sincerely

Rhiannon Rhys Inspector of Historic Buildings and Areas E-mail: [email protected]

29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA or EIR applies. Page 108

Agenda Item 6 Appendix F

SOUTH WEST OFFICE

cc: Collette Hall, NDDC

29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA or EIR applies. Page 109

Agenda Item 6 Appendix F

SOUTH WEST OFFICE

Mr Robert Pedlar Direct Dial: 0117 975 0725 North Devon District Council Planning and Development Services Our ref: P00600355 Civic Centre, North Walk Barnstaple Devon EX31 1EA 20 September 2017

Dear Mr Pedlar

T&CP (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 & Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990

LEE BAY HOTEL LEE ILFRACOMBE DEVON EX34 8LR Application No. 63167

Thank you for your letter of 21 August 2017 regarding further information on the above application for planning permission. On the basis of this information, we offer the following advice to assist your authority in determining the application.

Historic England Advice The amendments to the proposals for the former hotel site at Lee Bay relate largely to the landscaping scheme. Historic England is pleased to see that further steps have been taken to integrate the car-parking into the wider landscape plan for the rest of the site, although this does not mitigate the impact caused by the comprehensive urbanisation proposed to the north-east side of the site.

Historic England is still resistant to the loss of the existing Arts and Crafts building due to its contribution to the development of the conservation area and aesthetic prominence within views from the beach.

Notwithstanding a decision over the loss of the existing building, we would note that no further consideration has been given to address the uncomfortable relationship between the principal buildings and the central block, which was raised in our previous letter.

We note that the previously refused scheme (2016) had been for 20 units rather than 23, which is currently proposed. One way to address the intensification of development due to the large units and the utilitarian car-parking and the resulting uncomfortable relationship between the principal building and central block, would be to reduce the number of units to that of the former scheme. If the number of units could be reduced, then the central block, which contains 4 units could be omitted from the scheme and

29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA or EIR applies. Page 110

Agenda Item 6 Appendix F

SOUTH WEST OFFICE

the additional unit, to make it up to 20, added to the larger block. This would provide the same amount of accommodation, securing what had been the optimum viable use for the site identified under a former scheme but allow for the much looser grain currently experienced within the conservation area. This will need to be considered under the planning balance, as it has been identified that the proposed scheme will result in less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the idyllic Lee Conservation Area but an alternative scheme maybe able to provide the same public benefits while resulting in less harm to the historic environment.

We would again like to reiterate that in terms of justification, the scale and massing of the existing hotel structure is not a typical feature within the conservation area, therefore, the loss of the structure does not justify a replacement similar in size. There needs to be a contextual response with any new proposals reflecting the more open context experienced within the transitional element of the conservation area, between the village core and the cove, characterised by modest dwellings set within large green gardens. The current scheme does not achieve this loose grain with the intensification of development including units and parking that will be conspicuously urban in its design and character.

In terms of detail, further consideration needs to be given to the north-west elevation of the principal building, to help visual unify it with the rest of the proposed development and to address the north-western elevation, whose design approach conflicts with the concept of single entities set within large gardens.

The Local Planning Authority (LPA) has a statutory requirement to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area (S72 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 (P(LBCA)Act 1990)). Historic England considers that the proposal will continue to result in less than substantial harm to the conservation area. This is due to the loss of the hotel building, which is a positive contributor to the conservation area, as well as the intensification of development due to the massing of the replacement buildings and the introduction of utilitarian features of the car parks.

The main justification for the loss of the building and the quantum of development is the viability of the scheme. The optimum viable use does not relate to the most profitable solution but the one most compatible with the long term conservation of the asset (Planning Practise Guide). As the previous scheme had only 20 houses compared to the 23 currently being propose, the LPA need to robustly assess the viability of the proposals and ensure that the quantum of development is the minimum necessary to secure the regeneration of the site. This assessment needs to be considered along with any public benefits offered by the scheme and should demonstrably outweigh the harm identified to the heritage assets affected (Para 134, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)).

29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA or EIR applies. Page 111

Agenda Item 6 Appendix F

SOUTH WEST OFFICE

Recommendation Historic England remains concerned due to the impact of the development on the special character and appearance of the Lee Conservation Area. This advice should be considered as an addition to the previous correspondence provided.

Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in our advice. If there are any material changes to the proposals, or you would like further advice, please contact us.

Yours sincerely

Rhiannon Rhys Inspector of Historic Buildings and Areas E-mail: [email protected]

cc: Collette Hall, NDDC

29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA or EIR applies. Page 112

Agenda Item 6 Appendix F

SOUTH WEST OFFICE

Mr Robert Pedlar Direct Dial: 0117 975 0725 North Devon District Council Planning and Development Services Our ref: P00600355 Civic Centre, North Walk Barnstaple Devon EX31 1EA 23 April 2018

Dear Mr Pedlar

T&CP (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 & Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990

LEE BAY HOTEL LEE ILFRACOMBE DEVON EX34 8LR Application No. 63167

Thank you for your letter of 7 March 2018 regarding further information on the above application for planning permission. On the basis of this information, we offer the following advice to assist your authority in determining the application.

Historic England Advice Historic England has identified Lee Bay as a unique conservation area stretching up the lush sheltered valley from the craggy inlet along the North Devon coast. The redevelopment of the hotel on the valley floor includes the demolition of the existing Arts and Crafts building, which contributes positively to the conservation area and its replacement with three substantial blocks along the north- east edge of the plot with associated infrastructure, car-parking and regeneration of the garden. There are concerns about the visual intensification of development within the location, which conflicts with the character and appearance of the conservation area.

The additional information has been submitted in response to Historic England’s letter dated July 2017. We raised concerns over the original submission documents and the justification for the works, this included the density of development aspired to by the applicant and the constraints of the property, through the existing configuration of the rooms as well as its condition.

Structural Report - Savills A preliminary structural survey has been produced, which sets out the condition of the building and estimates a potential cost for its refurbishment. The report identifies the walls as being in fair condition, while the roof structure appears to be sound, although with evidence of failures in the roof coverings. Although the site has been made secure, there has clearly been no maintenance carried out on the building since it

29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA or EIR applies. Page 113

Agenda Item 6 Appendix F

SOUTH WEST OFFICE

closure. Broken windows, failing gutters, slipped tiles and perishing lead has allowed water to ingress into the property and resulted in collapsed ceilings and some evidence of rot, its extent has not been clearly identified. Although not ideal, these issues are not insurmountable and the site would benefit from an improved maintenance regime. If not addressed, this will expedite the cost of their repair. As the principle structure, although not fully assessed, appears to be in a reasonable condition, we consider that the building could be reused to provide accommodation. This could act as an enhancement to ensure its continued contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Historic England has identified that as the building is not listed, there are no controls over what works can be undertaken to its interior and although some consideration would be required over its external appearance, this could be accommodated within the site. The internal flexibility allows greater scope for change to fit the applications aspirations for the site. For example, the internal layout could be altered considerably to make it more suitable for residential use. This would address the concerns previously raised regarding configuration. In our view it has not been demonstrated that the building cannot be adapted within the additional supporting information.

The cost of full repair and renovation put forward in the application is significant. However, it is not clear how this compares to the cost associated with the demolition and construction of the proposed new buildings within the locality.

For example, one of the major outgoings identified in the refurbishment costs is the demolition of the 1960s structure. A similar, if not greater, cost would also be expected for the demolition of the earlier part of the building and would add additional expense to the wholesale redevelopment of the site. In terms of the repairs, although the conservation area provides some constraints with regards materials and quality of design, this would apply to both proposals and therefore, we would query the potential difference in expense.

We maintain that the building could be converted and adapted to reflect some of its former glory. The structural report does identify some concerns but we are not convinced that the associated costs would defer substantially from that of the new builds. Consequently, we would question the justification present through the associated costs compared to the current proposals.

Viability - Alder King Historic England has always maintained that the hotel was unusual in terms of the character and appearance of the conservation area. It is acknowledged that the design has looked to better reflect the existing character of the conservation area. But we maintain our concerns regarding the visual density of development along the north- east side of the plot, through the buildings, hard-landscaping and car-parks. There are still concerns over the visual intensification from the resulting quantum of development

29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA or EIR applies. Page 114

Agenda Item 6 Appendix F

SOUTH WEST OFFICE

and its justification is based largely on viability.

A summary of the Alder King report has been provided. The full report has been submitted to the council on a confidential basis. It is the Local Planning Authorities responsibility as part of their assessment of the proposals to robustly interrogate the viability assessment provided by the developer. If this expertise is not available within the council, then we would strongly encourage you to engage external independent advice to assist in this assessment.

Through that robust analysis it will establish whether there is sufficient justification for the harm caused to the heritage asset and whether the quantum of development proposed is the minimum necessary to secure the regeneration of the site (Para 132, NPPF). It will also need to demonstrably outweigh the harm caused to the conservation area as identified under Para 134, NPPF, which includes securing the assets optimum viable use as well as associated public benefits. The council should be mindful that in the Planning Practise Guide, optimum viable use does not relate to the most profitable solution but the one most compatible with the long term conservation of the asset.

Position The Local Planning Authority (LPA) has a statutory requirement to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area (S72 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 (P(LBCA)Act 1990)). Historic England considers that the proposal will continue to result in less than substantial harm to the conservation area. This is due to the loss of the hotel building, which is a positive contributor to the conservation area, as well as the intensification of development due to the massing of the replacement buildings. A number of steps have been identified in our previous letter that should be undertaken to minimise the harmful impact. However, this will not avoid the harm that the proposal will cause and does not justify that the scheme is acceptable.

The supporting documentation looks to provide some justification for the proposed loss of the building and the resulting quantum of development. The structural report establishes that the structure of the building is in a fair condition and resulting harm has largely been caused through a lack of maintenance. These issues are not insurmountable and could be addressed through the process of renovation. We have raised a number of queries over the associated costs as set out in the report as well as how they would compare to the redevelopment of the site as a whole. We are not convinced that the renovation would increase the cost significantly but that information would need to be presented to undertake further assessment.

In terms of viability and the quantum of development, it is the minimum necessary to secure the regeneration of the site. The council should utilised internal or external expertise to robustly interrogate this assessment. The viability of the scheme is a key

29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA or EIR applies. Page 115

Agenda Item 6 Appendix F

SOUTH WEST OFFICE

aspect of the justification present for the works as well as presenting the optimum viable use for the site. Therefore, detailed and thorough assessment is required to be satisfied by the justification provided.

Therefore, we have reservations regarding the additional justification provided. The council needs to consider that harm against Legislation and National Planning Policy. They should robustly consider the justification provided for the loss of the hotel, a positive contributor to the conservation area as well as the public benefits offered by the scheme, ensuring that they demonstrably outweigh the harm identified (Para 132 & 134).

Recommendation Historic England has concerns regarding the application on heritage grounds.

Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in our advice. If there are any material changes to the proposals, or you would like further advice, please contact us.

Yours sincerely

Rhiannon Rhys Inspector of Historic Buildings and Areas E-mail: [email protected]

cc: Collette Hall, NDDC

29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 2000 (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). All information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to an information request, unless one of the exemptions in the FOIA or EIR applies. Page 116

Agenda Item 6 Appendix F

SOUTH WEST OFFICE

Mr Robert Pedlar Direct Dial: 0117 975 0725 North Devon District Council Planning and Development Services Our ref: P00600355 Civic Centre, North Walk Barnstaple Devon EX31 1EA 22 August 2018

Dear Mr Pedlar

T&CP (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 & Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990

LEE BAY HOTEL LEE ILFRACOMBE DEVON EX34 8LR Application No. 63167

Thank you for your letter of 13 June 2017 regarding the above application for planning permission. On the basis of the information available to date, we offer the following advice to assist your authority in determining the application.

Historic England Advice Historic England has had a long running engagement with the scheme for the redevelopment of the former hotel in the idyllic setting of Lee Bay. Historic England has now received additional information. We would like to make it clear this letter needs to be read in conjunction with our previous advice, which is still extant.

Conversion Report Historic England has now reviewed the conversion options report. The building is not listed, so there is no restriction in the way in which the interior could be adapted to make positive use of the space. It is therefore, disappointing that greater opportunity was not taken to find inspiration to expose more of the existing structure or identified creative or innovative ways to provide the accommodation within the building, especially in those areas that have been omitted from the scheme due to light levels. There were also issues regarding damp of the retaining wall. This would need further investigation but we are not convinced that a solution could not be found to address these concerns.

The report has demonstrated that the building could be converted and we consider that with a more innovative approach, effective use of the underused space along the road side of the ground floor could be incorporated to create attractive apartments.

We note the comment regarding the continued decline of the property and would

29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to both the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and Environmental Information Regulations (2004). Any Information held by the organisation can be requested for release under this legislation. Page 117

Agenda Item 6 Appendix F

SOUTH WEST OFFICE highlight that without maintenance this will continue to occur increasing the cost of refurbishment as set out in our previous response. Under Para 191, evidence of deliberate neglect … should not be taken into account in any decision. We would encourage the applicant to undertake this maintenance, and help arrest the continued deterioration of the fabric.

Viability We are pleased to see that NDDC has sought independent analysis on the viability assessment put forward by the applicant. This has identified that the quantum of development has not been justified in respect of viability.

The applicants have queried this and submitted additional information. We would support the council’s approach so far and would urge you to continue to robustly assess the revised figures with assistance from your independent expertise. This aspect of the proposal is key as it will establish whether there is sufficient justification for the harm caused to the heritage asset and whether the quantum of development proposed is the minimum necessary to secure the regeneration of the site including the demolition of the existing structure (Para 132, NPPF). It will also need to demonstrably outweigh the harm caused to the conservation area as identified under Para 134, NPPF, which includes securing the assets optimum viable use as well as associated public benefits. The council should be mindful that in the Planning Practise Guide, optimum viable use does not relate to the most profitable solution but the one most compatible with the long term conservation of the asset.

Recommendation The conversion options appraisal is useful, as it establishes that there is potential for development within the existing building. We maintain that innovative and creative solutions could help to address some of the concerns regarding light levels and the issues with dame. We would encourage the applicant to consider a potential of a conversion scheme further.

In terms of viability and the quantum of development, it is the minimum necessary to secure the regeneration of the site. The council should continue to robustly interrogate the assessment provided through their independent advisors. The viability of the scheme is a key aspect of the justification present for the works as well as presenting the optimum viable use for the site. Therefore, a detailed and thorough assessment is required to support the current justification.

We maintain our reservations regarding the justification provided following the outcome of the council’s independent assessment which raises questions over the proposed quantum of development on the site. Furthermore, the conversion options report does demonstrate that the existing hotel could be retained.

29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to both the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and Environmental Information Regulations (2004). Any Information held by the organisation can be requested for release under this legislation. Page 118

Agenda Item 6 Appendix F

SOUTH WEST OFFICE

The council needs to the identified harm to the conservation area against Legislation and National Planning Policy. They should robustly consider the justification provided for the loss of the hotel, a positive contributor to the conservation area as well as the public benefits offered by the scheme, ensuring that they demonstrably outweigh the harm identified (Para 132 & 134).

In determining this application you should bear in mind the statutory duty of section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in our advice. If there are any material changes to the proposals, or you would like further advice, please contact us.

Yours sincerely

Rhiannon Rhys Inspector of Historic Buildings and Areas E-mail: [email protected] cc: Collette Hall, NDDC

29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to both the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and Environmental Information Regulations (2004). Any Information held by the organisation can be requested for release under this legislation. Page 119

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Appendix G Mel Southwell

From: Planning Subject: FW: 63167 (WK/201702094) - Demolition of Hotel, erection of 23 dwellings, cafe etc., LEE BAY HOTEL LEE Ilfracombe

From: Dave M Sent: 17 July 2017 10:09 To: Bob Pedlar Cc: Peter Sygrove; Planning Subject: 63167 (WK/201702094) - Demolition of Hotel, erection of 23 dwellings, cafe etc., LEE BAY HOTEL LEE Ilfracombe

Dear Bob,

I have reviewed this application in relation to Environmental Protection matters and comment as follows:

1 Land Contamination

Should permission be granted, I recommend the following conditions be included:

Contaminated Land Phase 1 Condition

Prior to the commencement of any site clearance, groundworks or construction, the local planning authority shall be provided with the results of a phase one (desktop) survey for potential ground contamination.

The report shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and be sufficient to identify any and all potential sources of ground contamination on any part of the development site. Thereafter, depending on the outcome of phase one, a proposal for any phase two (intrusive) survey that may be required shall be presented to and agreed with the planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to future users of the land and neighbouring land, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems are identified and, where necessary, remediated in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

- Contaminated Land Reactive Condition

Should any contamination of soil or groundwater not previously identified 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 such contamination, within that sub-phase or part thereof, is agreed upon with the Local Planning Authority or other regulating bodies.

Reason: To ensure that any contamination existing and exposed during the development is identified and remediated.

2 Foul Drainage Proposals

The Design and Access Statement states that proposals for treating and disposing of foul drainage effluent using a Package Sewage Treatment Plant located beneath the car park have been discussed and agreed in principle with the Environment Agency. The statement also mentions use of a private pumping station. The statement does not make clear what has been agreed with the Environment Agency and I could not find any further details of the foul drainage proposals. Page1 121 Agenda Item 6 Appendix G Given the presence of a watercourse close to the proposed location for the treatment system, it will be important to ensure that the Environment Agency are happy with any proposals as there may be a potential for polluting of the watercourse under normal operation or as a result of plant failure or flooding events. Also, depending on how treated effluent is to be disposed of, there may be potential risks to human health. Such risks might arise if, for example, treated effluent is to be discharged to a watercourse which members of the public have access to, such as if it crosses a local beach.

I recommend the applicant be asked to provide further detailed information of proposals for treating and disposing of foul effluent including in relation to the points I raise above. You may also wish to consult the Environment Agency on this specific issue.

3 Construction Phase Impacts

In order to ensure that nearby residents are not unreasonably affected by dust, noise or other impacts during the construction phase of the development I recommend the following conditions be imposed:

- Construction Management Plan Condition

Prior to the commencement of development, including any site clearance, groundworks or construction within each sub-phase (save such preliminary or minor works that the Local Planning Authority may agree in writing), a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to manage the impacts of construction during the life of the works, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt and where relevant, the CMP shall include:-

a) measures to regulate the routing of construction traffic; b) the times within which traffic can enter and leave the site; c) the importation and removal of spoil and soil on site; d) the removal /disposal of materials from site, including soil and vegetation; e) the location and covering of stockpiles; f) details of measures to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site and must include wheel-washing facilities g) control of fugitive dust from earthworks and construction activities; dust suppression h) a noise control plan which details hours of operation and proposed mitigation measures; i) details of any site construction office, compound and ancillary facility buildings j) specified on-site parking for vehicles associated with the construction works and the provision made for access thereto; k) a point of contact (such as a Construction Liaison Officer/site manager) and details of how complaints will be addressed The details so approved and any subsequent amendments as shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be complied with in full and monitored by the applicants to ensure continuing compliance during the construction of the development.

