South Hams Development Management Committee
Title: Agenda
Date: Wednesday, 6th June, 2018
Time: 9.30 am
Venue: Council Chamber - Follaton House Full Members: Chairman Cllr Steer Vice Chairman Cllr Foss Members: Cllr Bramble Cllr Hodgson Cllr Brazil Cllr Holway Cllr Brown Cllr Pearce Cllr Cuthbert Cllr Rowe Cllr Hitchins Cllr Vint
Interests – Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any Declaration and disclosable pecuniary interest not entered in the Authority's Restriction on register or local non pecuniary interest which they have in any Participation: item of business on the agenda (subject to the exception for sensitive information) and to leave the meeting prior to discussion and voting on an item in which they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.
Committee Kathy Trant Specialist- Democratic Services 01803 861185 administrator: Page No
1. Minutes 1 - 6 To approve as a correct record and authorise the Chairman to sign the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 2 May 2018;
2. Urgent Business Brought forward at the discretion of the Chairman;
3. Division of Agenda to consider whether the discussion of any item of business is likely to lead to the disclosure of exempt information;
4. Declarations of Interest Members are invited to declare any personal or disclosable pecuniary interests, including the nature and extent of such interests they may have in any items to be considered at this meeting;
5. Public Participation The Chairman to advise the Committee on any requests received from members of the public to address the meeting;
6. Planning Applications To see Letters of Representation and further supplementary information relating to any of the Applications on the agenda, please select the following link and enter the relevant Planning Reference number: http://apps.southhams.gov.uk/PlanningSearchMVC/
(a) 2062/17/FUL 7 - 30 Expansion and redevelopment of existing established garden centre and nursery incorporating the removal of existing polytunnels/greenhouses, construction of new garden centre building, retention of existing buildings for nursery/horticultural use, associated car parking and landscaping Styles Garden Leisure Centre, Moles Lane, Marldon
(b) 3631/17/OPA 31 - 54 Outline application for the erection of a mix of B1, B2 & B8 employment spaces, together with access, parking, landscaping and other associated works with an extended time to commence development Beacon Park, Dartington, Totnes Page No
(c) 3967/17/VAR 55 - 68 Variation of condition number 3 following grant of planning permission 20/0785/12/F to allow the roundhouse to be granted permanent permission The High Nature Centre, East Portlemouth
(d) 3880/17/OPA 69 - 94 Outline application (with all matters reserved) for the erection of 8 dwellings (including affordable housing), access and associated landscaping. Proposed development site at SX 775 424, East of Creek Close, Frogmore
(Upon the conclusion of the above agenda items, the meeting will be adjourned and reconvened at 2.00pm)
(e) 3545/17/FUL 95 - 104 Demolition of existing building and outbuildings and erection of 2no. replacement dwellings including creation of new access off Marine Drive. Seafront, Marine Drive, Bigbury On Sea
(f) 3741/17/FUL 105 - 112 New detached two bedroom bungalow to the rear of the plot (resubmission of 2615/17/FUL) Crofters Cottage, Raddicombe Lane, Hillhead
(g) 3078/17/FUL 113 - 120 Construction of a new quay to improve access 1 Old Coastguard Cottages, Wembury
(h) 4017/17/FUL 121 - 130 Relocation of detached garage and erection of two detached dwellings Cott House, Cott Lane, Dartington
(i) 2748/17/FUL 131 - 156 The demolition of all existing buildings on site while retaining the southern stone boundary wall and concrete quay, erection of a 60sq m commercial unit at ground floor and a 6 bedroom dwelling with guest suite complete with existing access and the creation of five associated parking spaces Brewery Quay, Island Street, Salcombe Page No
(j) 1360/17/VAR 157 - 164 Variation of condition number 2 following grant of planning permission 2829/15/FUL to allow changes to approved plans Harleston Farm, Harleston
(k) 1607/18/AGR 165 - 170 Application for prior notification of agricultural building to provide storage of animal feeds, straw, hay and farm equipment (resubmission of 1114/18/AGR) Ackrells Field, Littlehempston
(l) 1958/17/FUL 171 - 176 Retrospective application for change of use of land to A3 (Cafe and seating area) The Wardroom, Fore Street, Salcombe
(m) 1291/18/FUL 177 - 182 Proposed installation of replacement fenders and pontoon with new pontoon access footbridge Salcombe Fish Quay, Gould Road, Salcombe
(n) 0555/18/TPO 183 - 186 T1: Cedrus deodara - Crown thin by 15% to allow light to adjacent apartments The Cedars Jubilee Road Totnes TQ9 5YR
(o) 1025/18/TPO 187 - 190 T1: Field maple - FELL 19 Nether Meadow Marldon TQ3 1NJ
7. Planning Appeals Update 191 - 192
8. Planning Enforcement Indicators 193 - 194 Dev Management 02.05.18
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE HELD AT FOLLATON HOUSE, TOTNES, ON WEDNESDAY, 2 MAY 2018
Members in attendance * Denotes attendance Ø Denotes apologies
* Cllr I Bramble * Cllr J M Hodgson * Cllr J Brazil Ø Cllr T R Holway * Cllr D Brown * Cllr J A Pearce * Cllr P K Cuthbert * Cllr R Rowe * Cllr R J Foss (Vice Chairman) * Cllr R C Steer (Chairman) * Cllr P W Hitchins * Cllr R J Vint
Other Members also in attendance: Cllrs Birch, Green and Wright
Officers in attendance and participating:
Item No: Application No: Officers: All agenda COP Lead Development Management, items Planning Specialists, Deputy Monitoring Officer, Specialist – Democratic Services
DM.58/17 MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 4 April 2018 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
DM.59/17 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members and officers were invited to declare any interests in the items of business to be considered and the following were made:
Cllr P K Cuthbert declared a personal interest in application 3807/17/HHO: Householder application (retrospective) regularise changes to previously approved planning application reference 0691/17/NMM for proposed two storey extension to existing dwelling involving amendments to front access steps and formation of a parking space – 8 Waltacre, Yealmpton, by virtue of the agent being known to her and she remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon;
Cllr D Brown declared a personal interest in the following planning applications that were sited within the South Devon AONB by virtue of being a Member of the South Devon AONB Partnership Committee and remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon: Dev Management 02.05.18
0145/18/HHO Householder application for rear single storey extension and loft conversion – 21 Pound Field, Stoke Gabriel; and 0421/18/HHO Householder application for proposed alterations and extension (resubmission of 3075/17/HHO) – 21 Court Park, Thurlestone.
DM.60/17 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Chairman announced that a list of members of the public and town and parish council representatives, who had registered their wish to speak at the meeting, had been circulated.