Reason: To minimise the impact of the works during the construction of the development in the interests of highway safety and the free-flow of traffic, and to safeguard the amenities of the area. To protect the amenity of local residents from potential impacts whilst site clearance, groundworks and construction is underway.

- Construction Times Condition

During the construction phase no machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site outside the following times: a) Monday - Friday 08.00 - 18.00, b) Saturday 09.00 - 13.00 c) nor at any time on Sunday, Bank or Public holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents

4 Asbestos

Page2 122 Agenda Item 6 Should permission be granted, I recommend the following condition be included: Appendix G

- Asbestos survey condition

Prior to demolition of the existing buildings the structure shall be surveyed by a competent person for the presence of materials containing asbestos and a report, detailing the findings of this survey, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Any such materials identified in the survey shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with current legislation and guidance prior to demolition works commencing.

Reason: To ensure that occupiers of the site and adjoining properties are protected from potentially harmful emissions to air from asbestos.

Regards, David

David Morgan ACIEH Environmental Health Consultant

______This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Claranet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.claranet.co.uk ______

Page3 123 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Appendix H

Conclusion

Following our review of the Alder King financial viability assessment and our own assessment of the Acorn Blue application for a 23 unit scheme, we conclude that there is sufficient headroom within scheme to allow for all the requested S.106 contributions of approx. £188,491 for education and £85,477 for public open space contributions.

Should North Devon District Council conclude that Vacant Building Credit does not apply, it is our opinion that there is suffiecient headroom, on this current application of 23 units, for an additional off site contribution for housing. We have not estimated this figure as we have not been notified of this consideration and the consequential input for this calculation.

We have also commented on the possible reduction to provide 18 units. As mentioned this is based on an initial re-run of our appraisal using the Argus programme. We have made the assumption that all the abnormal costs are still applicable, and have been incorporated in our appraisal.

Furthermore we have adopted the sales values and thus the GDV suggested by the applicant in this instance. However PCC is of the opinion that there is the potential for higher values to be achieved, due to the prime location and proposed high specification that has been costed. Therefore there may be the basis for a reduction in units, or the imposition of an overage clause.

We trust the above report is satisfactory for your purposes, but should you require any further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Lionel Shelley Development Viability Lead Plymouth City Council West Hoe Road Plymouth PL1 3BJ

An independent review by Plymouth City Council for North Devon District Council / May 2018 Planning application no. 63167 Page 125 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Appendix I Suitable Suggestions and comments 6yyƒ ‚ƒr ‡’vGrrv†uvtup‚†‡p‚€ƒh rq‡‚†v€vyh ƒ ‚ƒr ‡’†h’vDys hp‚€irUur rv†hqrsvv‡r rrqs‚ hss‚ qhiyru‚ˆ†vt @‘pr††uvtu‰hyˆr†rp‚qu‚ˆ†r†I‚‡uvth‡‡ury‚r rq€h xr‡s‚ ’‚ˆtƒr‚ƒyr Uur rh r‡‚‚€h’r€ƒ‡’u‚ˆ†r†uvpuh ru‚yvqh’yr‡†‚ †rp‚qu‚€r†Hh’‚s‡uru‚ˆ†r†v Grruh‰rirri ‚ˆtu‡h†v‰r†‡€r‡u‚€r†hqh r‚‡h‰hvyhiyr‡‚y‚phy† 6PI7‡‚‚€h’!qu‚ˆ†r†u‚yvqh’hpp‚€€‚qh‡v‚phqr†‡ ‚’p‚€€ˆv‡vr† Diryvr‰r‡ur†‚pvhyu‚ˆ†vtryr€r‡uh†irr r€‚‰rqs ‚€‡urGrr7h’C‚‡ry9r‰ry‚ƒ€r‡Xuh‡ h r‡urp v‡r vhs‚ svhpvhy„ˆhyvsvph‡v‚s‚ hss‚ qhiyru‚ˆ†vt4 Grrrrq†h€‚ rihyhprqhtrƒ ‚svyr‚s r†vqr‡†v‡u€‚ r’‚ˆtr ƒr‚ƒyrhqshpvyv‡vr†‡‚ €hxr‡urp‚€€ˆv‡’€‚ r‰vi h‡hqhp‡v‰rXv‡uhss‚ qhiyru‚ˆ†vt‡uv†‚iwrp‡v‰rv†€‚ r yvxry’‡‚irhpuvr‰rq Diryvr‰r‡uh‡‡‚‚ ‡u rrhss‚ qhiyrˆv‡††u‚ˆyqirƒ ‚‰vqrqv‡uv‡ur rqr‰ry‚ƒ€r‡‚s‡ur Grr7h’u‚‡ry‡uh‡‡uv†qr‰ry‚ƒ€r‡†u‚ˆyq‚‰r hyyirv‡uv‡ur†p‚ƒr‚s‡urs‚‚‡ƒ v‡‚s‡ur r‘v†‡vtu‚‡ryhqv‡‚ˆyqirqh€htvt‡‚‡urh‡v‚hyh††r‡‡uh‡Grrv†s‚ ‡ur r‡‚irh’ sˆ ‡ur qr‰ry‚ƒ€r‡ir’‚q‡uv† 6y rhq’‡‚‚€h’†rp‚qu‚€r†C‚ˆ†r†p‚€ƒyr‡ry’‚ˆ‡‚sƒ vpr htrs‚ €riˆ‡€’yvsrv†ur r Duh‰ryv‰rqur r !’rh †hq†rryv‡‡yr‚ ‚riˆvyqhƒh ‡s ‚€u‚yvqh’hpp‚€€‚qh‡v‚ 6qqv‡v‚hyu‚ˆ†vt†u‚ˆyqhyh’†irp‚†vqr rqv‡u‡urhh rr††‡uh‡‡uv†v†hh rh‚s ‚ˆ‡†‡hqvtirhˆ‡’ 7vttr†‡ƒ ‚iyr€†h ry‚ph‡v‚hqyhpx‚sshpvyv‡vr†‡ h†ƒ‚ ‡s‚ ’‚ˆtƒr‚ƒyrsh€vyvr†r†ƒrpvhyy’ vs‡ur’q‚‡q v‰rph‡hss‚ q‚ q‚‡h‡‡‚‚hph U‚‚€h’†rp‚qu‚€r†ƒˆ‡‡vt‡urp‚†‡ˆƒ‚s†€hyyr u‚€r†uvpup‚ˆyqirh‰hvyhiyrh††‡h ‡r  u‚€r†iˆ‡‡uv†v†‚‡wˆ†‡vGrr U‚‚€h’†rp‚qu‚yvqh’u‚€r†‚‡r‚ˆtuv‡urh’‚s†u‚ƒ† Xrq‚‡ˆqr †‡hqu‚’‚ˆphuh‰rhss‚ qhiyru‚ˆ†vtur r‡ur rv†‚ƒˆiyvp‡ h†ƒ‚ ‡ hq‚ q‚p‡‚ ††pu‚‚y†r‡p C‚ˆ†rƒ vpr†vGrruh‰rt‚r‡u ‚ˆtu‡ur ‚‚s€hxvtv‡€‚ rqr†v hiyrs‚ †rp‚qu‚€r‚r † h‡ur ‡uh r†vqr‡† 6ss‚ qhiyru‚ˆ†vt‚ˆyq€rh’‚ˆtƒr‚ƒyrsh€vyvr†p‚ˆyqyv‰rur rhqxrrƒ‡urp‚€€ˆv‡’ ƒr €hr‡hqt ‚vt Xrq‚‚‡h‡‡‚†rrhss‚ qhiyru‚ˆ†vt‚‡ur†rhs ‚‡Xrrq‡‚uh‰rhp‚€€r pvhy r‡r ƒ v†r‡‚h‡‡ hp‡‰v†v‡‚ †‡‚‡ur†rhs ‚‡hqtv‰r†‚€r‡uvtihpx‡‚‡urp‚€€ˆv‡’ C‚ˆ†rƒ vpr†h r‚ˆ‡‚s rhpus‚ €‚†‡’‚ˆtƒr‚ƒyrhss‚ qhiyrh rr††r‡vhyvs‡urih’v†‡‚uh‰r h r†vqr‡vhysˆ‡ˆ r Qr‚ƒyrv‡u€‚qr†‡€rh†h rpˆ r‡y’ˆhiyr‡‚yv‰rv‡ur‰vyyhtrUur‰vyyhtrrrq†€‚ r ƒr €hr‡ r†vqr‡†U‚ˆ v†€rrq†h rhy rhq’ryyƒ ‚‰vqrqs‚  D€hthv†‡hss‚ qhiyru‚ˆ†vtvGrrvshƒr †‚ph‡hss‚ qv‡u’€hxrv‡h‰hvyhiyr‡‚‡ur€ Grr‚y’uh†yh tru‚ˆ†r†ih†vphyy’h’‡uh‡h r€‚qr†‡rt!"irq ‚‚€‡rq‡‚irƒˆ puh†rq hqv€ƒ ‚‰rqrtr‘‡rqrq‡‚€hxr‡ur€$%irq ‚‚€†t‚‚qs‚ u‚yvqh’yr‡†iˆ‡‚‡t‚‚qs‚  Xrrrq†r ‰vpr†‡‚†ˆƒƒ‚ ‡‡ur‰vyyhtrvr‡ h†ƒ‚ ‡y‚phyp‚‰rvrpr†‡‚ r Hh’t ‚ˆƒpuvyq ruh‰rpu‚†r‡‚€‚‰r‡‚Grrv‡u r‡v rqƒh r‡†Hh’†ƒh rirq ‚‚€†vs ‡ur r€‚‰r‚ˆ‡‡‚‚‡ur u‚ˆ†vt8h‡ur†ririr‡‡r ˆ‡vyv†rq47ryvr‰rvshss‚ qhiyru‚ˆ†vtv† rrqrqv‡†u‚ˆyqir†ƒ rhq‚ˆ‡v‡ur‰vyyhtrhq‚ƒ v€ru‚‡ry†v‡rD‡†u‚ˆyqirih†rq‚rrq hq‚‡h‡vtpurhƒƒ ‚ƒr ‡’v‡urih’hy‚rQ v‚ v‡’†u‚ˆyqirtv‰r‡‚hqˆy‡†u‚r ri‚  ‚ yv‰rqvGrrs‚ €h’’rh †‚‡r r†vqr‡†u‚uh‰rpu‚†r‡‚yv‰rur rhq‚ˆyq‚‡h‡ hss‚ qhiyru‚ˆ†vtvs‚ r‘h€ƒyrr†‡q‚‚ Dys hp‚€ir6q‡‚F@`‚ xr †‚‡ƒ‡ƒˆi ‚ xr †u‚q‚‡h‡‚‡ur w‚i†:

Page 127 Agenda Item 6 Appendix I Uur rv†hyhpx‚shss‚ qhiyr‡ h†ƒ‚ ‡s‚ ƒr‚ƒyru‚yv‰rvGrr8‚ˆyqh’‚rhss‚ qhu‚ˆ†rv Grrˆyr††‡ur’p‚ˆyqhss‚ qhph 4 Dh€hp‡v‰ry’ƒyhvttvs‡vt€’u‚€r‡‚€’†‚hquv†sh€vy’†‚‡uh‡‡ur’€‚‰r‡‚I‚ ‡u9r‰‚ v! ( D€yˆpx’r‚ˆtu‡‚ r‡hu‚ˆ†rs ‚€€’ƒh r‡†DsDh†‚‡‡urD‚ˆyq‚‡irhiyr‡‚iˆ’‚  r‡v‡uv‡ur‰vyyhtrDuh‰ryv‰rqvhyy€’yvsr Ds h†‡ ˆp‡ˆ r‡‚‡hyy’ˆ†ˆv‡hiyr ‚hq†shpvyv‡vr†ƒˆiyvp‡ h†ƒ‚ ‡†u‚ƒ†hyy‚r‘v†‡r‡Frrƒv‡ ‡uh‡h’ Xrh rr‡‚Grr=y‚‰r‡ur‰vyyhtrhq†ˆ ‚ˆqvth rhv‡‚ˆyqirvpr‡‚†uh rv‡v‡u€‚ r ƒr €hr‡ r†vqr‡† Dph‚‡†ˆƒƒ‚ ‡hss‚ qhiyru‚ˆ†vt‡uh‡€vtu‡uˆ ‡€’rvtui‚ˆ †‚s"$’rh † Pˆ qhˆtu‡r uhq‡‚€‚‰r‡‚Cryrih’qˆr‡‚u‚ˆ†rƒ vpr†Tur‚ˆyq€‚‰rihpx‡‚Grr‡‚iˆ’‚ ‡ur‚ƒr€h xr‡ r†‡ vp‡rq‡‚irvt€hv r†vqrpr‚‡!qu‚ˆ†r† U‚‚€h’u‚ˆ†r†v‡ur‰vyyhtrh rhyy‚rq‡‚irp‚€ru‚yvqh’u‚€r†!qu‚€r†#vGrry‚phy u‚€r†s‚ y‚phyƒr‚ƒyrv†uh‡rrrq Dsvyyhqi ‚svryq†u‚ˆyqirˆ†rqs‚ u‚ˆ†vt Xruh‰r‡‚sˆyy‡v€rvp‚€r†hq‚ xvGrrhqph‡hss‚ qhu‚€rur r6ss‚ qhiyru‚ˆ†vt v†‰v‡hy‡‚‡ursˆ‡ˆ r‚s‚ˆ p‚€€ˆv‡’ 6†€hyyqr‰ry‚ƒ€r‡‡uh‡v††’€ƒh‡ur‡vp‡‚h‰vyyhtr‡uh‡v†ƒ rq‚€vh‡ry’hp‚†r ‰h‡v‚h rh hqv††ˆv‡hiyrs‚ ’‚ˆtsh€vyvr†€h’uryƒ‡‚†‡‚ƒ’‚ˆtƒr‚ƒyryrh‰vt‡ur‰vyyhtr Uurrrqv†‚‡wˆ†‡s‚ u‚ˆ†vts‚ ‡ur€v‡ush€vy’p‚rp‡v‚‡‚‡ur‰vyyhtriˆ‡‡‚i vt†‚€r ’‚ˆtsh€vyvr†‡‚uryƒiˆvyqh†ˆ†‡hvhiyrp‚€€ˆv‡’

Page 128 Agenda Item 6 Appendix I

Lee & Lincombe Housing Needs Report




 








 




 
!"

Page 129 Agenda Item 6 Appendix I



!# $% 
&

# 


& 

'# & 
( )
*

+

,# -

-
 



.# /
& 
0

1# (
+


+

2# 


3

 

3
%
.


"# 





 


4# 
N
0
(
6







 


 


  
 




 
  


 




  







 

 
  





  



 



 
 






 
 

!
"
#
$


%  

& 
' 
(!

) 

*+
,-

./"0+
+$,0/0




































































   (

Page 130 Agenda Item 6 Appendix I

!
$% 
&


+




  



1
 

 

)
2



7


 

• 


1
  

 

 










( 




•





$


  


3  

 
 !
/






 
 
 !
/

 
(
 

/

4 
 

&8

+
9

•










5

)
/

+
 
 

 6 
•










/
)
2
 
 


 


0

• 

 

 

  
 
  

 
/".


 

2"



  


 

$/7


• ,"7


 


3 











 
 

 

2

  




3 

Page 131 3 Agenda Item 6 Appendix I

#



& 

• 
  

 
 !


 8


3 

 

  

( 


 


  

 
• 
  










 


  



 


 
 
• 
  

 


 
 

 
 


 
• 
 

 
 

  
 

 
 


 


'#

& 
 )


+

'#!
(
%
#
%  
  
9  
 







 
 

 




%
'
 
9 
  

:

  
 



 
  !




 



;


  

/".


 


 


 
  



 








  


 




/ 
 
+./,


'#
*



 

 

  
  


 

' (
 


  


  



 








"
 


 
 
(

  


3 




 

 


 
 
9
  

 









 
 

 

  


22



 
 

 
  







 


 

  
 
 



 

)
2


 

 
  


 
'

 


 
 



 
 





(

 

 

 



9
  









  
  
 


 




'#'
+

•
2"


  !




 

$/7


 
 


• <


2"
 
!/.

 


"
  




 

 

 

    




!

 
 

(

 


,#
-

-
 


,#!
  3


%



 


:

 !


 
  

 
 

:

 

9<:'
+
 


 

 


 
  !
& 
!










(
   



 

 
 

 

 
 
; 

 
  

  





 

Page 132 4 Agenda Item 6 Appendix I

= 
  


  



 
>!

%
-S
  !
;
& S
  !

  
=
@  


  S
9  




9
; 
 !

; 

9 
#
 
 





  


 



 
(

 

 (
%

 

,#
+
0

+.//



 
 

%
= 

 


(


 


%

  


 
 
 
!

 
 
  



)  
//.
 


 


 

 


+2.

,#'
+






+


%
  

  
,
 



 


 

 
 


 

!+,2!...

 


!/12!...


/
 
 
 

!0..!...


  
2
 
 



 
/.
 
  


  
 





(





"
 
 

!+22!...







 
!"..!... /



  

 







(


 

(





 

 


 
( 




 
 

 




 



( 
9
 

  

 
 
  
 
 


 



 

 
 


( 


 !


  
 
 


   




 






 




+
 

 



 


 


+





/

 





+


 


  

 
  

 





 



   





"


 
'
&8
+
+
:;

!

!/2.!...
!/ +.


!+..!...
!/ 5.
'

!+2.!...
!+..



 

 
  

 

%



.#


/
& 
0


.#!
-
 




 +
  

(













 

 
 




 
 


,"7


 

3 






/17



 

 

 

 

2
  





3 
/

 

( 

1 Data correct as of 27/11/18

Page 133 5 Agenda Item 6 Appendix I

.#
&




"2
  
 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 


 

 


 

 

 
 

 
 


 
 


 
  

.#'
73


3
 




.

  

(


(

 
 





 



2



 (

 
 

•
/.
  
 



(



.#,


<

2+
  
 
 
  !
$$
B,27C

 

!
2
B/.7C
 

 

 
27

 


+
 



  
 

/
 
 


 


+

 

( 



Page 134 6 Agenda Item 6 Appendix I

.#.
*



2


  

 



.#1
:

  

(


 

%
9

0
 

%
<
!
"
 

&  !
+
 

 !
+
 

% 
B+ 

C!

/

  
B+ 
C
<
 


S
(

.#2
6 





  

(


 
 




 

 


2


 
.
6 


!

'
,<

+
"
/0
+1

.#"
0
+
  

(
  

  



 

)
2




D


3 


(

 

"




•
,
  
  


 


 

)
2


.#4



=>
  

(
  


 
  




% 

•
0
  
 

 


0

 
  

Page 135 7 Agenda Item 6 Appendix I

1# (


+





+


3  

 

  




22








22



 
    
 

EF


)
+.


+./$

< 

: 
;   
  
 
G 


)
+.


 
 


+."$

  






22
 

 

+"7
 



+27

 
 

  

22



+




"5
  









22


5,7


 


  
 
 




1#!


+



 
  

(

 
 


/.

 
9





5
!

G 


 
 
B1,7C


 
22

12


 
1


/+
..?1.
11?2.
21N".
 
".


+"
+.
,
$
6 


1#
0
(

  

(

 
 
 



•
5
  



 

)
 

<
!
$

 (

 

%

•
/


  


 
 
•
1
 
  
)


 
 


•
+"







 

1#'
+ 



  

(

 



  


 
 

•
++
  


 


  
•
/.


 



  
•

$




3 

1#,
 +


+


+
< 
  

(
 


   





 
9
 


3 




 
 

 
 


 

 

 

 


1



 
2
 +






6 

 
 

 


  
 

 

/+

 
 

 

.
  
6
 

.

1#.

3

%

  

(

 


 
  
 
 





 







  



,

Page 136 8 Agenda Item 6 Appendix I

 
"
*
+

6 
:

 8






,
)  



2
 
 
 
2
)  

 6 
$
:



 
6

"
:



 

+



 
  


 

  




!


 


 
 





 

1#1

N


6

 
S

 


G 

  
B5$7C






!

 





 
  
 
 

 8


   


 

   !


 
 




 

 

<
/


  

)



 

)
2


 

%
 

 

 
 

  
  

3 

(
 

;

(
!
 




  !
!

 
 

(




 

( 

 
 



  










(
 


 

 


& 

 
 





 

 
 
  




2# 


3

 


3




3

%
.



"




 


 
)





 

)
2


 

%

(
3 
 
 8

(4



  !
 
 

  
   

 


 



  


  



(

 
 


 


 8!





3  

,
  
  




 

 


)
2
!

/.
 

"




/.



 

2#!
*

9
  

(

  


 


3 

 



0

 

( 

 

 



  
 

 
 





 


 

  






  

 


  

Page 137 9 Agenda Item 6 Appendix I

 
4
!
 


'

,

2
+
+
/


2#


 
  
 






(

 
 







•


:
  
  





•


2
  
  




 

)
/4"

•


2
  
  




 

)
2


2#'
(

  

(
 


   


 
 


 

 


/.

  





 

 
!
&
 
& ? 



+
3+@



;


;

9
$
$
1
2
"
"


2#,


 
  

(
 

  





(



)


//

 
 
  




 
!!


3

 
6

+
;  
( 

 
  


$
 


 


 


- 


 (


  



 
 
$
 
:

 8





 
+
;  




+
- 

 


S
)




+



  




 
+

2#.
A

3

  
 
  

 



(

 
  

/+

 

( 

 

 
!
!!. )
?
! )
?
! . )
?
!'. ) <
! )
! . )
!' )
5
/
/
/

Page 138 10 Agenda Item 6 Appendix I

"#




 



 



(




  
 

3 


 



 !


 
 
 

 

"#!
$%

9
/.


  
 
 

"







"


)   H4

• +

 







 

• /









(



1
 

3 

 
 

"#



 

3 

 
 !
  



 
 

%
% 
 
  




:

  
 


  
H4

• )  
  
 

 


  


 
 



 






 
   
B  


 



 




   !
 !
 

 !



!




!

   

  CI

• )  
  
 

 


  


 
 



 


 

   

 
 
  

 

 
   
 

 
!

  !
 
 




 


 
 I

• 
 

(


 


 
 



 



 



  
 
  !

 
 !


 
 !


 
(



3  
 

  
 
 

( 
 

 


 
 

 
 



 



 
 I


• 
 





 
   

 
 (


  



 

 

 




 
  


9


  


 
 

"#'







(
  
 


 




 


  

  

 



 



  


/"


 
!'
 +


-
; 
 63 
"
; 4 
5
9 
 


"
   
(

$



+

Page 139 11 Agenda Item 6 Appendix I

"#,
(
+

 
 
 


  




 
  

 
 

 

 





 

 





 
   

 

 


"


> 

  
   

 


  

 !
/






 
(
!
/



 
 


/
 

4 


 
 




 
$

3 
 
 
 

"#.

 



9




 
  

 

 

  

 
 
 






  
9  

 

 

9


 

 


 



  
  

( 


 
  



  


"#1
(
*%

 
 )

 

 


/$


(
 


 
(

 








 
3  


 
!,
 +

+
&

&

& ? 
3+
;

/

+
 
 

 

"
.
/
.
$
/

+
 
 


/
/
.
.
+
2
 
 

 
.
.
.
/
/

,

!
!
!
2

/
 
3 

 


 

Page 140 12 Agenda Item 6 Appendix I

4#

?
0
(
6



<!






 
: 
;
 

 



   

  
 

9
  

 
 !
 !

  !


(
 



!
 






!


 


  

   

!

= 
 


 


 







  





 

1
 

 
 


9
 
 
(
 
 

 

 
3 




= 
 

 
 
  
; 

= 
 
 

 

  
 
 !


 


 


 
  
 !
 
 
 

   

 

  
  

 




 
 
   



3  

9

 

  

  
 



 )





 

(


 

 



  



 )

 8
  


 
  
  





 






   


 
 


 


G


 
 
3 

  
 


  




 


 

4

 


 


 
 
 

  





-




C


• 6

+
• 

+





2
 
#

Page 141 13 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Appendix J

Summary

The NPPF /PPG states that an applicant must demonstrate why a proposed development is not able to comply with the policies adopted in the current Local Plan, and the LPA as the decision maker, consider how much weight to attach to such an application.

Following the deferment of the original application Acorn Blue decided to update their viability submission, and instructed JLL to present a viability report, which was produced in November 2018. PCC had been engaged to carry out an independent review of the original viability report submitted and asked to comment on this updated appraisal from the deferred application.

The results from the JLL appraisal demonstrate that the application for a 23 unit scheme provides an acceptable profit level and is therefore viable. Whilst considering alternative inputs PCC also reach the same conclusion, and therefore there is ‘no case’ to consider on viability terms.

The Applicant also requested JLL to consider the hypothetical case of 18 units (through the removal of one of the 5 unit blocks) and concluded that the profit level would not be sufficient, and therefore not viable.

Obviously an 18 unit scheme will produce a lower total sales income (GDV) but PCC believe that the removal of one of the blocks will show additional savings in build cost, and still result in a profitable development in accord with the NPPF.

In order to reach an agreement on the predicted build cost for a reduced unit development, PCC proposed that an independent local QS be engaged to review the cost plan, but this has yet to be undertaken.

PCC understand that the applicant is considering a further reduction in the impact of the structure by introducing an alternative 21 unit scheme. Perhaps this proposal will be more acceptable from a landscape and heritage point of view, and provide the profit levels required.

However planning policy requires that the viability review is to consider the application as submitted, and the only validated application at this date is the 23 unit scheme, which both JLL acting for Acorn Blue, and PCC as the independent consultant concur is viable.

Lionel Shelley Development Viability Lead Plymouth City Council

Page 143 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Appendix K Mel Southwell

From: Paul Scarrott Sent: 22 February 2019 14:09 To: Planning Comments Cc: Bob Pedlar; Michael Tichford Subject: LLRA Consultee Response - Ammended 63167 Hotel Lee Bay

LEE & LINCOMBE RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION

Chairman: Mr. Eric Couling Hon. Treasure: Mr. Paul Thom

Hon. Secretary: Mr. Paul Scarrott, Ivy Bank, Lee, EX34 8LN,

18th February 2019

Subject: LLRA Consultee Response 63167 Lee Bay Hotel Development - 21 Dwelling Amendment

Dear Mr Tichford and Mr Pedlar,

The Association and its members continue to strongly oppose planning application 63167 submitted by Acorn Blue. We have carefully studied the amendments and all our previous objections still stand. However, given the introduction of the new North Devon and Torridge Local Plan, a revised National Planning Framework, the Lee Conservation Area Character Appraisal, and many additional documents including the viability assessments, we wish to reiterate and emphasise the following specific objections in light of the changes to PA 63167.

The North Devon and Torridge Local Plan

1. Lee is not listed for development in the Spatial Development Strategy Policy ST07. It is not listed within Schedule A or B, nor indirectly listed within the Ilfracombe Town Plan, nor as a non- strategic housing site at Appendix 5. Therefore, this development should be refused. 2. Development Management Strategic Policies DM26 and DM27 describe your requirements for replacing existing or re-using buildings in a rural landscape as being: no more intrusive, assessed on their impact and scale, and a positive impact on the setting and landscape. The evidence from Historic England, Conservation Officer, and most residents is that the development will do harm and does not meet those requirements. 3. The Policies ST09, ST14, and ST15 all, in different ways, describe the LPA’s public commitment to protect, preserve, and enhance the tranquillity, sensitivity, and history of the heritage, environment assets, and character of isolated coastal villages. You have extended the Lee Conservation Area from 11 to 20 hectares to do that. According to the North Devon Council’s character appraisal the hotel development ought to reflect the specialness of the area, but such a large urbanised design, as is proposed, cannot. 4. This proposal is defined as a major development by ST17 because more than 10 dwellings are proposed. It states there should be a balanced mix of houses and that there is an essential need for affordable homes. Acorn Blue are claiming Vacant Building Credit having neglected the site and therefore have avoided the provision of affordable homes. Planning practice guidance advises that vacant building credit applies where the building has not been abandoned. Acorn Blue have costed the renovation of the old hotel building as £5.6 million – but claim it is not abandoned? 5. A significant reason for the refusal of a very similar application in 2016 was the scale and mass of the development. The Development Management Policy DM08A states that great weight will be Page1 145 Agenda Item 6 given to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty of designatedAppendix landscapes K and their settings – especially the Heritage Coast and AONB, and emphasises that public interest and exceptional circumstances must be demonstrated.

The National Planning Policy Frameworks (2012 & 2018)

1. Both NPPFs (paras 115/116/170) state that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited. Planning permission should be refused for major development (11 or more homes) other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. This application does not amount to ‘exceptional circumstances’, and it has not been demonstrated that it is in the public interest. 2. Lee is within an area defined as Heritage Coast. The paragraph 171 NPPF (2018) states that planning policies and decisions should be consistent with the special character of the area and the importance of its conservation. Major development within a Heritage Coast is unlikely to be appropriate, unless it is compatible with its special character. This proposal is not compatible with the character appraisal for the conservation area (opinion of Historic England and Conservation Officer). 3. Paragraph 134 of NPPF (2012) describes that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. We believe that as well doing harm to the heritage asset including the hotel without significant public benefits, the proposal will do irreversible harm to the landscape and character of the coastal village contrary to the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (ST09, ST14, ST15, DM08A, DM26, DM27). 4. “Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of or damage to a heritage asset the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision” (paras 130 and 191).

The Viability Assessments

1. Although we understand that commercial viability is an important consideration, in the words of Historic England the council must ensure, "Whether the viability of the site has been thoroughly tested to secure not the most profitable alternative but the one MOST COMPATABLE WITH CONSERVATION." 2. The independent assessor implies in their conclusion to the Alder King assessment that a development of 18 or less units may be viable. 3. The independent assessor states in their conclusion to the JLL viability report for 23‐ and 18‐unit options, that the building costs in the 18‐unit appraisal have not been sufficiently reduced. 4. A recent valuation of 3‐ & 4‐bedroom properties in the Bay vicinity indicate property values of between £700K to £900K. Four‐bedroom properties within the JLL and Alder King reports are valued at circa £425K.

The Planning and Regeneration Statement

1. We dispute the statements made at 2.11. There has not been extensive pre‐application consultation with the residents’ association or other key stakeholders. Therefore, the association could not have influenced the design and composition as claimed.

Page2 146 Agenda Item 6 2. We challenge the assertion at 5.19 to 5.20 that the presence of theAppendix Grampus K PH justifies a 21‐ unit major development as an appropriated scaled and located development in compliance with DM24 Rural Settlements. This is an absurd statement by Acorn Blue given the protected nature of the site and the lack of any identified housing need in the Local Plan. 3. At 4.40 to 4.44 Acorn Blue seem unaware that the character appraisal has now been approved and adopted. The modern urban design of this application is clearly different to the requirements described within that appraisal. 4. At 5.48 the purpose and location of the café are described as a full stop for the car park, and as providing a sense of arrival – this is totally inadequate. The design of the café is very small, modern and can only be used as a kiosk (78 meters squared with toilet). The aspiration, in accordance, with North Devon own tourism strategy should be the provision of a café/restaurant offering enough capacity with a bay outlook. 5. At 5.50 and 6.4 the NPPF requirements of public interest are described as met. They are not. Nearly 4000 petition signatories, and 300 written objections concur that they are not met. The reasons listed at 6.4 are inadequate and do not outweigh the harm to the landscape and heritage caused by the design and scale of the development. 6. This is not sustainable development as listed between 5.22 and 5.32 because: 1. Economic objective: this will not provide significant long‐term economic activity, and does do ‘HARM’ to the landscape; it is not supported by the council’s Economic Development Officer; 2. Social Objective: there is no need for this scale and type of housing as evidenced by its absence from the Local Plan; the developer has avoided responsibility for providing affordable homes even though they described the hotel as derelict throughout the document; 3. Environmental object: it is stated that the development would have a very positive impact visually on the landscape; this is negated by the evidence of the conservation bodies consulted.

Building for Life Assessment

1. Connections – the scheme does not integrate with the surroundings nor does it respect existing land or building use. RED 2. Facilities and Services – the size and location of the café are inadequate, majority of the grounds are private gardens, and the 24/7 public toilets will be lost. We do not have a village shop. RED 3. The site does not have good public transport. Ilfracombe and Woolacombe are not easily reachable by bike. The Bus service runs twice a week not twice daily. RED 4. The proposal does not meet local housing requirements because the village is not listed for development in the new Local Plan. A need for some affordable housing within the village is not met. RED 5. Character – the scheme will not create a sense of place. Majority of the space will be private landscaped terraces. It will have the feel of a gated community within the village. RED 6. The site is within a conservation area and AONB and is defined as doing it harm. RED 7. The scheme does not create a well defined space because it is in contravention of the character appraisal and its modern design will be clearly visible from the heritage coastal path and protected North Devon Seascape. RED

These are our strong objections.

We are willing to engage with the developer.

Page3 147 Agenda Item 6 To gain our support any development must: Appendix K

 Be the minimum size to be commercially viable as defined by NPG  Be designed and laid out in accordance with the character appraisal  Provide a café/restaurant facility at the front overlooking the bay  Comply with affordable housing provision required by planning regulations

Committee

Lee and Lincombe Residents’ Association

Sent from Outlook

______This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Claranet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.claranet.co.uk ______

Page4 148 Agenda Item 6 Appendix L United Kingdom | February 2019 5

Financial Viability Assessment

Lee Bay Hotel Prepared on behalf of: Acorn Blue

REVISED – MARCH 2019

Page 149 Agenda Item 6 Appendix L Lee Bay Hotel Contents

Executive Summary 3

1 Introduction 4

2 Background 6

3 Viability Approach & Benchmark Developers Profit 7 4 Development Value 10

5 Development Costs 11 6 Appraisals and Results 13 7 Appendices 14

© 2019 Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. All rights reserved 2 Page 150 Agenda Item 6 Appendix L Lee Bay Hotel

Executive Summary

This financial viability assessment (FVA) has been prepared by JLL on behalf of Acorn Blue in support of their planning application (ref: 63167) for the redevelopment of the Lee Bay Hotel. The purpose of this FVA is to determine whether the quantum of residential development proposed by the application is the minimum required to create a viable scheme. This follows a previous FVA undertaken by Alder King LLP in respect of the site and subsequent failure to agree the viability with Lionel Shelley of Plymouth City Council (on behalf of North Devon Council). JLL has been instructed to re-appraise the site and undertake a renewed negotiation with Lionel Shelley. This specific report relates to an updated scheme comprising 21 no. units. A planning decision has been deferred awaiting the outcome of these negotiations. The viability assessment considers the total value of the completed scheme and the total cost of its delivery using recognised residual appraisal software – Argus Developer. In accordance with published viability guidance, the resulting developers profit is then compared with an appropriate benchmark profit to determine the viability of the proposed scheme. We have assessed both the new 21 unit residential scheme as proposed and a hypothetical 17 unit scheme to mirror the approach taken by previous reports but updated to reflect the latest design work (an 18 unit scheme is now not possible). It is our opinion that the scheme as submitted provides the minimum number of units required to deliver a viable scheme.