DM.61/17 PLANNING APPLICATIONS The Committee considered the details of the planning applications prepared by the Planning Case Officers as presented in the agenda papers, and considered also the comments of Town and Parish Councils together with other representations received, which were listed within the presented agenda reports, and RESOLVED that:
4165/17/FUL Development site at SX809597, Steamer Quay Road, Totnes
Parish: Totnes
Application for erection of a 68 bed Care Home (use class C2) with associated car parking, refuse and external landscaping
Case Officer Update: condition no. 11 amended and additional condition seeking detail of bird and bat boxes. A condition was added re a LEMP plus an informative to say the LEMP should reflect the LEMP in outline application for the wider Riverside Development
Speakers included: Supporter – Mr Neil Rutland: local Ward Members – Cllrs Birch, Green and Vint
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
Committee Decision: Conditional Approval
Conditions (summarised below from report): 1. Time 2. Accords with plans 3. Universal condition for contamination 4. Verification Report 5. Unsuspected contamination 6. Acoustic protection 7. Fume extraction 8. CEMP 9. Electric charging points to be provided 10. Implementation of travel plan 11. Material samples to be agreed Dev Management 02.05.18
12. Parking and turning to be provided and retained 13. Emergency rear pedestrian access to be provided prior to occupation 14. Lighting strategy to be adhered to 15. Details of hard and soft landscaping to be agreed 16. Details of boundary treatments 17. Drainage – percolation testing 18. Drainage – groundwater monitoring 19. Drainage – surface water detailed design 20. Drainage – foul 21. Drainage – maintenance 22. Construction phase drainage 23. Condition detailed bird and bat boxes added 24. Condition re LEMP added
4238/17/FUL Hidden Valley, Lavender Farm, Land at Hole Hill, Cornworthy
Parish: Cornworthy
Proposed new timber framed barn to be used for drying, processing and storing lavender with farm office and rest room (resubmission of 1270/17/FUL)
Case Officer Update: N/A
Speakers included: Objector – Mr Howard Quartly: Supporter – Ms Gill Baker: local Ward Member – Cllr Tucker (statement read)
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
Committee Decision: Conditional Approval
Conditions:
i. Commencement within three years ii. Accord with plans iii. Agricultural or Horticultural use only iv. Removal if approved use ceases v. Removal of existing structures vi. Drainage details to be submitted and approved
0145/18/HHO 21 Pound Field, Stoke Gabriel
Parish: Stoke Gabriel
Householder application for rear single storey extension and loft conversion Dev Management 02.05.18
Case Officer Update: Recommendation of Conditional Approval not included in report
Speakers included: Objector – Mr Ian Hancock: Supporter – Mr Andrew Horton: local Ward Member – Cllr Rowe
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
Committee Decision: Conditional Approval
Conditions (summarised below):
1. Commencement within three years 2. Accord with plans 3. Details of materials prior to installation 4. Flat roof area shall not be used as a terrace or balcony and Juliette balcony to be fitted with fixed balustrade 5. Recommendations of Ecological report to be adhered to
0421/18/HHO 21 Court Park, Thurlestone
Parish: Thurlestone
Householder application for proposed alterations and extension (resubmission of 3075/17/HHO)
Case Officer Update: The number of letters of objection was updated to 6 not 10. In the Analysis section the previous application was supported by Officers but refused by Development Management Committee and therefore the report should read This application seeks to remove the previously refused balconies and therefore overcomes Committee Members previous concerns of overlooking’. There have been late comments by the Parish Council that state: ‘This proposal is still over bearing to the neighbours on the south and west side, with a loss of privacy and light and added noise due to the size of the balcony’. It should be noted that in the officers report the wall to the terraced area is not necessary to ensure the privacy to neighbouring property due to the existing boundary screening, however, concerns are still raised by neighbours and therefore a condition for the 1.8m high wall should be conditioned to be retained and maintained. This is a decision for members to consider whether they wish for this condition to be retained or removed. Dev Management 02.05.18
Speakers included: Local Ward Members – Cllrs Pearce and Wright
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
During discussion, Members acknowledged that the proposal removed the first floor balcony that had resulted in refusal of the previous application, however they noted that a Juliette balcony was proposed instead. The majority of Members felt that a full length Juliette balcony still had the potential for overlooking, and therefore a resulting loss of amenity for neighbours.
Committee Decision: Refusal
Reason: The application should be refused as being contrary to policies DP3, DEV1 and TP1 in the Neighbourhood Plan.
DM.62/17 PLANNING APPEALS UPDATE
Members noted the list of appeals as outlined in the presented agenda report. The COP Lead Development Management presented further detail on specific cases.
DM.63/17 PLANNING PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The COP Lead Development Management introduced the latest set of performance indicators related to the Development Management service. Members requested that the various graphs use the same scale.
It was then:
RESOLVED
That the latest set of performance indicators be noted.
(Meeting commenced at 2.00 pm and concluded at 5.00 pm)
______Chairman Dev Management 02.05.18
Voting Analysis for Planning Applications – DM Committee 2 May 2018 Application Site Address Vote Councillors who Voted Yes Councillors who Voted No Councillors who Absent No: Voted Abstain
Conditional Development site at SX809597, Cllrs Brown, Vint, Steer, Brazil, Cllr Hodgson (1) (0) Cllr Holway (1) 4165/17/FUL Approval Steamer Quay Road, Totnes Pearce, Bramble, Cuthbert, Foss, Rowe, Hitchins (10)
Cllrs Steer, Brown, Vint, Cllrs Pearce, Rowe (2) Cllr Foss (1) Cllr Holway (1) Conditional 4238/17/FUL Hidden Valley, Lavender Farm, Bramble, Brazil, Hodgson, Approval Land at Hole Hill, Cornworthy Cuthbert, Hitchins (8)
21 Pound Field, Stoke Gabriel Cllrs Brown, Vint, Steer, Brazil, (0) (0) Cllr Holway (1) Conditional 0145/18/HHO Pearce, Bramble, Cuthbert, Approval Foss, Rowe, Hitchins, Hodgson (11)
21 Court Park, Thurlestone Cllrs Hodgson, Brazil, Vint, Cllrs Cuthbert, Bramble, Foss (3) Cllr Steer (by Cllr Holway (1) 0421/18/HHO Refusal Rowe, Pearce, Hitchins, Brown virtue of declaring (7) an interest) (1) PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT
Case Officer: Wendy Ormsby Parish: Marldon Ward: Marldon and Littlehempston
Application No: 2062/17/FUL
Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr Matthew Robinson Ms Jacqui Taylor 14 Castle Street Otter Nurseries Exeter Gosford Road EX4 3PT Ottery St Mary EX11 1LZ
Site Address: Styles Garden Leisure Centre, Moles Lane, Torquay, TQ3 1SY
Development: Expansion and redevelopment of existing established garden centre and nursery incorporating the removal of existing polytunnels/greenhouses, construction of new garden centre building, retention of existing buildings for nursery/horticultural use, associated car parking and landscaping
Reason item is being put before Committee At the request of the Ward Member having regard to the amount of local interest and request of the Parish Council that this application be considered by Committee Recommendation: Delegate to CoP Lead Development Management, in conjunction with Chairman to conditionally grant planning permission, subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.
However, in the event that the Section 106 legal Agreement remains unsigned six months after this resolution, that the application is reviewed by the COP Lead Development Management, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, and if no progress is being made delegated authority is given to the CoP to refuse to application in the absence of an agreed S106 Agreement.
The Section 106 should secure the following:
Widening of Moles Lane to be completed prior to new buildings being brought into use and Section 278/38 entered into. Financial contribution towards study to investigate the highway works required at Gallows Gate Roundabout to mitigate the peak pm flows at this junction
Conditions
1. Time 2. Accords with plans 3. Materials to be agreed 4. Detailed hard and soft landscaping plan including cross sections 5. Implementation of recommendations set out in AIA and tree protection and planting implementation plan. 6. Details of levels 7. Universal condition for land affected by contamination 8. Verification report 9. Unsuspected contamination 10. CEMP 11. Travel Plan 12. Road widening on Moles Lane to be implemented in accordance with details to be approved by LPA 13. Provision of new access prior to use 14. Provision, laying out and surfacing of car park and turning areas prior to use 15. Program of Archaeological work to be secured and implemented 16. Development in accordance with recommendations of ecology report 17. External lighting details to be agreed 18. Percolation testing 19. Detailed design of surface water management scheme plus details of maintenance and exceedance 20. Construction phase drainage scheme to be agreed and implemented 21. Electrical charging facilities 22. Restriction on range of goods to be sold 23. Floorspace limits on retail and types of retail 24. Existing nursery building not be used for retail purposes 25. Site to be operated as a single business with subdivision of the retail area(s) nor independent access points provided 26. Any concessions shall not have independent access and shall only operate in conjunction with the wider garden centre use. 27. Maximum floor area for café which shall only operate in conjunction with the wider garden centre use 28. Delivery hours restricted 07.00 to 22.00 hours 29. Details of ventilation and extraction Key issues for consideration:
Retail Impact Highway Impact Heritage, in particular impact on the setting of Higher Compton Barton Impact on residential amenity Landscape Impact
Site Description:
The site address used for the application is Styles Garden Centre, which is the name the site has been known by in the past (since approx.1950). It was acquired by Otter Nurseries in 2014 and now trades as Otter Nurseries. The application site also includes an adjacent site formally known at Westend Nursery/Potting shed.
Styles Garden Centre operated as a nursery on the site for many years and included large growing areas, mainly within poly tunnels and greenhouses and a retail garden centre open to the public with car park. The majority of the site is covered by poly tunnels which are mostly unused, the business now grows its plants in neighbouring land. The existing retail nursery building has expanded over time with various extensions and has a rather ad-hoc, understated appearance. The site has 47 car parking spaces and is often at or over capacity leading to on street parking
The site access is on Moles Lane which links primarily with Marldon Road, a well-used B road linking the A380 Gallows Gate Roundabout with Torquay via Shiphay. The site is located west of the A380 but is not highly visible from the road due to existing vegetation close to the A road.
Historically there have been a cluster of commercial uses in the immediate area including other nursery sites, a poultry farm and a quad bike centre.
The application site of 4.6 hectares, which is broadly rectangular in shape, is surrounded by agricultural land. The site and surrounding land is Grade 2 agricultural land. The site slopes downwards from north west to south east. The bottom south east corner of the site is set at a much lower level.
There are a number of listed buildings to the south and south west of the site including Grade II Higher Compton Barton, converted barn complex, located some 260m south of the application site boundary and Grade I listed Compton Castle (National Trust property) located some 780m to the south west. Hedgerow and trees define the southern boundary closest to Higher Compton Barton and at present there is very limited inter-visibility.
A public right of way runs along the eastern site boundary linking Moles Lane with Compton
The Proposal:
It is proposed to remove all the polytunnels, to demolish some of the disused green houses, to revise the vehicular access and to build a new retail nursery building in the southernmost part of the site, the remainder of the site would be laid out as public car parking or commercial delivery/turning area. Greenhouses and other buildings at the north of the site will be retained for nursery and horticultural purposes associated with the new nursery. A manager’s residence will be retained. The existing indoor retail building will be retained but taken out of retail use.
The proposed building would be single storey but would have an under-croft in the south east part, using the topography of the land to provide a lower level for access be delivery vehicles. The under- croft is now proposed as an enclosed area in response to neighbour concerns raised regarding noise. The building will include internal and external retail space and will include a café. The building is L shaped and substantial in size. Its proportions are similar to a large commercial agricultural building. The height to the ridge is approx.6.8m with the ventilation cowels rising to 8.4m. Materials include timber and stone for the elevations and a dark coloured cladding for the roof.
One large higher level window is proposed in the south facing western gable, this will be clad with hit and miss boarding. This western half of the building also includes ground floor glazing. The south facing eastern gable (above the undercroft) was originally proposed with a large window – this has now been omitted to minimise landscape, neighbour and heritage impacts.
The design and access statement includes the following statement:
The locational opportunities have helped shaped the proposed design. In particular, the new garden centre buildings have been designed to optimum depths to utilise passive cross ventilation and the ‘L’ shape of the main buildings acts as a wind protection, especially for the vulnerable outdoor sales area.
The south west elevation is largely shielded by a mature tree boundary which also helps shelter from prevailing winds. In general, the design has been driven by existing treelines and hedgerows minimising the need for extensive landscaping.
The materials used in the construction reflect both its context and its desire to be a low impact building as possible. Equally careful consideration has been taken into the design of retaining structures around the proposed site using sympathetic techniques to suit site surroundings and landscaping
In terms of floorspace the new garden centre element will comprise of 8,473 sqm gross floorspace as part of the new buildings. This is an increase of just under 3,000 sqm from the existing permitted floorspace. This newly built floorspace is broken down as follows:
Gross floorspace breakdown:
Floor space Area
Outdoor sales area 3,375 sqm Cold greenhouse 500 sqm Cafe and kitchen 1,102 sqm Indoor sales areas 2,218 sqm Storage/staff/non retail 2,380 sqm
Retail floorspace 6,093 sqm
Total floorspace 8,473 sqm
The scheme proposes 270 car parking spaces and 30 disabled/parent & child spaces within a landscaped setting. To provide a relatively level parking area some ground modelling will be required including some retaining walls
When originally submitted the proposal included an external terrace to the café on the southern side of the building. This has now been moved to the northern side in response to landscape, neighbour and heritage concerns.
Consultations:
County Highways Authority: No objection subject to conditions and 106 provisions. Torbay Highway Authority: No objection subject to the provision of a footpath from the bridge over the Devon Expressway to the site and contributions towards investigation of improvement works to Gallows Gate roundabout. Travel plan required.
DCC Flood Risk: No objection but recommends further testing. Proposes conditions
Police AOL: Refer to Secured by Design Commercial 2015
SWW: No objection
SHDC Landscape: No objection subject to conditions.
SHDC Trees: No objection subject to conditions
Environmental Health Section: No objection subject to conditions
Historic England : No comments to make – refer to SHDC specialist conservation advisor
SHDC Conservation: No objection to scheme as revised.
Natural England: No comments – refer to standing advice
SHDC Ecology: No objection subject to adherence to wildlife/habitat survey
DCC Archaeology: No objection subject to a condition requiring pre-commencement archaeological work
Retail Impact Consultant: Retail Impact on existing local and district centres is acceptable subject to conditions to control use of floorspace in accordance with submitted details.
Torbay Council : Request a contribution of £310,000 towards town centre improvements in Torquay and Paignton to mitigate the impact of trade draw, if not provided then OBJECTION is raised.
Teignbridge District Council: No comments to make
Town/Parish Council: recommend conditional approval of the application. The conditions being:-
1) That Otter install additional surface water storage in the field belonging to Edward Foale adjacent to the South East Corner of the new site. This would provide a backup to the already planned system in event of failure or the system being full. Jacqui Taylor from Otter Nurseries confirmed that discussions are on-going and that detailed proposals will be forthcoming.
2) That Otter install soundproofing to the ground level delivery/storage areas. Jacqui Taylor asked that the Parish Council request this formally and confirmed she was happy to amend the plans accordingly.
3) That a condition be put in place to ensure that the Cafe Terrace area on the South end of the building which has been removed from the plans after consultation, cannot be reintroduced at a later date.
4) That the junction of Moles Lane/Marldon Road and the stretch of Moles Lane from the junction to the Overbridge be assessed for suitability by Torbay Highways, in particular with regard to it's safe use by HGV traffic delivering to the new Garden Centre. Jacqui Taylor confirmed that discussions are on-going with Torbay. 5) That the Application be considered by the full Development Management Committee and a full Development Management Committee site visit takes place as part of the consideration process.
Representations:
National Trust: Requires further information in LVIA to show where the building will be seen from. Notes there are flooding issues in Compton and would like to see comments from EA on this and would like to be re-consulted on any new info. The requested information has been sent to the NT and no further comments have been submitted.