© 2019 Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. All rights reserved 3 Page 151 Agenda Item 6 Appendix L Lee Bay Hotel

1 Introduction

1.1 JLL is instructed by Acorn Blue (the Applicant) to undertake a financial viability assessment (FVA) in support of a planning application for the redevelopment of the former Lee Bay Hotel (the Site). 1.2 The purpose of this independent FVA is to support the planning application to the local planning authority, North Devon Council (Ref: 63167) and to establish what represents the minimum amount of development required to make development viable. Please note that we are not under instructions to comment on the level of affordable housing; Vacant Building Credit applies and therefore affordable housing is not required. 1.3 This report has been prepared having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) on Viability; the RICS Guidance Note ‘Financial Viability in Planning’ (RICS GN); and generally accepted principles of undertaking financial viability assessments. 1.4 In accordance with the RICS guidance (paragraph 4.5.4 RICS GN), I confirm that I have acted reasonably, transparently and fairly in undertaking this assessment. 1.5 Please note that this assessment is undertaken at a particular point in time (February 2019). Values and costs will change over time and it must be understood that our assessment is based on current estimated values and costs as at the date of this report and is not a projection of value. 1.6 This report and its contents have been prepared specifically to support the planning application in respect of the Site. No responsibility whatsoever is accepted to any third party and neither the whole of the report, nor any part, nor references thereto, may be published in any document, statement or circular, nor in any communication with third parties without our prior written approval of the form and context in which it may appear. 1.7 The advice contained herein does not constitute a formal valuation and cannot be used for purposes other than those mentioned, including loan security purposes. The advice contained in this report is exempt from the current RICS Valuation Professional Standards March 2014 – Global and UK Edition (the Red Book). I reserve the right to update, amend or vary our advice should the matter progress to a planning appeal hearing or inquiry. Background 1.8 The current planning application is a resubmission following the refusal of application ref: 59766 on 1st November 2016. 1.9 Since the refusal of the first scheme, Acorn Blue and North Devon Council have agreed that Vacant Building Credit (VBC) applies and there is no requirement for affordable housing as part of the current application. The reason for this is that the gross floor area of the current buildings exceeds the proposed development. 1.10 We have not included the car park, café or WC’s in this FVA as it is understood the land to provide these will be transferred for the nominal sum of one pound to the National Trust upon grant of planning permission.

© 2019 Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. All rights reserved 4 Page 152 Agenda Item 6 Appendix L Lee Bay Hotel

1.11 Alder King, on behalf of Acorn Blue, first submitted a FVA in respect of the current planning application on 6th February 2018. That report concluded that the scheme as proposed was viable and could afford to make the required Section 106 contributions. It further concluded that a hypothetical smaller scheme was not viable as it could not support the required S106 contributions, nor would it result in a land value at a level to incentivise a willing seller to sell the site. 1.12 The Alder King (AK) FVA was reviewed by Lionel Shelley (LS) of Plymouth City Council (on behalf of North Devon Council) in May 2018. LS disagreed with many of the AK report inputs and concluded that ‘there may be the basis for a reduction in units’. 1.13 Subsequent meetings were held between AK, LS the Council and Acorn Blue. Despite attempts to negotiate a resolution could not be found. The application was recommended for refusal by North Devon Council although this decision has been deferred pending the outcome of this FVA. Specifically, ‘members were aware of the difference of opinion on whether 18 or 23 units was the minimum quantum necessary for this development and want the applicant to re-consider the number proposed with a view to reducing it back down towards the 18 our adviser believes is viable’.(e-mail correspondence from Case Officer, 12th October 2018). 1.14 JLL has been instructed by Acorn Blue to review the FVA in the context of the above request from Members. 1.15 Acorn Blue has prepared a revised 21 unit scheme that aims to address reservations held about the 23 no. unit scheme. We have been instructed to appraise this revised scheme and compare it with the hypothetical 17 no. unit scheme. 1.16 Updated costings have been obtained from Acorn Blue, in conjunction with Taylor Lewis and Classic Builders in order to provide an evidence base for the costs used. A breakdown is attached to this report. Information Sources 1.17 I have been provided with, and relied upon, information provided by the Applicant and its consultants including the following:

Information Source Dated Accommodation schedule Acorn Blue October 2018 Financial Viability Alder King 6th February 2018 Assessment Viability Review Plymouth City Council May 2018 Build costs Acorn Blue Feb 2019

© 2019 Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. All rights reserved 5 Page 153 Agenda Item 6 Appendix L Lee Bay Hotel

2 Background

Location and Description

2.1 The property is located in the village of Lee, adjacent to Lee Bay and occupies a site of 1.79 ha (gross). The site’s postcode is EX34 8LR. The Lee Bay Hotel closed some time ago and the building is now in a very poor state. 2.2 The site area includes the derelict hotel but also an area of car parking that the applicant intends to transfer to the National Trust. 2.3 Acorn Blue has submitted a planning application (resubmission) (Ref: 63167) for residential redevelopment of the hotel site comprising; demolition of the existing hotel, erection of 23 no. residential units, new public open space, extension to the existing public car park, erection of a new café and WC block and associated landscaping, drainage and highway works. 2.4 A planning decision was deferred for up to 3 months at a planning committee on 14th November 2018. Description of proposed scheme

2.4 Acorn Blue proposes a 21 no. unit scheme split between three small blocks. 2.5 An accommodation schedule for the proposed development is provided below:

Building No. Units GIA (sq m)* GIA (sq ft ) NIA (sq m) NIA (sq ft) North West 13 1,532 16,491 1,229 13,229 Apartments Middle Building 4 530 5,705 506 5,447 Upper Building 4 472 5,080 452 4,865 Total 21 2,109 27,276 2,187 23,541

2.6 A full accommodation schedule is appended to this report. 2.7 Note the 17 unit scheme is based on the Upper Building not being built.

© 2019 Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. All rights reserved 6 Page 154 Agenda Item 6 Appendix L Lee Bay Hotel

3 Viability Approach & Benchmark Developers Profit

Viability Approach

3.1 This section highlights the key planning guidance that is relevant to the application and this FVA.

2018 NPPF Consultation

3.2 On 5 March 2018 the Government published a draft version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for consultation. This is the first major update of the Framework since it was published in March 2012. As part of this consultation they have provided a separate piece of guidance on viability ‘Draft Planning Practice Guidance for Viability’. This attempts to add clarity to the viability assessment process by defining the criteria for certain inputs. We believe this report follows the new guidance. 3.3 The new NPPF was published on 24th July 2018 and the Viability guidance has been updated as part of this review. 3.4 The most important revision is in respect of land value. The new guidance seeks to bring clarity to the way that a Benchmark Land Value (BLV) is set. BLV should be established on the basis of existing use value plus a premium that incentivises the land owner to release the land for development (EUV+). The premium should reflect the minimum return that it is considered a reasonable land owner will release their land for development. 3.5 In addition, The Department for Communities and Local Government issued an updated National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) planning guidance on ‘Viability’ in July 2018. In the Viability and Decision Taking section the guidance states the following; “Viability assessment is a process of assessing whether a site is financially viable, by looking at whether the value generated by a development is more than the cost of developing it. This includes looking at the key elements of gross development value, costs, land value, landowner premium, and developer return.” 3.6 Below we detail our approach in accordance with both the 2018 NPPF and 2018 NPPG.

RICS Guidance Note: Financial Viability in Planning

3.7 The RICS GN was published in August 2012. The purpose of the guidance note is to enable all participants in the planning process to have a more objective and transparent basis for understanding and evaluating financial viability in a planning context. It provides practitioners with advice in undertaking and assessing viability appraisals for planning purposes. 3.8 The RICS GN provides all those involved in financial viability in planning and related matters with an objective methodology framework and set of principles that can be applied for both plan making and development management. 3.9 Financial viability for planning purposes is defined as follows:

© 2019 Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. All rights reserved 7 Page 155 Agenda Item 6 Appendix L Lee Bay Hotel

“An objective financial viability test of the ability of a development project to meet its costs including the cost of planning obligations, whilst ensuring an appropriate site value for the landowner and a market risk adjusted return to the developer in delivering that project.” 3.10 The RICS GN also addresses the term “competitive return” as set out in the NPPF as follows: “A ‘Competitive Return’ in the context of land and/or premises equates to the Site Value as defined by this guidance, i.e. the Market Value subject to the following assumption: that the value has regard to development plan policies and all other material planning considerations and disregards that which is contrary to the development plan. A ‘Competitive Return’ in the context of a developer bringing forward development should be in accordance with a ‘market risk adjusted return’ to the developer, as defined in this guidance, in viably delivering a project.” 3.11 In assessing the viability of the Scheme, we have adopted a residual valuation model in accordance with the RICS GN. This approach uses various inputs to establish the gross development value (GDV) of the proposed scheme from which the development costs are deducted to arrive at either a residual Site Value or developer’s return (profit). 3.12 In this FVA we have adopted site value as an input to development costs, leaving a residual developer’s profit as the output from which to benchmark viability. This approach is summarised below: Gross Development Value less Development Costs (Including Site Value) less Planning Obligations equals Residual Developer’s Profit 3.13 When a developer’s return is adopted as the benchmark variable, a scheme should be considered viable, as long as the cost implications of planning obligations are not set at a level at which the developer’s return (after allowing for all development costs including Site Value) falls below that which is acceptable in the market for the risk in undertaking the development scheme. If the cost implications of the obligations erode a developer’s return below an acceptable market level for the scheme being assessed, the extent of those obligations will be deemed to make a development unviable as the developer would not proceed on that basis. (RICS GN Para 3.3.1) 3.14 In this case, we need to determine whether the scheme as applied for generates a developer’s profit in line with market and funder requirements. Benchmark Developer’s Profit

3.15 The NPPG defines the developers return as follows: “For the purpose of plan making an assumption of 15-20% of gross development value (GDV) may be considered a suitable return to developers in order to establish the viability of plan policies. Plan makers may choose to

© 2019 Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. All rights reserved 8 Page 156 Agenda Item 6 Appendix L Lee Bay Hotel

apply alternative figures where there is evidence to support this according to the type, scale and risk profile of planned development. A lower figure may be more appropriate in consideration of delivery of affordable housing in circumstances where this guarantees an end sale at a known value and reduces risk.” 3.16 In arriving at a benchmark return I have considered the risk profile of the scheme. The property is previously developed land that comprises a dilapidated hotel in need of demolition. There will be unknowns in respect of ground conditions that cannot be fully explored until demolition has occurred. 3.17 The site sits in what is an undeniably fantastic location. This does however bring with it complexities of construction such as lorry movements along small roads. 3.18 It is well known in the development and construction market that there is a general labour shortage; this is most heightened in rural and remote locations away from major population centres. We are in regular contact with developers, some of whom will not build in North Devon given the difficulties they face in attracting labour to their sites. There also remains uncertainty surrounding the longer term impacts of Brexit and the continued construction cost inflation experienced and forecast due to labour, skills and material shortages. 3.19 Recent changes to the stamp duty payable on second homes and amends to the tax relief available for buy- to-let landlords has had a detrimental impact on the market for luxury homes in the south west. Whilst Lee Bay will appeal to second home owners and relocaters, we attach caution to this market as they are either: ■ Reluctant to commit to an expensive second home and pay an additional 3% of stamp duty on what is already a high fee ■ Needing to dispose of their current home to purchase a new home to relocate to. The second hand market is weak at present, particularly for larger homes 3.20 Lee Bay is also reasonably remote with no local services and this will also, in our opinion, add sales risk to the project. 3.21 The NPPG guides a profit level between 15 and 20%. We have recently agreed a viability for a green field site in Bideford using a blended profit margin of 20% on GDV for the open market units and 6% on the affordable units. The subject site is far more risky than a green field house builder site and should arguably attract a higher profit margin than 20%. 3.22 It should be noted that the draft PPG (and previous guidance) referred to 20 per cent and this has, until now, been the accepted level of return. The PPG recognises that a lower figure ‘may be more appropriate in consideration of delivery of affordable housing in circumstances where this guarantees an end sale at a known value and reduces the risk’. It also acknowledges that different figures may be appropriate for different development types. We believe that a figure lower than 20% is the result of a scheme delivering affordable housing where the target profit on GDV for the affordable is 6% and 20% on the open market units. 3.23 For the reasons stated above it is my opinion that an appropriate benchmark developer’s return for this scheme is a profit of 20% of GDV.

© 2019 Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. All rights reserved 9 Page 157 Agenda Item 6 Appendix L Lee Bay Hotel

4 Development Value

4.1 The Gross Development Value (GDV) of the scheme has previously been debated between AK and LS. They agreed at a GDV for all units of £9,995,000. 4.2 The scheme has been amended since the first viability report was submitted and is now smaller; being reduced by 2 no. units. 4.3 Acorn Blue has liaised with local agents and have used their significant experience of selling high quality coastal developments in reaching their predicted sales prices. 4.4 Given the lack of comparable evidence in the immediate vicinity we are of the opinion that the agreed GDV remains valid, albeit that there has been some growth since the process began that has been reflected in our assumed GDV of £9,845,000. The GDV breakdown is as follows: Type Description Internal Internal SqM. Price/SqFt Resale Value SqFt. 2 bed Lower Ground apartment 861 80 £494 £425,000 2 bed Lower Ground apartment 840 78 £482 £405,000 2 bed Ground floor apartment 635 59 £520 £330,000 2 bed Ground floor apartment 721 67 £485 £350,000 3 bed Penthouse 1,023 95 £489 £500,000 3 bed Penthouse 1,152 107 £412 £475,000 4 bed Maisonette 1,292 120 £368 £475,000 4 bed Maisonette 1,292 120 £368 £475,000 4 bed Maisonette 1,292 120 £368 £475,000 2 bed Maisonette 1,012 94 £440 £445,000 2 bed Maisonette 1,076 100 £418 £450,000 3 bed Penthouse 1,012 94 £489 £495,000 3 bed Penthouse 1,023 95 £489 £500,000 4 Bed end terrace house 2 storey 1,528 142 £373 £570,000 3 bed mid terrace house 2 storey 1,195 111 £385 £460,000 3 bed mid terrace house 2 storey 1,195 111 £385 £460,000 4 Bed end terrace house 2 storey 1,528 142 £373 £570,000 3 Bed GF apartment 990 92 £465 £460,000 3 Bed FF apartment 1,227 114 £408 £500,000 4 Bed mid terrace house 2 storey 1,324 123 £378 £500,000 4 Bed end terrace house 2 storey 1,324 123 £397 £525,000

4.5 LS has included a value of £102,000 as a ground rent investment income in addition to sales GDV. The Government announced a consultation to reform the residential leasehold system on 21st December 2017. The likely outcome of this consultation will be legislation that will remove the ability to obtain ground rents on any new development. As a result many valuers and lenders will no longer make any allowance for ground rents when calculating a value of a scheme. We therefore believe it incorrect to attribute any ground rent income or investment value to the proposed scheme.

© 2019 Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. All rights reserved 10 Page 158 Agenda Item 6 Appendix L Lee Bay Hotel

5 Development Costs

Site Value

5.1 Site value is defined in the RICS GN as follows (para 2.8):- “Site Value should equate to the Market Value subject to the following assumption; that the value has regard to the development plan policies and all other material considerations and disregards that which is contrary to the development plan” 5.2 The RICS GN goes on to say practitioners should have regard to current and alternative use value, market/transactional evidence, and all material considerations including planning policy in deriving the Site Value. Site Value must be, by definition, at a level at which a landowner would be willing to sell at a competitive return, as recognised by the NPPF. 5.3 A bench mark land value of £375,000. was used for the land value in the previous viability assessments from both Alder King and Lionel Shelley. 5.4 We have discussed the property with JLL’s Leisure and Hotels team based in Exeter. They are of the opinion that if they were instructed to dispose of the property today in its current condition they would achieve a sales price in excess of the Benchmark Land Value. 5.5 Given that the figure of £375,000 has previously been agreed and although we feel it to be too low we have continued to use this as the benchmark site value for the purposes of this report. Acquisition Costs 5.6 We have made an allowance for acquisition costs in accordance with HMRC rates with 1.5% for agent fees and £10,000 for legal fees plus Stamp Duty at the prevailing rate. Construction Costs 5.7 The Alder King report submitted in February 2018 relied on a summary quantity surveyor costing for the scheme that covered both build and abnormal costs. 5.8 The review of that report undertaken by LS used BCIS costings as a benchmark. LS accepted as the proposed scheme was to be of a high quality build and design that the upper quartile range of costs should be attributed to this project. 5.9 In our initial review of the 23 no. unit scheme, undertaken in November 2018, we applied BCIS upper quartile range, re-based to North Devon. However, we were unable to agree the appropriate level of external/abnormal costs with LS so it was decided that a costs summary obtained, updated where necessary and that this be made available for review by LS and a 3rd party quantity surveyor if required. 5.10 The cost summary has been prepared by Acorn Blue using uplifted Taylor Lewis (cost consultant) figures with input from contractors Classic Builders. 5.11 The cost summary includes all sub and super structures, abnormals and external build costs. The cost summary has been updated to reflect BCIS build cost inflation to today’s date. Preliminaries are included at £6,000 per week that the project is on site.

© 2019 Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. All rights reserved 11 Page 159 Agenda Item 6 Appendix L Lee Bay Hotel

Contractor Overheads and Profits are allowed at 7.5% of build cost, which we believe is reasonable. Demolition has been allowed at £140,000. The total build cost for the 21 unit scheme is £6,089,077. The cost for the 17 unit scheme is £5,132,370. 5.15 We have allowed a contingency of 5% on build and externals. This is a standard input for a challenging brownfield site. Professional Fees 5.16 We would normally expect to see a range of 8 – 12% on cost for professional fees, with 12% being for the restoration of listed buildings. Given the challenges of this site, including constrained access and demolition we have attributed a figure of 10% across build and external costs. Planning Obligations 5.17 We have included Section 106 contributions as per the previous reports, being £184,491 for education and £85,477 for public open space. 5.18 CIL is not adopted in North Devon. Marketing, legal and disposal fees 5.19 We have allowed for marketing, legal (conveyancing) and disposal (agency) costs of 3.5% of the open market GDV in this assessment to cover show homes, sales office, advertising, agent fees and brochures. In our opinion, this level of marketing will be required if the Applicant is to achieve its target sales prices. Finance Costs 5.20 The interest rate applied in the appraisal represents a total cost of capital in financing the scheme. This reflects both debt and equity financing. The RICS GN suggests that in assessing such matters as the rate of finance, that this should not be specific to the developer in question but be the benchmark rate that any developer capable of undertaking the scheme would be able to access finance at. JLL regularly undertake loan security valuations on behalf of lenders for development sites of this size and scale and in our experience a rate of 6% is low, but is within the range we are currently seeing in the market. Development Programme 5.21 The previous FVA and subsequent analysis allowed a 24 month build and sales programme. We believe that this assumption is far too optimistic and does not reflect reality. We have liaised with Acorn Blue and have used our own development knowledge to arrive at the following programme: ■ pre-commencement and site clearance – 5 months ■ construction period – 24 months ■ sales period – 14 months (commencing 18 months into the construction process)

© 2019 Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. All rights reserved 12 Page 160 Agenda Item 6 Appendix L Lee Bay Hotel

6 Appraisals and Conclusion

6.1 We have run our viability assessment appraisals in ARGUS Developer, which is an established real estate software program used by the property industry to model development projects. 6.2 We have undertaken an appraisal of the scheme as proposed by the Acorn Blue planning application. We have used a fixed land value of £375,000 and have a target profit margin of 20% of gross development value. 6.3 In line with the previous FVA we have also appraised a smaller hypothetical scheme; this time of 17 units (removing the upper building). We have maintained all inputs as per the larger scheme however we have reduced S106 contributions to reflect the lower amount of units. 6.4 The results of the two appraisals are shown in the table below:

No. of units GDV Land Profit on GDV 21 £9,845,000 £375,000 14.94% 17 £7,860,000 £375,000 6.85%

6.5 The appraisals clearly demonstrate that the 17 unit scheme does not make the requisite profit to show that it is viable. This is the same position faced by the 18 unit scheme previously tested. 6.6 The 23 unit scheme previously tested showed a return of c. 20% on GDV. As discussed earlier in this report this is the minimum level that we believe a developer would look to achieve before embarking on this scheme. 6.7 The 21 unit scheme is proposed as a compromise by Acorn Blue. It reduces the number of units and the height of the buildings proposed. Ultimately, however, it creates less revenue whilst still being affected by the same abnormal development costs. It does not achieve what we consider to be a market level of developers profit. 6.8 Acorn Blue are committed to delivering a residential scheme of the highest quality at Lee Bay. In order to reach a compromise in respect of the form of scheme they are willing to take a lower margin in order to bring the development forward.