Approximately 40 letters of objection raising issues including the following:
Flood risk to Higher Compton Barton and Compton, where flooding problems already occur Highway safety, roads are narrow, lack of visibility at access, junctions are dangerous, inadequate road widths for HGV’s to turn. Adverse impact on setting of Listed Buildings – Higher Compton Barton Overlooking to dwellings at Higher Compton Barton Overdevelopment of site – close to site boundaries and much taller than existing polytunnels Increase in traffic on roads on sub-standard roads – dangerous Adverse impact on wildlife including cirl buntings, retiles and badgers Noise and disturbance from car park, increased traffic and delivery area – delivery areas should be enclosed to control noise. Not appropriate in this rural setting – industrial scale development Why is café needed? Increased pollution from car emissions No need, there is enough provision locally Adverse landscape impact Benefits of added employment will be offset by loss of tourism to Compton Castle Impact of lighting on wildlife, character of the area and LB setting Glare from windows will be intrusive
Relevant Planning History
34/1759/04/F - Extension to retail area - Conditional Approval 34/1835/95/CLE - Certificate of Lawful Development for use of land as garden centre with parking – Approval 34/0801/93/3 - Erection of greenhouses for horticulture - Conditional Approval 34/0918/91/3 - Erection of offices for nurseries - Conditional Approval 34/0471/89/3 - Change of use from shop/store to coffee lounge - Conditional Approval 34/0002/78/4 - Change of use of building from greenhouse to display and sale of horticultural products and erection of linking corridor - Conditional Approval 34/0518/75/3 - Use of glasshouse for part agricultural and part retail sales of basic garden items - Conditional Approval 34/0547/74/3 - Erection of greenhouses for horticulture - Conditional Approval
ANALYSIS
Principle of Development
The application site is a brown field site currently and historically used as a garden centre, it was known at Styles Garden Centre and then acquired by and operated as Otter Nurseries since 2014. Otter Nurseries were previously located on a site at Babbacombe, Torquay on Babbacombe Road. Their lease was not renewed requiring them to find an alternative site. Their site on Babbacombe Road was not within the main retail centre of Torquay.
Otter Nursery have been operating on the former Styles site but it does not meet their requirements; it is notable that the existing car park is small and is often over capacity resulting in on street parking on the surrounding rural lanes.
The application site is within the open countryside, outside of any existing settlement. Policies CS1 and DP15 of the adopted Local Development Framework (LDF) state that development in the countryside will be strictly controlled and only permitted where it can be delivered sustainably and in response to a demonstrable local need, or if required for the essential purposes of agriculture and forestry. The proposed development would be contrary to these policies.
It is relevant to consider however that the whole site is brown field, covered either by buildings or poly tunnels and use as a garden centre is already established. Otter Nurseries grow approx. 80% of the plants they sell and part of the site will be retained for horticulture. This is a use that tends to require a countryside location.
Visitors to garden centres will normally always arrive by car due to the bulky nature of goods that are sold, an out of centre location is typical for this type of development and access by public transport, on foot or by bicycle is less likely to be taken up by customers even if available. A Travel Plan can seek to minimise use of the private car by employees.
The proposed development would increase staff numbers from 30 to 100 full time staff which is a significant benefit.
Retail Impact and sequential test
Modern garden centres tend to offer a wider range of retail goods, not always directly linked to the garden. Where the garden centre is an out of town facility such as here this could impact on the vitality and viability of town centres by drawing trade from town centres. As such this application is supported by a Retail Impact Assessment.
Styles Garden Nursery has been extended a number of times in the past and is subject to a planning restriction on the range of goods that can be sold, it is proposed that the new centre would be subject to similar restrictions.
The applicant’s retail impact assessment has been independently reviewed by GVA and their detailed response is available to view on the website.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) seeks to ensure the vitality of town centres. Paragraph 24 requires local planning authorities to apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in existing centres and are not in accordance with an up to date Local Plan.
Retail impact assessment should include an assessment of:
The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and
The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made. Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors it should be refused.
Given the location and planning policy status of the application site there is a need to consider whether there are suitable and available sequentially preferable locations which can accommodate the proposed retail floorspace. GVA have undertaken a thorough review of the applicant’s assessment and have concluded that the applicant has demonstrated sufficient flexibility when assessing alternative sites and based upon the locations assessed it is considered that the sequential test has been passed. It therefore accords with the provisions of para 24 of the NPPF.
GVA also considered the likely impact of the proposal on the health of and investment within defined centres within the catchment (principally Torquay, Paignton, Newton Abbott and Brixham). GVA found some flaws in the figures provided by the applicant but nevertheless felt the evidence was adequate for them to conclude that if the replacement retail facility is restricted in terms of the range of good which it can sell, along with further controls, there is unlikely to be any serious risk to the health of the nearby town centres and local centres in Torbay. Similarly, assuming the new facility is retained as a single garden centre then it is considered unlikely that the proposal will materially affect existing investment in nearby town centres. In addition, the proposal is unlikely to materially affect any planned or committed town centre investment projects.
The proposed development is in accordance with NPPF aims of ensuring the vitality of town centres
Response on retail impact from Torbay Council and request for financial contributions
Torbay Council have commented that they are satisfied with the sequential test but then go on to consider impact and their officer has commented as follows:
The principal impacts I’m concerned about are Shiphay Local Centre (not mentioned in the RIA), Torquay Town Centre (particularly Wilco) and to a lesser extent also Paignton. I am only concerned about the overlap with town centre sold goods as I recognised that most garden centres in Torbay are out of centre. My initial reaction is that retail impact is capable of being made acceptable with a s106 obligation towards town centre management or public realm improvements. This is in addition to the controls indicated in GVA’s report, particularly limiting the sale of convenience goods (3.42). Section 4.9 and table 4.13 of Torbay’s Planning Contributions and Affordable Housing SPD would apply if the site was in Torbay (although it be CIL chargeable in Torbay). I can’t do more work on calculating a precise figure before 21st March, but I would suggest basing the S106 sum on the identified town centre impact at 3.36 of GVA’s report (D3 of the RIA): Torquay town centre £ 0.21m Paignton town centre £0.05m Plus an allowance for Shiphay local centre (unassessed) but (say) £0.05m as per Paignton town centre. This would come to £310k, which mitigates the identified town centre impact (albeit only one year’s worth of impact). The £310,000 would be utilised for town centre management and public realm improvements.
The applicant has considered the request from Torbay Council and has responded that they consider the request to be unreasonable, that most of the trade draw will be from major national retailers such as Wilco, The Range and B&Q who also operate significant on-line businesses, which Otter do not. Otter Nurseries are a smaller family business with only 5 centres. Otter Nurseries have been working with the local residents to seek to secure improvements in flood risk and to minimise the potential for noise disturbance through acoustic walls around the delivery area, despite these not being a requirement of the LPA. Otter Nursery consider it more relevant to invest in their local neighbourhood and cannot afford to do both. Otter Nurseries comment that they have already been trading in Babbacombe at the same time that Styles was operating and this has not been taken into account in assessing impact.
Otter Nurseries have offerred to make a contribution of £60,000 towards public realm improvements in Torquay but still consider the payment to be unreasonable.
Section 4.9 of Torbay’s Planning Contributions and Affordable Housing SPD addresses public realm improvements and references adopted masterplans for regeneration of Torquay and Paignton, 2015. It is estimated approx. £700,000 works are required to enhance public areas within town centres. The masterplans propose to unlock significant commercial and residential development in the town centres including 30,000 sq m of commercial development and 35,000 sq m of commercial development in Paignton.
4.9.4 of this document states that the achievement of public realm improvements will be a critical driver in the masterplan area. This applies to residential and non-residential developments which directly impact on the need for public realm improvements
Torbay Council do not provide any evidence base or policy to support the method for calculating the requested sum of £310,000
South Hams District Council do not operate CIL and instead rely on Section 106 Obligations. Any Section 106 contributions attached to any decisions made by this Council must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.
The independent review of the retail impact assessment undertaken by GVA concludes that there is unlikely to be any serious risk to the health of the town centres if this development proceeds, on this basis the development meets the criteria of the NPPF and Policy DEV16 of the JLP. These policies do not state that any impact at all must be off set, rather it is stated that if there are significant adverse impacts then the development should be refused. The retail impact assessment has shown that impacts will not be significant, therefore there is no policy basis to refuse this application on grounds of retail impact and no basis to validate the request from Torbay Council for a contribution of £320,000 for town centre public realm improvements. As such Officer’s consider that to request a sum of money towards public realm improvements in Torquay would not meet the necessary tests of a lawful Section 106 Obligation.
Overall, the principle of this type and scale of development on this brown field site is considered to be acceptable.
Design/Landscape:
The proposed development is a large building in the countryside, incorporating a large car park. It is however on a brown field site currently covered in poly tunnels, greenhouses and other buildings.
The design and materials of the main building are appropriate for its rural setting. It is simple in design using timber and stone for the elevations and a dark grey roofing material that will help to minimise landscape impact. The orientation, layout and use of solar panels and wind assisted ventilation cowels will help reduce the buildings carbon footprint.
The carpark is large and it will be important to secure a high quality landscaping scheme to soften the appearance including strategic tree planting.
The landscape impact of the proposed development has been assessed by the Councils Landscape Specialist who has commented as follows: The submitted LVIA (RJ Ltd; 2017.06.19) has been reviewed and is broadly sound. Reference is also made to the accompanying viewpoint photos and montages, with viewpoint references as set out in Google map link (provided in pre-app). From this officers understand the positions of the various viewpoints and cross references to the LVIA.
The site is not within any protected landscape but is within the setting of adjacent heritage assets.
Landscape Character and Visual Impact
The site has been considered in the context of current landscape character assessments, establishing the baseline position and commenting on anticipated impacts resulting from the proposed development. The proposed development site sits within the Torbay Hinterland character area and the key features of this LCA are locally present and in good condition. The proposals will retain key features around the site and minor benefits are gained from changes to some of the built form and reduced effects of the existing structures.
Visually the proposed development will continue to be seen from a number of local viewpoints but where public receptors are of low to medium sensitivity; these viewpoints are from adjacent highways. The overall visual amenity will remain conserved with some enhancements resulting from removed polytunnels.
Overall officers are satisfied the proposed development is acceptable and that the landscape character and visual amenity are conserved, with some limited but beneficial, enhancement.
Detailed Design / Landscape Design
The submitted scheme is noted and will broadly mitigate the changes and provide opportunities for increased planting across the site, in particular the car parking areas. There are no cross sections shown which would be particularly helpful in understanding the parking arrangements and whilst supported in principle, details will be necessary under condition to ensure the level changes and appearance are fully mitigated and understood.
Arboricultural Impact
The Arboricultural Impact Assessment (04770 TCPr: Aspect Tree Consultancy; 2016.11.01) is noted. The key important trees are retained with significant new planting indicated under the proposal.
No objection
The design and landscape impacts are considered to be acceptable.
Ecology:
The application is supported by a Wildlife/Habitat Survey which has been reviewed by the Council’s ecologist who has commented that it is a robust and well considered document.
Avoidance/mitigation measures are included in section 6 of the report to ensure that there are no impacts on protected species and adherence to this should be enforced through a planning condition.
The proposed layout includes new planting and a realistic prospect of increased wildlife value from the site.
Impacts on ecology are considered to be acceptable with potential for enhancement Heritage:
The application has been assessed by the county archaeologist who has commented that the proposed development lies in an area of archaeological potential. The Historic Environment Record shows there to be a concentration of prehistoric or Romano-British sites to the west of the application area, while to the east findspots of flint tools demonstrate prehistoric activity in the surrounding across this landscape. As such, groundworks for the construction of the proposed development have the potential to expose and destroy archaeological and artefactual deposits associated with the nearby prehistoric and Romano-British activity.
For this reason and in accordance with guidance in paragraph 3.69 for South Hams Development Policy DP6 and paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) it is would advised that any consent granted should carry the condition requiring a program of archaeological work to be secured and implemented.
Grade II Listed barns at Higher Compton Barton are sited approx. 260m south of the site, set at a significantly lower level. These are particularly fine examples of courtyard stone barn conversions and their rural agricultural setting is an important aspect of this.
At present there is very limited inter-visibility between this listed barn complex and the application site, due to the tree/hedgerow screen on the southern site boundary and the low rise nature of the poly tunnels within the site. The proposed development will introduce a large building close to the boundary which will be partially screening by the vegetation but the closest gable end will be visible. Originally this gable included a large window and the café terrace was also on this elevation. Whilst the café was unlikely to be particularly visible the noise and activity could have adversely affected the rural character and thus the setting of these listed barns. The café terrace has now been moved to the northern side and the window in the gable omitted.
The application has been assessed by the Council’s Heritage officer having regard to the requirements of Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. It is considered that the proposed building, whilst visible within the setting of the barns, will appear as a commercial agricultural buildings appropriate in this rural context and within the setting of the listed barns. It is concluded that there will be no significant harm to the architectural or historic importance of these buildings as a consequence of this development.
Grade I listed Compton Castle lies some 780m to the south west. It has been demonstrated that due to topography of the land there will be no inter-visibility between the two sites and as such there will be no adverse impact on the setting of the castle.
Impacts on heritage assets are considered to be acceptable.
Neighbour Amenity:
The nearest dwellings are at Higher Compton Barton, 260m to the south, a dwelling located on Moles Lane to the east and two dwellings sited north of the site on Moles Lane. The dwellings on Moles Lane will not be affected by any of the built development but may be aware of increased traffic to the site. At present however when the car park is overcapacity there is a lot of on street parking in the vicinity, this development would resolve this problem which may result in improved amenity for residents in the immediate area.
Concern has been raised by residents at Higher Compton Barton about loss of privacy and noise disturbance from the café and delivery under-croft. The café has been relocated and the under-croft will now be enclosed to manage noise. The main window in the closest gable has been omitted, windows at ground level will be screened by existing planting and additional screen planting on this boundary will be augmented. It is considered that there will be no significant adverse impact on residential amenity.
Highways/Access:
The Highway Authority (DCC) have assessed the transport impacts of this development and comment as follows:
The site is already in use as a garden centre but this application looks to increase the size of the overall use class building gross floor areas on the site by 3588m2 from what is existing (1980m2). As a result of these changes it is anticipated the overall staffing numbers will be increased from 30 to around 100.
The existing Otter Nurseries Garden Centre access provides access/egress to a small car park adjacent to Moles Lane via a priority junction. This access/egress point is currently just outside of a single cars width section of Moles Lane, making it difficult for drivers to see oncoming vehicles when using the junction.
As well as meeting the design requirements in terms of capacity and safety, the design rationale for the new vehicle access aims to create quality spaces and embraces the principles of the latest government design guidance “Manual for Streets (2007)”. The Highway Authority as part of a preliminary enquiry process recommended that Moles Lane should be widened. It is proposed to provide localised highway widening to increase visibility along Moles Lane and provide enough carriageway width for two-way traffic flow. The carriageway will need to be widened to six meters to accommodate the passing of HGV’s. This will be achieved by removing the existing hedge line and constructing a new edge of carriageway boundary approximately 3m into the development site.
It is proposed to provide vehicular access to the site along the northern boundary onto Moles Lane. This will be in the form of a priority T-junction.