© 2019 Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. All rights reserved 13 Page 161 Agenda Item 6 Appendix L Lee Bay Hotel

7 Appendices

© 2019 Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. All rights reserved 14 Page 162 Agenda Item 6 Appendix L

JLL 31 Great George Street Bristol BS1 5QD +44 (0)117 927 6691 James Petherick Director +44 (0)117 930 5690 [email protected]

A b o ut JL L R es ea rc h JL L’ s re se About JLL ar ch te a m d eli ve rs in te lli ge nc e, a n al ys is a n d in si g JLL (NYSE: JLL) is a leading professional services firm that specializes in real estate and investment management. A Fortune 500ht th ro u g h m ar ke t- le a di n g re p company, JLL helps real estate owners, occupiers and investors achieve their business ambitions. In 2016, JLL had revenue of or ts a n d se rvi ce s th at ill u m in at e $6.8 billion and fee revenue of $5.8 billion and, on behalf of clients, managed 4.4 billion square feet, or 409 million square meters, to d ay ’s co m m er ci al re al es ta te dy n and completed sales acquisitions and finance transactions of approximately $136 billion. At year-end 2016, JLL had nearly 300a m ic s a n d id e nt ify to m or ro w’ s corporate off ices, operations in over 80 countries and a global workforce of more than 77,000. As of December 31, 2016, LaSallech all e n ge s a n d o p p or tu ni ti es Investment Management has $60.1 billion of real estate under asset management. JLL is the brand name, and a registered. O ur m or e th a n 40 0 gl o b al re se trademark, of Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated. ar ch pr of es si o n al s tr ac k a n d a n al ys e ec o n o m ic a n d pr o p er ty tr e n ds a n d fo re ca st fu tu re co n di ti o ns in ov er 60 co u nt ri es , pr o d uc in g u nr iv all e d lo ca l a n d gl o b al p er sp ec tiv es . O ur re se ar ch a n d ex p er tis e, fu ell e d by re al - ti m e in fo r m at io n a n d in n ov at iv e th in ki n g ar o u n d th e w or ld, cr ea te s a co m p et iti ve a dv a nt ag e fo r o ur cli e nt s a n d dr iv es su cc es sf ul st ra te gi es a n d o pt i m al re al es ta te d ec isi o ns .

https://internetadmin.jll.com/united-kingdom/en-gb Jones Lang LaSalle ©2018 Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. All rights reserved. All information contained herein is from sources deemed reliable; however, no representation or warranty is made to the accuracy thereof.

Page 163 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Appendix M

Lee Bay viability review 17 unit scheme

Development Appraisal JLL 28 February 2019

Page 165 Agenda Item 6 Appendix M

APPRAISAL SUMMARY JLL Lee Bay viability review 17 unit scheme

Summary Appraisal for Phase 1

Currency in £

REVENUE Sales Valuation Units ft² Sales Rate ft² Unit Price Gross Sales 17 unit scheme 17 18,675 420.88 462,353 7,860,000

NET REALISATION 7,860,000

OUTLAY

ACQUISITION COSTS Fixed Price 375,000 375,000 Stamp Duty 11,250 Agent Fee 1.50% 6,500 Legal Fee 10,000 27,750 CONSTRUCTION COSTS Construction ft² Build Rate ft² Cost 17 unit scheme 22,196 231.23 5,132,370 5,132,370

Contingency 5.00% 256,618 Demolition 140,000 S106 Education 135,713 S106 P.O.S 61,543 593,875

PROFESSIONAL FEES Professional fees 10.00% 513,237 513,237 DISPOSAL FEES Sales agent, marketing, conveyancing 3.50% 275,100 275,100 FINANCE Debit Rate 6.000%, Credit Rate 0.000% (Nominal) Land 55,482 Construction 288,775 Other 59,680 Total Finance Cost 403,937

TOTAL COSTS 7,321,269

PROFIT 538,731

Performance Measures Profit on Cost% 7.36% Profit on GDV% 6.85% Profit on NDV% 6.85%

IRR 12.63%

Profit Erosion (finance rate 6.000) 1 yr 2 mths

Project: \\eu.jllnet.com\ukhome$\FieldOffice\AtoK\James.Petherick\ARGUS Developer\Lee Bay\Lee Bay 17 unit scheme.wcfx ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 28/02/2019

Page 166 Agenda Item 6 Appendix M

APPRAISAL SUMMARY JLL Lee Bay viability review 17 unit scheme

Project: \\eu.jllnet.com\ukhome$\FieldOffice\AtoK\James.Petherick\ARGUS Developer\Lee Bay\Lee Bay 17 unit scheme.wcfx ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 28/02/2019

Page 167 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Appendix N

Lee Bay viability review 21 unit scheme

Development Appraisal JLL 28 February 2019

Page 169 Agenda Item 6 Appendix N

APPRAISAL SUMMARY JLL Lee Bay viability review 21 unit scheme

Summary Appraisal for Phase 1

Currency in £

REVENUE Sales Valuation Units ft² Sales Rate ft² Unit Price Gross Sales 21 unit scheme 21 23,541 418.21 468,810 9,845,000

NET REALISATION 9,845,000

OUTLAY

ACQUISITION COSTS Fixed Price 375,000 375,000 Stamp Duty 11,250 Agent Fee 1.00% 6,500 Legal Fee 10,000 27,750 CONSTRUCTION COSTS Construction ft² Build Rate ft² Cost 21 unit scheme 27,276 223.24 6,089,077 6,089,077

Contingency 5.00% 304,454 Demolition 140,000 S106 Education 145,000 S106 P.O.S 70,000 659,454

PROFESSIONAL FEES Professional fees 10.00% 608,908 608,908 DISPOSAL FEES Sales agent, marketing, conveyancing 3.50% 344,575 344,575 FINANCE Debit Rate 6.000%, Credit Rate 0.000% (Nominal) Land 52,096 Construction 217,256 Total Finance Cost 269,352

TOTAL COSTS 8,374,116

PROFIT 1,470,884

Performance Measures Profit on Cost% 17.56% Profit on GDV% 14.94% Profit on NDV% 14.94%

IRR 31.46%

Profit Erosion (finance rate 6.000) 2 yrs 9 mths

Project: \\eu.jllnet.com\ukhome$\FieldOffice\AtoK\James.Petherick\ARGUS Developer\Lee Bay\Lee Bay 21 unit scheme.wcfx ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 28/02/2019

Page 170 Agenda Item 6 Appendix O

Viability Review: The Former Lee Bay Hotel Site Updated 5 th April 2019.

Introduction

• Plymouth City Council’s Development Viability Team (PCC) has been requested by North Devon District Council to undertake a review of a second application by Acorn Blue (Acorn), for the demolition and redevelopment of the Lee Bay Hotel. An original viability report was submitted by Alder King, dated February 2018, (AK) on behalf of the applicant and PCC provided an independent assessment of the report and the viability of the scheme including a comment on capacity of the scheme to support additional s.106 contributions.

• Subsequently Acorn submitted changes to the application (63167) and a revised viability was submitted by the consultant, JLL in November 2018 for 23 units (comprising a 13 unit block, and two 5 unit blocks) with comment on an 18 unit scheme.

• This was further updated in response to a changed scheme layout submitted in February 2019, for a 21 unit scheme, (comprising a 13 unit block, and two 4 unit blocks) and further comment on a reduced 17 unit scheme (deleting the middle building).

The Site • The site address is the former Lee Bay Hotel site, Lee, North Devon, EX34 8LR.

• The site area is 1.79 ha (gross) and lies immediately to the north west of the village of Lee, adjacent to Lee Bay. The full details of the site are described in the JLL Assessment reports.

• In addition to the derelict hotel, the site is laid out to gardens leading down to a stream and former pond, and an unsurfaced car park.

• The original 2016 application included the construction and the rebuild café and public toilets and car park. However these elements have now been omitted from this VA as we understand that this area of the site will be transferred to the National Trust who will be carrying out the redevelopment of these facilities direct.

Vacant Building Credit (Affordable Housing exemption)

An independent review by Plymouth City Council to North Devon District Council / April 2019 Planning application no. 63167

Page 171 Agenda Item 6 Appendix O

We understand that the developer and North Devon District Council are investigating whether Vacant Building Credit should be applied to this site.

In our appraisal we have assumed that VBC is applicable, however if it is found not to be the case, then we would rerun the appraisal to take into account addition payments for offsite housing contribution.

Gross Development Value

The applicant has provided an array of information on the increased cost of constructing this housing complex. However there has been no comment on potential increases in the capital values over the period.

Recent Govt. data on house price increase, year on year for February 2019 shows an increase of approx. 6% for the South West Region.

PCC has endeavoured to research water front location sales in the Lee Bay area, however there is a lack of comparables. We have also noticed that the Gross Development Value (GDV) figures for similar sized units presented by JLL are reduced from the 2016 submission, despite the growth in values for water front houses & apartments in North Devon.

PCC have therefore looked at prices achieved in other exclusive seaside locations and are of the opinion that the sales values exceed the figures suggested in the VA submitted by JLL.

The recent research produced marketing evidence in Saunton and Woolacombe as follows. Byron, Woolacombe - 3 Bed apt - 1661sf - £895k Byron, Woolacombe - 3 Bed apt -1250sf - £450k Byron, Woolacombe - 3 Bed apt - 690sf - £385k

Ocean Point –Saunton – 3 bed duplex -1167sf - £740k Ocean Point –Saunton – 2 bed apt -1060sf - £680k

PCC consider that Lee Bay to be a more exclusive location, and consequently have increased some of the GDV in line with this research.

Profit in this instance has been fixed as a percentage of the sales value (GDV). We believe that due to high sales values achieved in this location that the profit levels should be moderated to approx. 15% in order to ensure both the developer, and the community achieve benefit from the proposed scheme. The guidance attached to the recent NPPF suggests that this level of profit is acceptable. This has been confirmed in the JLL appraisal.

An independent review by Plymouth City Council to North Devon District Council / April 2019 Planning application no. 63167

Page 172 Agenda Item 6 Appendix O

Commentary

NDC has requested information relating to the revised layout plans, but despite reminders, this information arrived a day or two before the deadline, which makes any assessment difficult.

PCC has received a number of cost estimates and asked for an independent consultant to advise on these cost reports submitted by the applicant and their advisor Taylor Lewis. (TL).

Therefore Gates Consultants, a respected locally based Quantity Surveyor, has been retained as independent advisor to NDC, and have considered the two recent cost plans.

The ‘Compilation’ estimate (No 2) issued in mid-February 2019 and the subsequent TL estimate (No 3) issued at end of March 2019 represent an approximate 6-7 week period. These reports have been analysed and the following observations have been noted.

• Unexplained difference in floor areas, of 2,360 (No 2) and 2,189 (No 3).

• Cost plan No 2 heads the lists estimates for 21 & 17 unit schemes, but confusingly refers to 23 & 18 units in the text.

• The TL report increases the estimated costs in this two month period considerably above the BCIS index. The cost plan No 3 appears to be a ‘re-run’ of the previous 23 unit scheme and then edited. However the drawings for the 21 unit scheme issued by Nash Partnership Architect shows a different design from the earlier 23 unit proposal.

• Prelims and OH&P have increased without explanation at levels well above BCIS indices.

• The cost plan No 2 refers to Classic Builders, a good Plymouth based contractor. However PCC understand that this builder withdrew from the project last year.

As mentioned, NDC has asked PCC to consider the viability by removing the middle block of 4 units, thus a revised scheme of constructing only 17 units. PCC ran a further appraisal based on the reduced unit scheme and the results indicate that this reduced number of units will also be viable and return an industry acceptable profit level.

An independent review by Plymouth City Council to North Devon District Council / April 2019 Planning application no. 63167

Page 173 Agenda Item 6 Appendix O

Conclusion

PCC has undertaken a review of the original Alder King financial viability assessment of the Acorn Blue application for a 23 unit scheme last year. PCC has subsequently considered the viability advisor’s report of November 2018, and also the subsequent revised 21 unit scheme of February 2019. PCC concur with JLL that both the 23 and 21 unit schemes are viable.

PCC conclude that there is sufficient headroom within scheme to allow for all the requested S.106 contributions of approx. £195,638 for education and £ 103,615 for public open space contributions.

It appears that the cost information supplied by the applicants consultants is confusing and misleading. Therefore PCC will reply on the opinion by Gates, the independent local expert QS, whose conclusion is that assessment “indicate that the rate used in Cost Estimate 3, is very high and includes preliminary costs.”

PCC have also commented on the possible reduction to provide 17 units. As mentioned this is based on a further re-run of the appraisal. We have made the assumption that there will be an adjustment of the abnormal costs which are still applicable, and have been incorporated in our appraisal.

PCC has undertaken additional research into the local property sales market, and been informed of sales of properties in the Bay in excess of previous comparable data.

As mentioned, PCC have reviewed prices achieved in other exclusive seaside locations and are of the opinion that the sales values exceed the figures suggested in the VA submitted by JLL and consequently have increased some of the GDV in line with this research.

PCC has reviewed the data supplied by the applicant and their advisors, and believe that some of this information is conflicting and potentially confusing.

In conclusion, based on the observations outlined above reviewed by Gates, PCC has analysed both the 21 unit and the potential 17 unit scheme and conclude that both developments are viable.

We trust the above report is satisfactory for your purposes, but should you require any further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Lionel Shelley Development Viability Lead Plymouth City Council Ballard House An independent review by Plymouth City Council to North Devon District Council / April 2019 Planning application no. 63167

Page 174 Agenda Item 6 Appendix O

Plymouth PL1 3BJ

An independent review by Plymouth City Council to North Devon District Council / April 2019 Planning application no. 63167

Page 175 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7

App. No.: 65813 Reg. : 13/11/18 Applicant: DAVID LUGGAR L. Bldg. : Expired: 08/01/19 Agent : DAVID WILSON PARTNERSHIP Parish : LANDKEY Case Officer : Ms J Watkins

Proposal: VARIATION OF CONDITION 3 (SUBMISSION OF LANDSCAPING AS A RESERVED MATTER PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT), CONDITION 5 (SUBMISSION OF BOUNDARY TREATMENT AT THE SAME TIME AS THE RESERVED MATTERS LANDSCAPING), CONDITION 7 (SUBMISSION OF SITE CONTAMINATION REPORT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT) & CONDITION 8 (SUBMISSION OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT) ATTACHED TO OUTLINE APPLICATION 55288 FOR ERECTION OF ONE DWELLING (AMENDED PLANS & DESCRIPTION, ONLY MATTER RESERVED IS LANDSCAPING) Location: THE BARN, WHIDDON PARK, LANDKEY ROAD, BARNSTAPLE EX32 9LA

BACKGROUND

Application 55288 was originally submitted in outline with only ‘layout’ detailed. The application lacked sufficient detail to enable the merits of the scheme to be assessed given the localised context and hence formal notice was served on the applicant requiring details of the ‘ access, appearance and scale’ to be submitted at the outline stage. These details were agreed and the application was approved on the 6th February 2014.

Landscaping remained as a reserved matter and conditions were applied relating to boundary details (5), site contamination (7) and construction management (8) all of which had to be discharged prior to commencement.

Through annual monitoring the Policy Team confirmed a material commencement.

The Planning Authority received complaints that work had commenced without discharge of conditions. An enforcement Investigation was undertaken. In that the applicant could no longer apply to discharge the conditions (work had already started on site), this application has been made to vary the original conditions by supplying details of site landscaping, boundary treatments, site contamination and construction management in order to try to regularise the situation. The result of this application will be to issue a new consent and as such the material planning considerations set our previously still apply and need to be considered along with the matters previously reserved.

PROPOSAL

A four bedroom, two-storey dwelling with attached double garage is proposed. The house will have a gross internal floor space of 253 square metres and has been designed with an ensuite bedroom on the ground floor to accommodate the applicant’s elderly parents. The property will be constructed of painted render with natural stone and brick feature details under a grey slate roof with timber windows and doors.

The dwelling will sit within its own defined curtilage and will share an access with The Barn.

The landscaping plans show that a new hedge will be planted to the north (orchard boundary). A hit and miss fence will be provided on the eastern boundary to separate the property from the Barn. An existing ash tree is shown within the proposed private garden along with decorative shrubs.

Page 177 Agenda Item 7

The application is supported by Phase 1 and 2 contamination reports and a Construction Management Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The site originally contained a range of dilapidated outbuildings (now demolished) and forms part of the land holding associated with the property known as The Barn.

Access is from the Landkey Road to the south.

To the east and south east is the Portmore Golf Course and the group of properties at Whiddon Park (Whiddon Park House, The Barn, Pear Tree Cottage, The Mews, Forest House and The Court). The site adjoins the Mount Sandford Green housing development. Further west are a group of five properties (Merrymeet, Trewiddon, Falconia, 1 & 2 Northgate). To the south and on the opposite side of the road is a well-established ribbon of development which primarily sits at a higher level to the road.

REASON FOR REPORT TO MEMBERS

The applicant is Councillor David Luggar.

POLICY CONTEXT

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (2011 – 2031) ST01: Principles of Sustainable Development ST02: Mitigating Climate Change ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience ST04: Improving the Quality of Development ST05: Sustainable Construction and Buildings ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Strategic and Main Centres ST10: Transport Strategy ST12: Conserving Heritage Assets ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets DM01: Amenity Considerations DM02: Environmental Protection DM03: Construction and Environmental Management DM04: Design Principles DM05: Highways DM06: Parking Provision DM08: Biodiversity and Geodiversity DM10: Green Infrastructure Provision BAR: Barnstaple Spatial Strategy

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Parish Council (06/12/18) The PC agreed that the comments made by a local resident and those made in relation to contamination needed to be addressed.

Page 178 Agenda Item 7

Environmental Health (30/11/18) Condition 7 - Land Contamination I have reviewed the Phase 1 Preliminary Contamination Assessment Report by Ruddlesden Geotechnical dated October 2018. The assessment has identified some point sources of potentially significant contamination at the site requiring further investigation. The report recommends an intrusive investigation be undertaken post demolition to establish if any significant contamination is present requiring remediation. Condition 8 - Construction Management Plan I have reviewed the undated David Wilson Partnership Construction Management Plan. The document is very brief on detail. However, given the scale and location of the proposed development, I think the document will be adequate for the purposes of Condition 8, provided additional measures are not required for land contamination issues. I recommend approval of the CMP be delayed pending submission of the further contamination assessment mentioned above.

Environmental Health (22/1/19): Having read the representations, I think the main issues appear to relate to mud on roads, leaving materials outside the site boundary and also vehicles blocking the lane. The CMP includes sections on each of these issues (albeit very brief) at b), e), f) & g). Based on the alleged incidents, it sounds like the Applicant is failing to comply with all of these parts of the CMP.

Environmental Health (11/2/19) I recommended delaying approval of the CMP pending land contamination issues as CMP plans at (c) & (d) to retain all soils etc on site may need to change if contamination is an issue.

Environmental Health (15/3/19) : I have reviewed the Phase 2 Contamination Investigation and Environmental Assessment Report by Ruddlesden Geotechnical dated March 2019. The report concludes that the levels of contamination recorded in the investigation are not potentially harmful to human health given the proposed end use or to the water environment and no further action or specific remedial measures are required. The above report addresses my concerns on this issue and I have no further comments

REPRESENTATIONS

At the time of preparing this report 1 letter of representation has been received from Beverley Allingham, Pear Tree Cottage, Whiddon Park. The main issues raised are:

• Building completed before Reserved Matters submitted • Delivery times should be in consultation with neighbours • Blocked access from deliveries and stockpiles • Building materials should be kept to within the site boundary • Parking provision needs to be identified.

(Copies of all the letters have been made available prior to the Planning Committee meeting in accordance with agreed procedures).

Page 179 Agenda Item 7

PLANNING HISTORY

The site Reference Proposal Decision Date 55288 Outline Application For Erection Of One Approved 06/02/14 Dwelling (Amended Plans & Description, Only Matter Reserved Is Landscaping)

The Barn Whiddon Reference Proposal Decision Date 16866 Conversion of barn to dwelling Refused 05.05.93 17964 Conversion of barn to form dwelling and Withdraw 04.11.93 alterations to access n 18048 Conversion of barn to form dwelling and Approved 03.05.94 alterations to access 35962 Extension to dwelling Refused 10.10.03 36461 Extension to dwelling Refused 06.01.04 37084 Extension to dwelling to form dependant Approved 10.03.04 relatives annexe

Adjoining Land Reference Proposal Decision Date 54923 as Outline application for mixed use development Approved 18/08/14 amended by comprising of 250 Passivhaus dwellings with a 59566/60487 together with 2.8 ha innovation park (further s106 amended plans & information) 60488 Reserved Matters Application For Erection Of 22 Approved 24/6/16 Dwellings (Phase 1 – The Lawns) (Outline Planning Permission 60487 For Mixed Use Development Comprising Of 250 Passivhaus Dwellings Together With 2.8 Ha Innovation Park )(Amended Plans And Description)

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

1. Location of Site 2. Design 3. Highways and Parking 4. Heritage 5. Amenity 6. Contamination & Construction Impacts

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

1. Location of Site

The site is now within the development boundary for Barnstaple defined within the adopted North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (NDTLP) and where the principle of residential development is generally accepted in line with ST06/ST08. The NPPF indicates that housing applications in the urban environment should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Page 180 Agenda Item 7

The adjoining land has been allocated for development as part of Policy BAR04 and Phase 1 of the Mount Sandford Green development has been constructed and Phases 2/3 are consented and hence the site remains well related to one of the allocated expansion sites for Barnstaple. The Whiddon Park enclave is excluded from BAR04.

The site comprises a windfall site providing the opportunity to deliver a single dwelling in close proximity to other properties at Whiddon Park and within easy access of services and activities found in the Newport area.

The key tests are whether there are any adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or any specific policies in the framework that indicate development should be restricted.

2. Design

The plans provide a property specifically designed for the site. The Conservation Officer considered that the design for the proposed dwelling reflects the local vernacular. It uses a traditional two-storey built form with materials found at Whiddon Park (stone, render and brick under a grey slate roof). The scale and massing of the building will be larger than that of The Barn but the design breaks the building down into subordinate elements around a central two-storey block to lessen the overall massing. The design is considered to accord with Policy DM04 and the design principles in the NPPF. The building will form a transition between the traditional properties at Whiddon Park and the more modern designs at Mount Sandford Green.

3. Highways and Parking

The site adjoins the approved Mount Sandford Green development site and will in time benefit from all the connectivity measures being provided as part of the development. The access already serves The Barn and the enclave of properties at Whiddon and comprises a narrow rural lane. The additional traffic on this lane does not result in a fundamental highway objection in line with DM05.

The site layout demonstrates that in excess of two vehicles can be parked on the site which accords with parking standards in line with DM06.

4. Heritage Impact

The Authority’s duty is to ensure that any development affecting the setting of a Listed Building would preserve its architectural and historic interest in line with the criteria set out in the NPPF and Policy DM07 of the Local Plan. When considering the impact on the setting of the adjacent listed buildings it is considered that this will be mitigated to a degree by the design, and provided that the single storey elements are set closest to the listed building, and traditional materials are used that there will not be demonstrable harm in line with policy DM07.

5. Relationship to Existing Properties/Amenity

The original application was supported by site sections that show that Whiddon Park House will remain the dominant built form. The south elevation facing Whiddon Park House contains a landing window, the wall to wall separation distance of the two-storey elements is 35m. The Barn is currently in the applicant’s ownership. The separation distance to The Barn is 21m to the single storey element or 27m to the two-storey element. Page 181 Agenda Item 7

The separation distances and orientation of windows is such that it is not considered that there would be an adverse impact on third party amenity in line with PolicyDM01.

Boundary treatments are now detailed which will secure privacy between the new dwelling and The Barn.

6. Contamination & Construction Impacts

Environmental Health previously recommended that conditions be applied to deal with contamination association with the previous use of the site and to manage the construction process given the shared narrow access way and the constrained site boundaries in line with policy DM03.

The contamination assessment indicates that this part of the site has not recorded levels of contamination potentially harmful to human health and as such no further remediation is recommended.

As set out in the consultee section of the report, the main issues arising from this development have resulted in the Construction Management Plan not being adhered to and issues arising from building materials/vehicles associated with the development being stored outside the limits of the development site. Whilst the build process is nearing completion providing the areas are used as shown on the CMP this should address issues re inconvenience to other residents within the Whiddon Park grouping. Once a decision has been given on the application, the open enforcement investigation will move onto MONITORING to ensure compliance with conditions.

CONCLUSION

It is not considered that there are any adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of developing this site for a single dwelling, nor any specific policies in the adopted plan or framework which indicate that a development of this nature should be restricted.

Whilst a retrospective application is regrettable this submission does now address of all material planning considerations previously highlighted.

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

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE with the following conditions:

(1) The development to which the permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date on which outline permission 55288 was granted (namely 5 th February 2014).

Page 182 Agenda Item 7

Reason: The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. (2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans submitted as part of the outline application 55288, numbers 1038.P01 P1, 1038.P02 and P1038.P03 P1 and received on 28 November 2013, and the foul drainage details set out in the email of the 21 January 2014 along with Landscape Proposal Drawing Number 198- 01A, the Construction Management Plan Revision A and associated plan (Proposed Site Constraints Plan drawing Number 1038.P04) and the Phase 1 Preliminary Contamination Assessment Report JM/SR/18488/PCAR and Phase 2 Contamination Investigation and Environmental Assessment Report CG/GD/SR/18488/P2CIEAR ('the approved plans and documents'). Reason: To confirm the drawings and details to which the consent relates given the revisions that have been made to the application and to ensure the development accords with the approved plans which show a form of development appropriate to the locality and which details appropriate materials. (3) Implementation and maintenance of approved landscape proposals. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shown on Drawing Number 198-01A, 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. (4) Prior to occupation of the dwelling the boundary fence between the site and The Barn shall be provided on site in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect the amenity of the adjoining residential property by providing a defined amenity curtilage around each property.

(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order) express planning permission shall be obtained for any development within classes A, B and C of Part 1 and Part 40 of Schedule Two of the Order. Reason: To protect the appearance and character of the development in the area, the setting of adjacent listed buildings.

(6) The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the Construction Management Plan (CMP).

Page 183 Agenda Item 7

Reason: To minimise the impact of the works during the construction of the development in the interests of highway safety and the free-flow of traffic, and to safeguard the amenities of the area. To protect the amenity of local residents from potential impacts whilst site clearance, groundworks and construction is underway.

(7) During the construction phase no machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site outside the following times: a) Monday - Friday 08.00 - 18.00, b) Saturday 09.00 - 13.00 c) nor at any time on Sunday, Bank or Public holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

INSERT(S) TO FOLLOW OVERLEAF 1. OS Location Plan 2. List of representations names and addresses

Page 184 Agenda Item 7 Appendix A

Copy Supplied to Accompany Planning 65813 - The Barn, Whiddon Park, Landkey Committee Report Lynton House, Commercial Road, Page 185 Scale: 1:2500 Barnstaple, EX31 1EA Date: 17/04/19 © Copyright and database right 2017 Ordnance Survey Licence No. 100021929. No unauthorised reproduction permitted. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7 Neighbour Representations List for ApplicationAppendix No B65813

1LETTER(S) OF COMMENT

BEVERLEY ALLINGHAM PEAR TREE COTTAGE WHIDDON PARK Date Received: 19-Nov-18

05 April 2019 Page 187 Page 1 of 1 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8

App. No.: 65926 Reg. : 11/02/19 Applicant: YOUNG DEVON L. Bldg. : Expired: 08/04/19 Agent : PLANNING PARTNERSHIP LTD Parish : ILFRACOMBE Case Officer : Mr K Bines

Proposal: REMOVAL OF CONDITIONS 3 & 4 ATTACHED TO PLANNING PERMISSIONS 15310 (CONVERSION OF EXISTING DWELLINGS TO FORM HOSTEL FOR YOUNG PEOPLE WITH ASSOCIATED SKILL TRAINING ROOMS AND WARDENS FLAT). REMOVAL OF CONDITIONS 3 & 4 (USE RESTRICTIONS) ATTACHED TO PLANNING PERMISSION 22076 (CONVERSION OF DISUSED BUILDING TO FORM 9 NO. FLATLETS AND ANCILLARY COFFEE BAR AND SEMINAR ROOM FOR USE BY WILDER PARK COTTAGE PROJECT) (AMENDED DESCRIPTION & LOCATION PLAN) Location: 4 – 6 WILDER ROAD, ILFRACOMBE EX34 8BN

PROPOSAL

This retrospective application, as originally submitted, proposed the creation of an additional flat on the ground floor of 4 Wilder Road. Following an objection this element of the application was removed and the variation of the operation of the site from a specified operator ‘Community Action’ to an unrestricted operator is sought.

RECOMMENDATION

Approve

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The planning permissions to which this S73 application relates are located on the east side of Wilder Road, with the Wilder Brook running immediately to the back of the premises. Further east again is the Wilder Road public car park. On the opposite side of Wilder Road are residential units who’s frontages are immediately onto the back edge of the pavement. The site is within the Designated Ilfracombe Conservation Area, and the properties 17-45 opposite are Grade II Listed Buildings. The site falls within Flood Zone 3, and within the Critical Drainage Area.

REASON FOR REPORT TO MEMBERS

The building the subject of this application is owned by North Devon Council

POLICY CONTEXT

The North Devon and Torridge Local Plan has recently been adopted and the following policies are relevant:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (2011 – 2031)

ST03:Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience. ST15:Conserving Heritage Assets

Page 189 Agenda Item 8

DM01:Amenity Considerations DM05: Highways DM06: Parking Provision DM07: Historic Environment

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Ilfracombe Town Council Recommend Approval 22 January 2019 Recommend Approval 19 March 2019 Environment Agency In the absence of a flood risk assessment (FRA), we object to this application and recommend that planning permission is refused. The reason for this position and advice is provided below. Reason The application site lies within flood zone 3 which is land defined by the planning practice guidance as having a high probability of flooding. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 163, footnote 50 states that an FRA must be submitted when development is proposed in such locations. An FRA is vital to making informed planning decisions. In its absence, the proposed development’s flood risk is unknown. This is sufficient reason for refusing planning permission. Overcoming our objection To overcome our objection, the applicant should submit an FRA which demonstrates that the development is safe without increasing risk elsewhere. Where possible, it should reduce flood risk overall. If this cannot be achieved, we are likely to maintain our objection. Please consult us with the FRA and we’ll respond within 21 days of receiving it. Guidance on how to prepare a flood risk assessment can be found at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessment-for-planning-applications. 10 January 2019 Following review of the amended description and plans, we advise that our position has not changed from that of our letter dated 10th January 2019. In the absence of a flood risk assessment (FRA), we object to this application. Please refer to our previous letter for advice on overcoming our objection. 14 March 2019

REPRESENTATIONS

*At the time of preparing this report 1 letter of objection had been received relating to the application. (Copies of all the letters have been made available prior to the Planning Committee meeting in accordance with agreed procedures).

*See attached list for representation names and addresses.

This letter raises concern regarding the potential impact on the amenities of the neighbouring dwellings.

Page 190 Agenda Item 8

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Proposal Decision Date 15310 Proposed conversion of existing dwellings to form Granted 5 May Hostel for Young People with associated skills subject to 1992 training and Wardens Flat, 4 & 6 Wilder Road conditions 22076 Proposed conversion of disused building to form Granted 6 August 9No.flatlets and ancillary coffee bar and seminar subject to 1996. room for use by Wilder Park Project conditions

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

1. Do the current conditions serve a useful planning purpose

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Planning permission 15310 had the following condition attached; 4. The change of use/development hereby approved relates solely to the use of the premises by ‘Community Action’ and shall be used and occupied only for the purposes of skills training, hostel and management thereof and for no other purpose identified within the Town and Country planning (Use Classes Order) 1987. The reason for this condition being; In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the particular use applied for is acceptable but that any variation to that use would need to be further considered on its planning merit. Planning permission 22076 had the following conditions attached; 2. The permission shall enure for the benefit of the applicant, ‘Community Action’ only. The reason for this condition being; In granting this permission the Local Planning Authority has had regard to the Applicant’s special circumstances and the intensity of the flats hereby permitted. Also; 4. The development hereby approved shall be used solely in conjunction with Nos 4 and 6 Wilder Road and shall not be sold, let or occupied separate from these properties. The reason for this condition being; In granting this permission the Local Planning Authority has had regard to the Applicant’s special circumstances and the inadequate parking provision for private flats.

The Planning Practise Guidance advises the following in respect of ‘personal’ conditions; Is it appropriate to use conditions to limit the benefits of the planning permission to a particular person or group of people? Unless the permission otherwise provides, planning permission runs with the land and it is rarely appropriate to provide otherwise. There may be exceptional occasions where granting planning permission for development that would not normally be permitted on the site could be justified on planning grounds because of who would benefit from the permission. For example, conditions limiting benefits to a particular class of people, such as new residential accommodation in the open countryside for agricultural or forestry workers, may be justified on the grounds that an applicant has successfully demonstrated an exceptional need.

Page 191 Agenda Item 8

A condition used to grant planning permission solely on grounds of an individual’s personal circumstances will scarcely ever be justified in the case of permission for the erection of a permanent building, but might, for example, result from enforcement action which would otherwise cause individual hardship.

A condition limiting the benefit of the permission to a company is inappropriate because its shares can be transferred to other persons without affecting the legal personality of the company.

Paragraph: 015 Reference ID: 21a-015-20140306 The conditions relating to the operation of the site as a single entity would give a significant degree of assurance in respect of the site not being broken up into, for example separate residential units. It would also result in a Body or combination of Bodies managing the site which of itself would not give rise to any planning related implications. Whilst concerns have been raised regarding the impact of the use of the building on the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring residential properties, it is considered that the proposed variation and removal would not have any additional impact in respect of the amenities of these occupiers. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy DM01. The removal/variation of conditions would have no impact on flood risk either to the site or third parties within the Critical Drainage Area. The proposal therefore is in accordance with Policy ST03. The highway circumstances relating to the operation of the site would not be altered. The proposal is therefore not in conflict with Policies DM05 and DM06. There would be no impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area or the setting of the Listed Buildings. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policies ST15 and DM07 and the Duties within S66 and S72 of the Listed Building and Conservation Area Act.

CONCLUSION

The removal/variation of the conditions regarding the named Body to operate the site are no longer considered to serve a useful planning purpose, and therefore the recommendation is one of approval.

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

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDATION

That the application be granted through the issuing of a new planning permission subject to the following conditions;

Page 192 Agenda Item 8

1.The 2-6 Wilder Road shall be used and occupied only for the purposes of skills training, hostel, including Wardens Flat and management, as 9No.flatlets and ancillary coffee bar and seminar room Any unit of accommodation shall not be let, sold, or occupied separately from these properties.

Reason. The protect the amenities of the occupiers of any unit of accommodation from the use/operations of the overall site.

2.No windows or doors shall open on or over the pavement.

Reason. In the interests of public safety.

3.Provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so that none drains onto the highway.

Reason. In the interests of the public safety and to prevent damage to the highway.