Passage from the proposed main entrance to the proposed car park will utilise a one-way system. Road markings and directional arrows will help to route vehicles around the site. Areas of safe pedestrian zones will be incorporated within the design for ease of movement, allowing customers safe passage from their vehicles through to the main entrance without the need to walk along the main flow of vehicles.
Pedestrian crossings will be provided to give customers right of way at all times to allow safe routes with large trolleys to and from vehicles from the main garden centre entrance. It is noted the development will add fairly moderate amounts of traffic to the surrounding road network during normal peak hour periods (8:00 am -9:00am and 16:00 pm - 17:00pm). However, it is expected the site will impact on junctions in Torbay Council's jurisdiction during these peak times and Gallows Gate roundabout is shown to be operating over capacity. The impact of the development does appear to make it worse, albeit a small amount. It is recommended Torbay Council are consulted noting the Transport Assessment shows the Gallows Gate Roundabout operating over capacity (1.05RFC) with the development traffic added in the future year assessments.
The Highway Authority previously questioned what the rationale for the visibility splays at the proposed access are. Drawing 05658-HYD-XX-XX-DR-TP-0100 is submitted as a revised drawing and now shows visibility splays plotted, however there is still no indication of the visibility splay heights on the drawing. This needs to be shown and typical cross sections along the splay and road widening would be useful to see. It is recommended the Planning Authority requires from the applicant the height dimensions of the splays on the drawings plotted so the access is safe where a significant increase in use of the access is proposed. Also the road widening still needs to properly reflect a 6m carriageway widening to account for the large commercial expansion on the site. Previously the Highway Authority requested widening of Moles Lane on the western side of the site entrance as well as the eastern side of the entrance. It is noted delivery traffic will utilise the proposed main entrance and therefore not continue west along the existing narrow section of carriageway. Whilst it is felt this weakens the argument for road widening in this direction, the Highway Authoritys preference is still for the road to be widened in this direction since the proposals will still generate traffic from Kingskerswell and this route would be shortest for these residents to get to and from the site.
The road carriageway widening construction will need to be stepped in layer by layer (300 mm) and the road will need to receive a full width resurfaced surface course so no joints are left in the County Road. The revised drawings submitted still do not show full width resurfacing. The Highway Authority would be willing to accept a condition if the Planning Authority feels this is appropriate or a plan showing the resurfacing works should be submitted and form part of the planning approval.
The Highway Authority is happy with the level of proposed parking.
As the site is very close to the Torbay boundary Torbay Council have been consulted in their capacity as Highway Authority, they have commented as follows:
I note the representations made by DCC (13/07/17 &17 /01/18) as Highway Authority for the adjacent South Hams and Teignbridge areas. I concur with these. And would also like to see the Construction Management Plan.
I note the applicant intends to provide further sustainable transport measures were viable and whilst recognising that many of the majority of trips will be car borne, Policies TA1 and TA2 of the Torbay Local Plan would support pedestrian and cycling measures to the site, including a contribution towards footway provision for pedestrians on the southern side of Moles Lane. The LHA would also seek the provision of a Travel Plan for sustainable transport modal shift for the proposed (110) staff and customers (including cycle parking, an electrical car charging facility etc).
In terms of the significant growth site (Future Growth Area SS2.1 Policies Map Sheet 7) that has been allocated in the Torbay Local Plan and associated Masterplan at Torquay Gateway/Edginswell. (http://www.torbay.gov.uk/masterplans). You will note that this also has access points to Moles Lane. We therefore expect there to be a recognition of the development and acknowledgement of the capacity, safety and accessibility issues that may arise especially HGV /pedestrian conflict. It would be reasonable to expect some of the residents to walk to the nursery site and we therefore request that provision is made for a footway (An important factor to note is that there is a significant growth site (Future Growth Area SS2.1 Policies Map Sheet 7) that has been allocated in the Local Plan and Masterplanned. This is known as Torquay Gateway/Edginswell. Here is a link to the Masterplan - http://www.torbay.gov.uk/masterplans . You will note that this also has access points to Moles Lane. Whilst we do not expect the Otter Nurseries development to take any estimated/predicted development into account when modelling, we would expect there to be a recognition of the development and acknowledgement of where capacity, safety or accessibility issues may be resolved or created at a later date. It would be very reasonable to expect some of this development to walk to the nursery site). A footway on the southern side (approximately 100m long) from the Moles lane bridge. The estimated cost of provision is £18K to £20K.
Ideally the footway would be provided along the southern frontage to the Otter Nursery entrance.
The potential to provide a footpath linking the site to the Moles Lane bridge over the A380 road has been explored. At present the only footway in the vicinity is a short length of footway on either side of Moles Lane where it bridges the main A road below – it does not connect to any other footway so would serve no useful purpose at present. As previously stated it is anticipated that almost all visitors to this site will arrive by car because of the nature of the use and as such access by alternative forms of transport is not the priority it may be for other forms of development. The site is already in use as a garden centre. The growth plans for Torbay in the Edginswell area are noted however there is no certainty of delivery; if delivered the scheme itself it likely to generate sufficient value to fund appropriate pedestrian and cycle links to it.
Again this authority is required to only require Section 106 obligations where they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. The provision of the requested footway, which would not be useful in the short to medium term cannot be deemed to be necessary to make the development acceptable. As such it would be inappropriate to require the provision of the footway as suggested by Torbay Council.
Torbay Council have requested that if it is not possible to deliver the footway that the applicants be required to maintain land available at the front of their site where a footpath could be provided in future. For the same reasons it would not be reasonable for the Council to enforce this however the applicant has been made aware of the request.
DCC Highway Authority and Torbay Council have noted that the proposed development will increase traffic flows at the Gallows Gate junction which is already at capacity. A financial contribution is requested to be used towards a study to investigate the highway works required at Gallows Gate to mitigate the peak pm flows at this junction. It is suggested that this sum is calculated based on Torbay Planning Contributions and Affordable Housing SPD Policies SS6 and SS7. Additional traffic at the Gallows Gate junction will be a direct result of the proposed development and therefore seeking to mitigate the impact is reasonable and necessary and therefore is appropriate to be required through a Section 106 Obligation.
Highway impact and parking and access provision is considered to be acceptable subject to the Obligation mentioned above and planning conditions.
Flood Risk/Drainage
Concern has been raised from local residents, in particular those at Higher Compton Barton and Compton about flood risk, flooding is already experienced in the area.
The application has been assessed by the Lead Flood Authority (LFA) who raise no objection to the application subject to conditions.
The applicant has engaged with local residents on this issue and has agreed to investigate providing attenuation features on neighbouring land to improve existing flood risk problems for local residents. Whilst the LPA is supportive of the principle of these additional works this has not been required by the LFA so would not be a requirement of this planning permission.
Planning Balance
The development proposes the redevelopment of a brown field site for a larger, enhanced garden centre on an out of centre location within the countryside with no access to alternative forms of transport and with no safe pedestrian access. The location would not normally be considered to be sustainable, however the use as a garden centre is one which attracts car borne visitors.
The development will generate an additional 70 full time jobs, providing approx. 100 in total and is likely to have spin-off economic benefits within the local area. The development is likely to result in an enhancement of the visual amenity of the area and to biodiversity. Localised problems of overspill on-street parking will be resolved. The development also has the potential to improve flood risk issues in the local area.
It is considered that the benefits of the development outweigh the limited harm that may arise from the sites car dependent location and as such it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and Section 106 Obligations as set out in this report.
This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 with Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Planning Policy
Section 70 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that regard be had to the development plan, any local finance and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act requires that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The relevant development plan policies are set out below:
South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment CS10 Nature Conservation CS11 Climate Change
Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP4 Sustainable Construction DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP15 Development in the Countryside
Emerging Joint Local Plan
The Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (the JLP) will replace the above as the statutory development plan once it is formally adopted.
Annex 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides guidance on determining the weight in relation to existing and emerging development plan policies.
For current development plan documents, due weight should be given to relevant policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). For the JLP, which is an emerging development plan, the weight is to be determined by the stage of its preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections, and its degree of consistency with the Framework. The JLP is at a relatively advanced stage of preparation. The precise weight to be given to policies within the JLP will need to be determined on a case by case basis, having regard to all of the material considerations as set out on the analysis above.
PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017) SPT1 Delivering sustainable development SPT4 Provision for employment floorspace SPT5 Provision for retail development SPT6 Spatial provision of retail and main town centre uses SPT9 Strategic principles for transport planning and strategy SPT10 Balanced transport strategy for growth and healthy and sustainable communities SPT11 Strategic approach to the natural environment SPT12 Strategic infrastructure measures to deliver the spatial strategy TTV1 Prioritising growth through a hierarchy of sustainable settlements TTV2 Delivering sustainable development in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area TTV31 Development in the Countryside DEV1 Protecting amenity and the environment DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise and land DEV14 Maintaining a flexible mix of employment sites DEV15 Supporting the rural economy DEV16 Providing retail and town centre uses in appropriate locations DEV17 Promoting competitive town centres DEV18 Protecting local shops and services DEV19 Provisions for local employment and skills DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment DEV21 Conserving the historic environment DEV22 Development affecting the historic environment DEV24 Landscape character DEV28 Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation DEV30 Trees, woodlands and hedgerows DEV31 Specific provisions relating to transport DEV33 Waste management DEV34 Delivering low carbon development DEV35 Renewable and low carbon energy (including heat) DEV37 Managing flood risk and Water Quality Impacts DEL1 Approach to development delivery and viability, planning obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy
Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report.
Planning Conditions In Full
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby approved shall in all respects accord strictly with drawing Numbers xxxxxxxxx
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which this approval relates. 3. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a programme of percolation tests has been carried out in accordance with BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design (2016), and the results approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. A representative number of tests should be conducted to provide adequate coverage of the site, with particular focus placed on the locations and depths of the proposed infiltration devices.
Reason: To ensure that surface water from the development is discharged as high up the drainage hierarchy as is feasible.
4. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system will be informed by the programme of approved BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design (2016) percolation tests and in accordance with the principles set out in the Flood Risk Assessment Report and Surface Water Drainage Strategy (Ref. 001-B; Rev. B; dated 18th December 2017).
Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is discharged as high up the drainage hierarchy as is feasible, and is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems.
Advice: Refer to Devon County Council’s Sustainable Drainage Guidance.
5. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for the full period of its construction has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system must satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site.
Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area.
Advice: Refer to Devon County Council’s Sustainable Drainage Guidance.
6. The proposed road widening on Moles Lane shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before their construction begins, For this purpose, plans and sections indicating, as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be complete prior to occupation of any of the buildings
REASON: To ensure that adequate information is available for the proper consideration of the detailed proposals.
7. Prior to commencement of any part of the site the Planning Authority shall have received and approved a Construction Management Plan (CMP) including:
(a) the timetable of the works; (b) daily hours of construction; (c) any road closure; (d) hours during which delivery and construction traffic will travel to and from the site, with such vehicular movements being restricted to between 8:00am and 6pm Mondays to Fridays inc.; 9.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays, and no such vehicular movements taking place on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays unless agreed by the planning Authority in advance; (e) the number and sizes of vehicles visiting the site in connection with the development and the frequency of their visits; (f) the compound/location where all building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste will be stored during the demolition and construction phases; (g) areas on-site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will load or unload building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery vehicles will park on the County highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by the Local Planning Authority; (h) hours during which no construction traffic will be present at the site; (i) the means of enclosure of the site during construction works; and (j) details of proposals to promote car sharing amongst construction staff in order to limit construction staff vehicles parking off-site (k) details of wheel washing facilities and obligations (l) The proposed route of all construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes. (m) Details of the amount and location of construction worker parking. (n) Photographic evidence of the condition of adjacent public highway prior to commencement of any work; (o) details of noise impacts and controls (p) dust impact assessment and proposed control in accordance with Air Quality Management guidance for dust assessment from construction sites.
REASON: To minimise the impact of the development on the environment and highway network and in the interests of residential amenity.
8. The new garden centre building hereby approved shall not be occupied until the off-site highway works as shown on drawing no. **** have been constructed and made available for use.
REASON: In the interests of the safety and convenience of users of the highway.
9. Prior to the commencement of development, the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. That scheme shall include all of the following elements unless specifically excluded, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.
1. A preliminary risk assessment/desk study identifying: All previous uses Potential contaminants associated with those uses A conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors Potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site
2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for an assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.
3. The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these agreed elements require the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: The contamination report submitted with the application states there is a potential risk of ground gas associated with made ground on site that needs further investigation. The condition covers the full range of measures that may be needed depending on the level of risk at the site. If the LPA is satisfied with the information submitted with the application they can decide to delete any of elements 1 to 4 no longer required. The LPA may still decide to use the whole condition as this would allow them to declare the information no longer satisfactory and require more or better quality information if any problems are encountered in future.
10. Prior to occupation of any part of the permitted development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include, where relevant, a plan (a “long-term monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action and for the reporting of this to the local planning authority.
Reason: Without this condition, the proposed development on the site may pose an unacceptable risk to the environment. This is listed as a separate condition as it gives the LPA the option to choose a later control point: i.e. prior to occupation, rather than commencement of the development for the main phase of the remedial works.
11. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an investigation and risk assessment and, where necessary, a remediation strategy and verification plan detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation strategy and verification plan and prior to occupation of any part of the permitted development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority.
Reason: No site investigation can completely characterise a site. This condition is required to ensure that any unexpected contamination that is uncovered during remediation or other site works is dealt with appropriately.
12. Deliveries to the site shall only take place between the hours of 07.00 and 22.00 hours on any day of the week.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity
13. Prior to development continuing above slab level of the main retail building hereby approved, full details of any ventilation and extraction systems proposed for the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include a noise impact assessment in accordance with BS4142:2014 and demonstrate compliance with the DEFRA guidance on minimising odour from Kitchen Extraction systems. This scheme once approved shall be implemented and maintained in perpetuity. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity
14. Prior to development continuing above slab level of the main retail building hereby approved full details of proposed electric vehicle charging points to be provided shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include the location, number and power rating of the charging points. This shall accord with good practice guidance on mitigating air quality impacts from developments produced by the Institute of Air Quality Management.
Reason: In the interests of air quality.
15. Prior to development continuing above slab level of the main retail building hereby approved a Travel Plan setting out measures to reduce reliance on use of the private car shall be prepared and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority. The approved Travel plan shall be adhered to during the lifetime of the development, including monitoring of the plan. Monitoring records shall be made available for inspection by the Local Planning Authority on request for a period of time of a minimum of the preceding 12 months of the request and shall be provided within 10 working days of such a request being made to the site operator.
Reason: To minimise the use of the private car in the interests of air quality and the safety and convenience of users of the highway
16. Notwithstanding any details indicated within the application, prior to development continuing above slab level full details, including samples, of the materials to be used in the external elevations and roofs and including details of doors, windows and rainwater goods, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall take place in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity
17. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use until the parking facilities, including parking and electrical charging facilities and turning area(s) have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. The approved parking and turning areas shall be maintained and retained for that purpose at all times.