INSERT(S) TO FOLLOW OVERLEAF 1. OS Location Plan 2. List of representations names and addresses

Page 193 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8 Appendix A

Copy Supplied to Accompany Planning 65926 - 4 - 6 Wilder Road,Illfracombe Committee Report Lynton House, Commercial Road, Page 195 Scale: 1:2500 Barnstaple, EX31 1EA Date: 17/04/19 © Copyright and database right 2017 Ordnance Survey Licence No. 100021929. No unauthorised reproduction permitted. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8 Neighbour Representations List for ApplicationAppendix No B65926

1LETTER(S) OF COMMENT

P E SALTER 21 WILDER ROAD ILFRACOMBE Date Received: 01-Mar-19

05 April 2019 Page 197 Page 1 of 1 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9

App. No.: 66290 Reg. : 05/03/19 Applicant: NORTH DEVON COUNCIL L. Bldg. : Expired: 30/04/19 Agent : Parish : ILFRACOMBE Case Officer : Mrs J Meakins

Proposal: VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 (APPROVED PLANS) ATTACHED TO PLANNING PERMISSION 63082 (ERECTION OF ONE STORAGE BUILDING) Location: ILFRACOMBE YOUTH CANOE CLUB, LARKSTONE LANE, ILFRACOMBE EX34 9NU

PROPOSAL

The application seeks a variation to the approved plans subject of 63082 in order to re-site the external staircase to the northern elevation of the building and to relocate windows and and doors on the east and west elevation.

Application 63082 sought the following development and was approved on 21 st September 2017 following consideration by committee on 13 th September 2017.

‘The application is for the erection of one storage building for Ilfracombe Canoe Club, Larkstone Cove, Ilfracombe. The proposed development is to provide improved conditions for the storage of canoes/kayaks and provide changing facilities for the Canoe Club, with this new club building to operate as part of the larger Watersports Centre to be built at Larkstone Cove, approved under planning permission 57487.

With respect to the proposed building, the ground floor of the building provides secure boat and equipment storage for the Canoe Club, with showers and rest area/kitchenette on an upper floor accessed by an external staircase to the side. The roof would be Black Corrugated Fibre Cement Roofing with the walls being Horizontal Timber Boarding. The new building would be built on the footprint of the existing building used by the club (former toilet block) but would have an increased height containing a mezzanine level within.’

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE - subject to conditions

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The application site is located in Larkstone Cove which is to the south east side of Ilfracombe Harbour, adjoining Larkstone Beach. Larkstone Cove is clearly visible from the pier across the water but is set further back into the site with existing tree coverage partially screening the building. The site of the new building would be set back against the steeply sloping ground to the west of the site. This area is separated from the Council car park to the west by a grass bank and access to the site is by way of a tarmac path from the south. There is an existing historic limekiln to the north of the site which is to be unaffected by the development. The site is located within a protected landscape, being within the Conservation Area, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and Coast and Estuarine Zone. The site is also within flood zones 2 and 3.

REASON FOR REPORT TO MEMBERS

The owner of the site is North Devon Council.

Page 199 Agenda Item 9

POLICY CONTEXT

The North Devon and Torridge Local Plan has recently been adopted and the following policies are relevant:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (2011 – 2031)

Policy ST02: Mitigating Climate Change 1 Policy ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience 1 Policy ST04: Improving the Quality of Development Policy ST05: Sustainable Construction and Buildings Policy ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Sub-regional, Strategic and Main Centres Policy ST09: Coast and Estuary Strategy Policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets Policy ST15: Conserving Heritage Assets

Policy ILF05: Harbour / Seafront Tourist Area

Policy DM01: Amenity Considerations Policy DM02: Environmental Protection Policy DM03: Construction and Environmental Management Policy DM04: Design Principles Policy DM05: Highways Policy DM06: Parking Provision Policy DM07: Historic Environment Policy DM08: Biodiversity and Geodiversity Policy DM08A: Landscape and Seascape Character Policy DM17: Tourism and Leisure Attractions

National Planning Policy Framework

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Ilfracombe Town Council: Recommendation with no adverse comments, this application was moved for Approval and with all members in favour the motion was carried. Cllrs: G Fowler, M Edmunds & P Crabb declared a personal interest in this application.

North Devon AONB Service: No response received .

Heritage and Conservation Officer: The Canoe Storage Building was approved under application 63082. This application seeks to amend the design of the building, and as far as I can see the change is that the external staircase is now on the north elevation of the building rather than the south. Assuming that this is the only change, I do not consider that this proposal will harm the significance of the heritage asset.

Page 200 Agenda Item 9

REPRESENTATIONS

*At the time of preparing this report no letters of objection and no letters of support have been received relating to the application.

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Proposal Decision Date 64277 Application under Regulation 3 of the T & CP Approved 11.04.18 General Regulations 1992 for erection of multipurpose watersports centre with boat and equipment storage facilities, showers, changing rooms, teaching space & café (amended slipway design) 63082 Erection of one storage building Approved 21.09.17 57487 Application under Regulation 3 of the T & CP Approved 09.02.15 General Regulations 1992 for erection of multipurpose watersports centre with boat and equipment storage facilities, showers, changing rooms, teaching space & cafe (amended plans & additional information) 55387 Creation of boat storage area on land adjacent to Approved 24.05.13 the youth canoeing club 43724 Proposed change of use from toilets to Approved 26.03.07 canoe/kayak/small boat store. 16279 Application under Regulation 3 of the T&CP Gen Approved 24.11.92 Regs 1992 in respect of proposed conversion of part of existing kiosk to form disabled persons toilet together with alterations to existing toilets. 76/630/34/3 Proposed conversion of public shelter to form Approved 23.06.76 refreshment block.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

The main issue for consideration on this application is the impact in the change of design on the character and appearance of the area, including the designated Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and neighbouring amenity.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Design

The storage building proposed would replace the former toilet building which has been used of late by the Canoe Club to store their equipment, occupying the existing footprint. The site is set back against the steeply sloping ground to the west of the site and the new building would be read in the context of the new Watersports Centre to be constructed. Further to the original submission amended plans have been received as part of this submission which moves the external staircase from the South elevation of the building to the North and fenestration amendments.

Page 201 Agenda Item 9

The building has been designed so as to be functional for the use to be undertaken and the change is design would not impact adversely on the setting, therefore the development is considered to comply with Local Plan Policies ST04 and DM04.

Impact on the protected landscape, including the Conservation Area

The site is within a protected landscape and one of the main issues would be to ensure that there is not a significant detrimental impact on the character of the area. It is considered that this facility would alter the character of this area but it would be a balance of the need for this community facility over potential impact on the landscape. In terms of the design amendment now proposed, this is not considered to fundamentally alter the character of the building as consented.

The Conservation Officer has confirmed that there is no objection to the relocation of the staircase. No adverse comment has been received from the AONB partnership either to this design alteration.

In light of the above considerations, the proposed development is considered to have less than substantial harm to the heritage asset that is the Conservation Area which is balanced to be acceptable against the public benefits arising from the facility in accordance with paragraph 196 of the NPPF and Local Plan Policies ST14, ST15 and DM07. The development would also on balance preserve the special characteristics of this part of the AONB in accordance with Local Plan Policies ST14 and DM08A.

Impact on Amenity

In terms of the impact on amenity to nearby properties, due to the location being relatively secluded, the height and scale of the proposed building and works involved, it is considered that Local Plan Policy DM01 would be complied with. There is adequate separation involved to the nearest neighbouring residential property with the cove already being used by a number of clubs for watersports.

CONCLUSION

Whilst the consented development would alter, to a limited extent, the character of the immediate area, the change in design would not altered to overall character of the development originally approved. Approval is recommended subject to 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

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE , subject to the following conditions:

Page 202 Agenda Item 9

1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from 21 st September 2017.

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 plans submitted as part of the application numbered 997W/ P100, 997W/P101 and received on 1st June 2017 and the amended plans, drawing numbers 997W/2-200 Rev B, 997W/105 Rev I, 997W/2-300 Rev D, , 997W/2-301 Rev A, , 997W/2-302 Rev A, received 05/03/2019, and 997W/2-101 Rev D, 997W/2-102 Rev C and received 25/03/2019 (‘the approved plans’).

Reason: To confirm the drawings to which the consent relates and to ensure the development accords with the approved plans.

3) The ground floor of the premises shall be used for boat storage and for no other purpose(s) (including any other purpose(s) in class/classes B8 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use) Classes Order 1987, or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order).

Reason: Only the proposed use is appropriate and any other use would need to be the subject of a separate application to be considered on its merits.

INSERT(S) TO FOLLOW OVERLEAF 1. OS Location Plan

Page 203 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9 Appendix A

Copy Supplied to Accompany Planning 66290 - Ilfracombe Youth Canoe Club Committee Report Lynton House, Commercial Road, Page 205 Scale: 1:2500 Barnstaple, EX31 1EA Date: 17/04/19 © Copyright and database right 2017 Ordnance Survey Licence No. 100021929. No unauthorised reproduction permitted. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10

App. No.: 66400 Reg. : 19/03/19 Applicant: NORTH DEVON COUNCIL L. Bldg. : Expired: 14/05/19 Agent : STRI Parish : BARNSTAPLE Case Officer : Ms J Watkins

Proposal: APPROVAL OF DETAILS IN RESPECT OF DISCHARGE OF CONDITION 11 (CONTAMINATION), 13 (PILING RE FLOODLIGHTS), 14/15 (SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT), 16 (CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT), 18 (LIGHTING), 19 (LEMP), 20 (TREE PROTECTION) ATTACHED TO PLANNING PERMISSION 63351 (OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION) IN RESPECT OF THE AGP WORKS (AMENDED DESCRIPTION) Location: TARKA TENNIS CENTRE, SEVEN BRETHREN BANK, BARNSTAPLE EX31 2AS

PROPOSAL

The site has outline permission (63351) for the erection of a new swimming facility, sports hall and associated facilities, together with external works comprising the provision of a new full size 3G artificial grass playing pitch, extension of the existing car parking, relocation of HGV parking, hard and soft landscaping.

Application 66445 also on this agenda is the reserved matters submission for the full size 3G artificial grass playing pitch with associated hard and soft landscaping.

This application is deals with the discharge of conditions: • 11 (Contamination), • 13 (Piling Re Floodlights), • 14/15 (Surface Water Management), • 16 (Construction Management), • 18 (Lighting), • 19 (LEMP), • 20 (Tree Protection).

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The site is located at the southern end of the Seven Brethren. The proposal is to the rear of the existing Tarka Tennis Centre and the Falcons Gymnastics Centre.

The Tarka Trail runs to the east of the site, linking the development from Rock Park to the Town Centre. The River Taw runs to the east of the site beyond the Tarka Trail.

The site is accessed by a private road, which meets the public highway beyond the entrance to the existing Seven Brethren car park.

There is some soft landscaping around the existing pitches and to the north an important grouping of trees and bushes, which make a contribution to the visual amenity of the area, particularly when viewed from higher ground to the west.

Page 207 Agenda Item 10

REASON FOR REPORT TO MEMBERS

This application has been submitted by the District Council for a development on its land.

POLICY CONTEXT

The North Devon and Torridge Local Plan has recently been adopted and the following policies are relevant:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (2011 – 2031) ST01: Principles of Sustainable Development ST02: Mitigating Climate Change ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience ST04: Improving the Quality of Development ST05: Sustainable Construction and Buildings ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Sub-regional, Strategic and Main Centres ST10: Transport Strategy ST12: Town and District Centres ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets ST15: Conserving Heritage Assets ST22: Community Services and Facilities BAR: Barnstaple Spatial Vision and Development Strategy BAR13 Seven Brethren BAR20: Strategic Green Infrastructure Links BAR21 Flood Management Strategy DM01: Amenity Considerations DM02: Environmental Protection DM03: Construction and Environmental Management DM04: Design Principles DM05: Highways DM06: Parking Provision DM07: Historic Environment DM08: Biodiversity and Geodiversity DM10: Green Infrastructure Provision DM17: Tourism and Leisure Attractions

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

The consultation expiry is the 10th April which is after the date when this report was finalised. Any consultee responses will be reported to the Planning Committee.

Environmental Health : Views Awaited

DCC Lead Flood Authority : Views Awaited

Environment Agency : Views Awaited

Sustainability Officer : Views Awaited

Landscape and Countryside Officer : Views Awaited

Page 208 Agenda Item 10

REPRESENTATIONS

Discharge of condition applications are not routinely the subject of public consultation

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Proposal Decision Date 30397 Construction of Tennis Centre comprising six Approved 9/07/01 outdoor and six indoor courts with associated facilities, access arrangements, car parking and landscaping. 50583 Extension to tennis hall to provide additional tennis Approved 13/10/10 courts together with gymnastics hall 63351 Outline Application For The Erection Of A New Approved 20.12.17 Swimming Facility In An Extension To The Existing Centre, To Include 25m Swimming Pool & Learner Pool, Sports Hall & Associated Facilities; Together With External Works Comprising The Provision Of A New Full Size 3g Artificial Grass Playing Pitch, Extension Of The Existing Car Parking, Relocation Of HGV Parking To Accommodate The New Car Parking, Hard & Soft Landscaping 66445 Reserved Matters Application For Artificial Grass On Pitch (Layout/Scale/Appearance And Landscaping) agenda Along With Levels And Means Of Enclosure (Outline Application 63351)

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

Whether the detail submitted is adequate to discharge the following conditions: • 11 (Contamination), • 13 (Piling Re Floodlights), • 14/15 (Surface Water Management), • 16 (Construction Management), • 18 (Lighting), • 19 (LEMP), • 20 (Tree Protection).

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Condition11 (Contamination)

This condition requires a remediation strategy that includes: 1. A site investigation scheme, based on the preliminary risk assessment (submitted at the outline stage) which assesses the risk to all receptors 2. An options appraisal and remediation strategy. 3. A verification plan which identifies any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Page 209 Agenda Item 10

In support of this condition the applicant has resubmitted the Geo-environmental Site Assessment Phase 1 submitted with the outline application. This recommended that further testing occur. The results are contained in the Ground Investigations Report dated July 2017 and the Geoenvironmental Interpretative Report dated July 2018. This details that the test pits have identified materials with medium risk to human health (landfill materials), with the risk to surface water (River Taw) being low to medium. From this assessment the report then details remedial options which include:

• Provision of a capping layer comprising a mixture of imported topsoil and subsoil material in areas of soft landscaping; • Provision of gas protection measures within new structures; • Where applicable and feasible, re-use of materials beneath hard-standing or under capping layers, together with removal and off-site disposal of Made Ground material generated as part of foundation excavations; • Verification sampling and testing including confirming acceptability testing of capping layer materials to comply with the import specification; and • A watching brief to be maintained during key phases of the earthworks, for areas of unexpected / unidentified contamination.

During construction, the risks to construction workers and off-site receptors will be managed through the use of health and safety risk assessment / method statements, adopting safe working practices and the provision of appropriate protective equipment.

Environmental Health have been asked to confirm that the proposed strategy addresses the requirements of this condition.

The Materials Management Plan October, 2018 states that :

To form a level platform to construct the new sports pitch, the bund aligned north to south will be removed the material removed from the bund is to be re-used to raise levels in the south-east of the new sports pitch and as part of landscaping bunds to the east, south and west of the new sports pitch. The topsoil will be stripped from the existing bund and pitch and stockpiled on site prior to being placed over the new bunds. The topsoil will be stockpiled for no longer than one year….

The volume of cut from the existing bund (excluding topsoil cover) is approximately 2520m3 of Made Ground material of which, 680m3 of material will be placed in the south-east corner of the artificial pitch to raise levels and the remaining 1840m3 will be placed in the landscaping bunds.

The volume of topsoil to be stripped from the existing bund and footprint of the football pitch is approximately 1150m3. The required volume of material for the proposed landscaping bunds is approximately 7193 m3. The remaining material to complete the volume balance of the proposed landscaping bunds will be covered by separate revisions of this MMP.

As part of the works completed to date across the wider site, the ground conditions underlying the site comprise Made Ground overlying Made Ground – Landfill Waste, Alluvium, Taw River Terrace Deposits and the Pilton Mudstone Formation to depth. The works covered by this MMP will not disturb the soils underlying the site, as such these have not been considered further.

Page 210 Agenda Item 10

This document is intended to be dynamic and will manage the proper disposal of excavated materials. Again the Environmental Health Team have been asked to comment of the appropriateness of these controls.

Condition 13 (Piling Re Floodlights)

This condition refers to both the building and locations where foundations are required to support the floodlights around the pitch. Piling will only be permitted where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. Again the reports referred to above consider the impact that piling will have. The reports state that:

CFA relies on the retention of soil on the auger flights to provide support to the surrounding soil until the auger is withdrawn and the concrete or grout intrudes at a rate that is consistent with that of the withdrawal of the auger to confirm that the soil within the bored wall sides is supported. Because of this, it is considered that there is a reduced risk of creating preferential pathways for contamination by the use of CFA piles.

The actual floodlights have now been designed with a horizontal base reinforced foundation to be placed above the capping layers which will avoid the need to intrusively dig through contaminated materials.

Condition 14/15 (Surface Water Management)

Condition 14 requires the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system which should be in accordance with the Technical Note (Ref. Barnstaple Leisure Centre - Surface Water Drainage Strategy; Rev. V1.0; dated 31st October 2017) and the Flood Risk Assessment (Barnstaple Leisure Centre Flood Risk Assessment; Rev. v1.0; dated April 2017). No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground in areas of historical landfill is permitted.

The Drainage Strategy EPG-9037-DS-01 dated 15.03.19 states:

Storm water will be collected via direct infiltration through the permeable pitch surface, where it will be collected and attenuated within a modified granular sub-base with a minimum porosity of 30%, prior to discharge into a 150mm perforated drain located along the eastern edge of the pitch. The permeable pitch construction shall attenuate all storms up to and including the 1in100+40% event below ground with the maximum discharge limited to 23 l/s.

The Site Investigation indicates the site overlies the ‘Severn Brethren Bank Landfill’, which received household and industrial waste at a medium rate of 25-75,000 tonnes per year until its closure in 1992. For this reason, infiltration of storm water from the proposed development is not permitted and to avoid direct infiltration from the base of the pitch, a robust impermeable drainage geocomposite layer will be installed that will also supplement the drainage distribution and attenuation volume (the geocomposite has an equivalent void ratio to 25mm of modified sub-base). Beneath the geocomposite on the formation, a warning demarcation geotextile will be installed.

Condition 15 requires surface water to be managed during the construction period.

This has not been fully detailed and additional information has been requested.

Page 211 Agenda Item 10

DCC as Lead Flood Risk Authority have been asked to review the submitted information and confirm that the above two conditions may be discharged.

Condition 16 (Construction Management)

Condition (16) requires a detailed Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP). This is contained in a document titled Environmental Information. This document requires revision to explain in more details where is construction compound will be, site parking, areas to store excavated materials etc. The site assessment is also not site specific and needs updating. On receipt this document will again be sent to the Environmental Health Team to confirm acceptance.

Condition 18 (Lighting) Condition (18) requires a lighting plan and a detailed lighting design scheme to address the issues identified as ‘outstanding’ in the Light Assessment Report submitted with the outline application. The original reports stated:

The proposed development will provide new and additional forms of light pollution in the form of façade, cark park and 3G sports pitch lighting. A design for new or existing façade or car park lighting that is compliant with the industry standards and control measures set out in section 4.1 should be sufficient to mitigate these factors being a risk. This again will be the case for the 3G sports pitch however the local ecology may be detrimentally affected by this. Further investigation and confirmation by the ecology specialist(s) will be required in the coming stages of the project .

The design and position of the lights is likely to be acceptable subject to some additional clarification from the ecologist that the scheme, along with the associated landscaping works limit impact on the bat corridor. A 10pm curfew re use of eth lights is also recommended. Provided this is set out in the LEMP, this condition can be discharged.

Condition 19 (LEMP)

Requires the provision, implementation and maintenance of the site landscaping and any ecological measures. The detail of how this is to be done should be set out in the Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP). The reserved matters deal with the finished levels; means of enclosure and the soft landscape works. The LEMP should set out the management programme (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a 10- year period ) details on ongoing landscape and ecological monitoring and implementation of any necessary remedial measures.

This is contained in the Report No. 17/3230.02rev01 and states:

Habitat design has been led by the results of the bat activity survey. Landscaping has been designed to retain and enhance the use of the site for commuting and foraging bats by ensuring that existing links through the site, including darkened corridors along treelines and woodland edge, are maintained. The new planting, comprising native shrub and tree species, will be undertaken along the eastern and western boundaries to buffer any potential disturbance from the development (including additional lighting).

Page 212 Agenda Item 10

Furthermore, this planting will enhance the ecological value of habitats on the site boundaries, creating a structurally varied habitat grading from close-mown amenity grassland to wildflower meadow on the embankments, interspersed with areas of scrub, and a native shrub and tree margin connecting to retained vegetation corridors, whilst also providing visual screening along the adjacent public footpaths.

The overall objectives for this management plan are: • Creating and enhancing the habitat mosaic of woodland, scrub and grassland • Providing net biodiversity gain through creation of habitat features including hibernacula and nesting provision • Strengthening of bat commuting and foraging corridors, including screening of light spill • Enhancing the visual and amenity value of the site

The document details post construction monitoring extending to five years post- development . The document will require update to ensure that this long term adherence is achieved. The Landscape and Countryside Officer and Sustainability Officer have been asked to confirm that this document is sufficient to address the condition.

Condition 20 (Tree Protection). Requires a site specific Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP). The report provided is that submitted with the outline application.

The Landscape and Countryside Officer has been asked to comment about whether the AGP requires any specific measures as the only trees on site are those within the bunds which are to be removed.

CONCLUSION

The submitted documents with (some revision) will address the conditions attached to the outline planning permission and will ensure that the pitch can be delivered with proper management of the environmental impacts which are namely site contamination, impact on biodiversity and on the water environment in line with Policies ST05, BAR21, DM01, DM02, DM03, DM08 and DM10

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

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE with delegated Authority being given to the Head of Place to agree the following or any alternative documents advised by the consultees:

Page 213 Agenda Item 10

Having now considered the submitted details:

Environmental Information (CMP) (once revised) Ground Investigation Report July 2017 Geoenvironmental Interpretative Report July, 2018 Materials Management Plan October, 2018 Landscape and Ecological Management Plan: Report No: 17/3230.02rev01 Date: August 2018 (once revised) Document Title Proposed AGP Materials and Appearance: FMC project code BM25583/0307 Artificial Turf Pitch: Project code: SSL2423:Date: 23-03-2018 (Lighting Report) Lighting Column Foundations Drawing Number VS9920-016-001 Proposed AGP Floodlights Drawing 04 Rev ** OptiVisor – Precise Engineering (luminaire detail) Optivision – Downlight performance OptiVision MVP507 (Luminaire specification) Proposed AGP Elevations Drawing Number 05 Rev 00 Drainage StrategyEPG-9037-DS-01 15.03.19 Outline Surface Water Drainage Strategy Appendix A Surface Water Management Alternative Sustainable Drainage Layout & Details: Drawing No 9037-EPG-ZZ-XX-DR-Y-0001 Rev PO1 for the above conditions in respect of the AGP works only, the Local Planning Authority have determined that these are acceptable.

The requirement to provide acceptable details of these conditions in respect of the AGP works only is therefore discharged.

The AGP works are now required to be carried out in accordance with these details.

INSERT(S) TO FOLLOW OVERLEAF 1. OS Location Plan

Page 214 Agenda Item 10 Appendix A

Copy Supplied to Accompany Planning 66400 - Tarka Tennis Centre, Seven Brethren Bank Committee Report Lynton House, Commercial Road, Page 215 Scale: 1:5000 Barnstaple, EX31 1EA Date: 17/04/19 © Copyright and database right 2017 Ordnance Survey Licence No. 100021929. No unauthorised reproduction permitted. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11

App. No.: 66445 Reg. : 19/03/19 Applicant: NORTH DEVON COUNCIL L. Bldg. : Expired: 14/05/19 Agent : STRI Parish : BARNSTAPLE Case Officer : Ms J Watkins

Proposal: RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION FOR ARTIFICIAL GRASS PITCH (LAYOUT/SCALE/APPEARANCE AND LANDSCAPING) ALONG WITH LEVELS AND MEANS OF ENCLOSURE (OUTLINE APPLICATION 63351) Location: TARKA TENNIS CENTRE, SEVEN BRETHREN BANK, BARNSTAPLE EX31 2AS

PROPOSAL

The site has outline permission (63351) for the erection of a new swimming facility, sports hall and associated facilities, together with external works comprising the provision of a new full size 3G artificial grass playing pitch , extension of the existing car parking, relocation of HGV parking, hard and soft landscaping.

This application is the reserved matters submission for the full size 3G artificial grass playing pitch with associated hard and soft landscaping. The scheme details include

• Installation of new Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) pitch surfaces with 3G artificial grass to accommodate 11v11 football pitches sized 106 x 70m and a variety of youth football pitches, mini soccer pitches and training areas. • Installation of new 4.5m high, ball stop fencing to the AGP perimeter. • Installation of new pitch perimeter barrier (1.20m and 2.0m high) internally within the AGP enclosure, to segregate the pitch playing areas from adjoining spectator area. • Installation of new hard standing areas adjoining the AGP perimeter complete with associated porous asphalt surfacing and matching ball stop fencing for pedestrian access, goals storage, spectator viewing space and vehicular maintenance and emergency access. • Installation of new floodlight system. • Installation of new maintenance / sports equipment store located within the AGP facility enclosure.

Submitted alongside this application is 66400 (also on the agenda) which deals with the discharge of conditions 11 (Contamination), 13 (Piling Re Floodlights), 14/15 (Surface Water Management), 16 (Construction Management), 18 (Lighting), 19 (LEMP), 20 (Tree Protection).

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The site is located at the southern end of the Seven Brethren. The proposal is to the rear of the existing Tarka Tennis Centre and the Falcons Gymnastics Centre.

The Tarka Trail runs to the east of the site, linking the development from Rock Park to the Town Centre. The River Taw runs to the east of the site beyond the Tarka Trail.

Page 217 Agenda Item 11

The site is accessed by a private road, which meets the public highway beyond the entrance to the existing Seven Brethren car park.

There is some soft landscaping around the existing pitches and to the north an important grouping of trees and bushes, which make a contribution to the visual amenity of the area, particularly when viewed from higher ground to the west.

REASON FOR REPORT TO MEMBERS

This application has been submitted by the District Council for a development on its land.

POLICY CONTEXT

The North Devon and Torridge Local Plan has recently been adopted and the following policies are relevant:

North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (2011 – 2031) ST01: Principles of Sustainable Development ST02: Mitigating Climate Change ST03: Adapting to Climate Change and Strengthening Resilience ST04: Improving the Quality of Development ST05: Sustainable Construction and Buildings ST06: Spatial Development Strategy for Northern Devon’s Sub-regional, Strategic and Main Centres ST10: Transport Strategy ST12: Town and District Centres ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets ST15: Conserving Heritage Assets ST22: Community Services and Facilities BAR: Barnstaple Spatial Vision and Development Strategy BAR13 Seven Brethren BAR20: Strategic Green Infrastructure Links BAR21 Flood Management Strategy DM01: Amenity Considerations DM02: Environmental Protection DM03: Construction and Environmental Management DM04: Design Principles DM05: Highways DM06: Parking Provision DM07: Historic Environment DM08: Biodiversity and Geodiversity DM10: Green Infrastructure Provision DM17: Tourism and Leisure Attractions

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

The consultation expiry is the 10 th April which is after the date when this report was finalised. Any consultee responses will be reported to the Planning Committee.

Barnstaple Town Council: Views Awaited

Page 218 Agenda Item 11

Highways Authority: Whilst the Highway Authority has been consulted it is likely that Standing Advice will apply. There are no changes to the vehicular access or car parking which serve the existing pitches. Minor changes are being made to pedestrian routes around the site. The location can be accessed sustainably from the Tarka Trail by foot and by cyclists.

Sustainability Officer: Views Awaited

Landscape and Countryside Officer: Views Awaited

REPRESENTATIONS

At the time of preparing this report no letters of representation have been received relating to the application. This report has however been completed before the expiry of the consultation period which is 10 th April so any representations received will be circulated before the meeting and referred to as a part of the Committee presentation.

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Proposal Decision Date 30397 Construction of Tennis Centre comprising six Approved 9/07/01 outdoor and six indoor courts with associated facilities, access arrangements, car parking and landscaping. 50583 Extension to tennis hall to provide additional tennis Approved 13/10/10 courts together with gymnastics hall 63351 Outline Application For The Erection Of A New Approved 20.12.17 Swimming Facility In An Extension To The Existing Centre, To Include 25m Swimming Pool & Learner Pool, Sports Hall & Associated Facilities; Together With External Works Comprising The Provision Of A New Full Size 3g Artificial Grass Playing Pitch, Extension Of The Existing Car Parking, Relocation Of Hgv Parking To Accommodate The New Car Parking, Hard & Soft Landscaping 66400 Approval Of Details In Respect Of Discharge Of On Condition 11 (Contamination), 13 (Piling Re agenda Floodlights), 14/15 (Surface Water Management), 16 (Construction Management), 18 (Lighting), 19 (Lemp), 20 (Tree Protection) Attached To Planning Permission 63351 (Outline Planning Permission)

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

As a reserved matters application the issues to be considered are:

• layout • scale • appearance • access • landscaping

Page 219 Agenda Item 11

And the impact that these will have on:

• amenity (the CMP and lighting are controlled by application 66400) • flood risk & drainage (surface water is controlled by application 66400) • biodiversity (Tree Protection and the LEMP are controlled by application 66400) • Contamination (controlled by application 66400)

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

This site is allocated for a mix of uses including leisure development in the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan as part of BAR13. The relocation of the leisure centre adjacent to the existing Tarka Tennis Centre, Falcons gymnastics and existing sports pitches seeks to enhance the leisure offer in this single location in line with ST22 and BAR13.

The provision of a new AGP will provide increased usage in comparison to the existing grassed football pitches, for benefit of the football clubs, partner organisations and community groups in the Barnstaple area both during the day and during evenings and at weekends via pre-arranged and structured access.

The principle of this development in this location was approved as part of outline application 63351. The reserved matters are:

• LAYOUT

The proposed AGP will be located close to changing rooms and administration facilities. The site will also afford convenient pedestrian, maintenance and emergency access as well and providing for suitable management, supervision and security.

The proposed AGP location will result in the loss of usable grassed playing pitches however overall site usage will not decrease and the proposal will result in greater capacity and utilisation across the playing season for training sessions and match play (for mini, youth and adult football), resulting in a greater amount of playing pitches to be marked onto the artificial grass pitch surface.

This intensification of use is made possible by the introduction of an artificial grass pitch surfaces which are more durable in comparison to natural turf and especially during winter weather conditions, plus the provision of artificial (flood) lighting. The proposed AGP also avoid close season maintenance works.

The new AGP will offer a variety of football pitches and training areas within the same enclosed playing space to support development plans into grassroots football as well as youth and adult football.

• SCALE

The proposed height of new open steel mesh ball stop fencing and entrance gates around the entire perimeter enclosing the AGP will be 4.5m above ground level. The proposed height of new open steel mesh pitch perimeter barrier and entrance gates internally within each AGP enclosure to segregate the artificial grass pitch surface from adjoining hard standing area is 1.2m to 2.0m above ground level.

Page 220 Agenda Item 11

The proposed new floodlight system comprises eight (8no.) masts mounted with sixteen luminaires at a height of 15m high above ground level to the AGP with 16no. floodlights in total along Western and Eastern sides of the AGP.

The proposed height of new outdoor maintenance equipment store is 2.59m above ground level.

• APPEARANCE

Artificial Grass Playing Surface: The playing surface will comprise a 3G artificial grass containing a 60mm pile and partially in-filled with silica sand (for stability) and granulate rubber (for performance) and will be coloured grass green.

Perimeter Ball Stop Fencing The perimeter ball stop fencing (4.5m high), pitch perimeter barrier (1.2m and 2.0m high) and entrance gates will be finished to polyester powder coated RAL6005 Dark Green. The fencing type will be steel open mesh fencing. Fence panels are insulated from the posts using neoprene washers to aid noise reduction and acoustic attenuation by reducing rattle and vibration from ball impacts.

Floodlights The eight 15m high octagonal steel masts will be galvanised with self-coloured, mounted luminaires. Front louvres will reduce light overspill and backward light.

Hard Standing Areas New hard standing areas (pedestrian access, goals storage, spectator viewing space, vehicular access for maintenance activities) will be grey / black coloured porous asphalt.

Maintenance Equipment Store The new storage container will be dark green polyester powder coated and with steel ramps for easy equipment access and egress.

The intention is develop the pitch with minimal visual impact when viewed from any adjacent properties looking into the site to ensure that proposals are sympathetic to its surroundings and will not impact on the visual amenity of the area and the amenity of neighbouring residents. The layout, scale and appearance of the works is acceptable in respect of design guidance in the NDTLP. It should be noted that the pitches are currently surrounding by mounding. The fencing will be visible from the public realm but is a feature that is associated with such sports facilities and by being coloured dark green will not be overly prominent in line with Policies ST04 and DM04.

• ACCESS

The site will continue to operate as part of the existing sports complex with shared use of the car park to the front of the site. There is no change to the means of access. The site is compatible currently for disability parking and access with appropriate circulation routes. All new pedestrian paths shall be compliant with Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) regulations and Sport England’s Technical Design Guidance Note ‘Accessible Sports Facilities 2010’.

Page 221 Agenda Item 11

A minor revision has been sought to the realignment of the path to the west of the site to ensure that it provides a smooth transition between old and new (and to remove a right angled bend).

There are no highway concerns in respect of policies DM05, DM06 and ST10.

• LANDSCAPING

Any soft ground surrounding the AGP affected by the development is to be reinstated to grass (soft landscaping) to enable effective grounds maintenance to surrounding grassed areas and retention of grassed playing pitches. Soils generated during construction work will be recycled onsite to form a sculpted grass mound s around the site.

Replacement planting will be required to ensure that there is a net biodiversity gain. A soft landscaping plan has been submitted.

New hard landscaping treatment around the facility is restricted to porous asphalt surfacing for pedestrian access, goals storage, spectator viewing space, vehicular access for maintenance activities. The existing footpath will be rerouted to accommodate the pitch.

The works align with DM08 and DM10.

• AMENITY

This application will intensify the leisure use at this site and will include a level of additional lighting both to the extended building and the pitch, as well as an increase in noise from the pitch. The site is a significant distance from any sensitive uses and the development is not considered to have an unacceptable impact on amenity in accordance with Policy DM01 of the Local Plan.

The Environmental Health team previously considered the noise report submitted with application 63351 and agree with its conclusions that noise (construction or operational) is unlikely to result in concern.

• FLOOD RISK & DRAINAGE (surface water is controlled by application 66400).

This proposal does not affect the existing flood defences and any increase in bunding through site landscaping will improve the protection.

• BIODIVERSITY (Tree Protection and the LEMP are controlled by application 66400).

• CONTAMINATION (controlled by application 66400).

Page 222 Agenda Item 11

CONCLUSION

The principal of development has already been agreed and the reserved matters provide an appropriately designed scheme which results in no issues of material planning concern in line with policies BAR13, DM01, DM04, DM05, DM06 and DM08.

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

DETAILS OF RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE – delegate to the Head of Place the authority to issue a decision notice of approval with any further conditions/amendments required to address comments of consultees (if not already received by the time of the Planning Committee) and the following conditions:

(1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates : (i) the expiration of three years from the date on which the outline permission was granted : or (ii) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

Reason: The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

(2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the document titled AGP Design and the plans submitted as part of the application, numbered 01 Rev **, 02 Rev **, 03 Rev **, 04 Rev **, 05 Rev** and received on ****2019, JKK10168- RPS-Figure 01.01 Rev 2 received 29 th March 2019 ('the approved plans').

Reason: To ensure that the works are delivered in accordance with the agreed plans which provides a scheme of an appropriate scale and form given the localised context.

(3) Implementation and maintenance of approved landscape proposals

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping as detailed in drawing number JKK10168-RPS-Figure 01.01 Rev 2 shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the expiry of 12 months from the substantial completion of the works of earth mounding and remodelling ; 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

Page 223 Agenda Item 11 others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variations.

Reason: To ensure that there is a net biodiversity gain and to ensure that replacement planting occurs to safeguard the character and appearance of the locality.

INSERT(S) TO FOLLOW OVERLEAF 1. OS Location Plan

Page 224 Agenda Item 11 Appendix A

Copy Supplied to Accompany Planning 66445 - Tarka Tennis Centre, Seven Brethren Bank Committee Report Lynton House, Commercial Road, Page 225 Scale: 1:5000 Barnstaple, EX31 1EA Date: 17/04/19 © Copyright and database right 2017 Ordnance Survey Licence No. 100021929. No unauthorised reproduction permitted. This page is intentionally left blank