Reason: To ensure that adequate facilities are available for the traffic attracted to the site and in the interests of the safety and convenience of users of the highway.
18. Prior to the commencement of development full details of hard and soft landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include:
(i) location, species and spread of all trees, shrubs, hedges, hard landscaping, boundary treatments existing on the site, distinguishing those proposed to be removed and those to be retained;
(ii) a landscaping scheme showing ground moulding, screen banks, hedgebanks, trees, shrubs, and hedges, including proposals for protection and maintenance of the landscaping;
(iii) details of materials to be used for hard landscaping and the provision of samples if requested by the LPA;
(iv) detailed landscape cross sections through the site; (v) details of tree pits.
The scheme submitted shall be fully implemented in the planting season following the substantial completion of the development and the plants shall be protected, maintained and replaced as necessary to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for a minimum period of five years following the date of the completion of the planting.
Reason: To protect and enhance the visual amenities of the site and locality.
19. Development shall take place in accordance with the recommendations set out in Aspect Tree Consultancy Tree Survey dated 1.11.16 and Tree Protection and planting implementation plan, drawing no 04770 TPP.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and biodiversity
20. Prior to development continuing above slab level of the main retail building hereby approved full details of all boundary treatments and any retaining walls shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall take place in accordance with the approved details and shall be maintained and retained in perpetuity.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
21. Prior to its installation full detail of all external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall take place in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of amenity.
22. 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 guidance in paragraph 3.69 for South Hams Development Policy DP6 and paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development.'
23. Development shall take place in accordance with the recommendations set out in Section 6 of the Wildlife/Habitat Survey by Butler Ecology dated 3 June 2015.
Reason: In the interests of biodiversity
24. Prior to the commencement of development full details of finished floor levels, levels within the parking and turning areas and levels of roads shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority. Development shall take place in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interest of amenity
25. The net sales area of the retail (Class A1) floorspace (excluding outdoor sales areas) hereby permitted shall not exceed 2,218sq m and shall be used for Class A1 (retailing) and for no other purpose within the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification. The Class A1 retail floorspace hereby approved shall be restricted to the sale of the following retail goods: Schedule one – retailing area for products associated with gardening a) Plants, trees and shrubs of all types b) Fresh, dried and artificial flowers c) Plant care products and associated goods d) Floral art, flower arrangements and accessories e) Seeds, bulbs, corms, tubers f) Propagation, sundries, garden tidy and general related products g) Growing media, peat, mulch, compost, barks, grits, gravel h) Top soil i) Turf j) Fertilisers, chemicals, and plant food k) Lawn seed, lawn care and turf l) Garden tools and equipment m) Plant containers, vases, pot covers, ceramics, terracotta, stone plastic and other material n) Garden play frames, slides, swings and large play items play houses, children’s pools, gardening toys o) Garden ornaments, statues and garden décor p) Basketware, caneware q) Garden and outdoor clothing and footwear r) Barbecues, fuel and accessories s) Furniture for garden, patio and conservatories, picnic ware, table ware t) Garden machinery for sale or hire, repairs, servicing u) Greenhouses, conservatories, garden buildings and sheds v) Construction materials, landscaping materials, equipment for construction, patio materials, walling, pergolas w) Fencing, trellis x) Products used to construct and maintain gardens, garden DIY y) Landscape design and garden services z) Swimming and sauna pool, pool care and associated goods aa) Heaters for greenhouses, conservatories and fuels bb) Garden lighting and associated products cc) Watering systems and associated products dd) Aquatic gardens, garden pools, water gardening, decking, fountains, pumps, accessories ee) Garden wildlife products including bird seed and feeders ff) Catering to garden centre customers gg) Garden related media including books, visual and audio hh) Displays and exhibits related to products within this schedule
Schedule two – other garden centre products (to be sold from no more than 100sq m of the net sales area) a) Stationary, cards, gift wrap b) Pictures, frames, kitchen ware, glass/china/brass/copper ornaments c) Arts, crafts, hobbies, toys and games d) Garden and outdoor clothes and footwear e) Media including books, visual and audio f) Aquatic and pet livestock, accessories, food and associated products
Schedule three – food and drink (to be sold from no more than 200sq m of the net sales area) a) Confectionary, delicatessen Schedule four – Christmas
a) Christmas trees, Christmas decorations, cards, wrapping, candles, pictures, frames, glass/china/brass/copper ornaments, media
Reason: To protect the vitality and viability of town centres within the catchment area.
26. The Class A retail floorspace hereby approved and shown on approved plan XXXXXX shall only be occupied as a single retail unit and shall not be sub-divided horizontally or vertically to create additional separate premises”
Reason: To protect the vitality and viability of town centres within the catchment area.
27. Any retail use concessions provided within the Class A1 retail floorspace hereby approved shall only operate in conjunction with the remainder of the remainder of the Class A1 floorspace and should not benefit from their own separate customer access arrangements”.
Reason: To protect the vitality and viability of town centres within the catchment area.
28. The provision of any Class A3 café/restaurant floorspace within the Class A retail floorspace hereby approved shall not exceed 940sq m and shall only operate in conjunction with the remainder of the Class A1 floorspace and should not benefit from its own separate customer access arrangements”.
Reason: To protect the vitality and viability of town centres within the catchment area.
29. Following occupation of the Class A retail floorspace hereby approved, the existing nursery building shown on approved plan XXXX shall cease to be used for Class A retail purposes in perpetuity”
Reason: To protect the vitality and viability of town centres within the catchment area.
PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT
Case Officer: Lucy Hall Parish: Dartington Ward: Dartington and Staverton
Application No: 3631/17/OPA
Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Hopwood and Swallow Devon & Cornwall Farmers Ltd Pleases Passage Lower Woodland Farm High Street Woodland Totnes Ashburton Devon TQ13 7LN TQ9 5QN
Site Address: Beacon Park, Dartington, Totnes, Devon, TQ9 6DX
Development: Outline application for the erection of a mix of B1, B2 & B8 employment spaces, together with access, parking, landscaping and other associated works with an extended time to commence development
Reason item is being put before Committee: At the request of Cllr Hodgson who has a number of concerns with the scheme but in particular about road safety and impact on wildlife, in particular Greater Horseshoe bats. Recommendation: Delegate to CoP Lead Development Management, in conjunction with Chairman to conditionally grant planning permission, subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.
However, in the event that the Section 106 legal Agreement remains unsigned six months after this resolution, that the application is reviewed by the COP Lead Development Management, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, and if no progress is being made delegated authority is given to the CoP to refuse to application in the absence of an agreed S106 Agreement.
This application is being re-advertised for procedural reasons. This recommendation is made subject to no decision being issued until the end of the revised consultation period and subject to no new issues being raised as a consequence of the re-advertisement
Conditions
1. Time limit for submission of reserved matters (5 years after approval of outline) and Time limit for commencement (5 years or 2 years after approval of last reserved matter)
2. Development to be carried out in accordance with approved drawings 3. Reserved matters to include appearance, landscaping, layout and scale 4. Reserved Matters Application to include: - - Noise assessment in accordance with BS4142:2014 where an external plant affixed to buildings is proposed - Lighting plan (showing lux contours/isoclines) to demonstrate that the proposal will not exceed light levels of 0.5lux within the 20m southern habitat corridor. 5. Percolating testing 6. Details of proposed permanent surface water drainage management system 7. Groundwater monitoring programme to be undertaken over a period of 12 months 8. Details of the adoption and maintenance arrangements for the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system 9. Details of proposed surface water drainage management system to serve development site for the full period of its construction to be submitted. 10.Scheme to deal with the risks of contamination prior to the development of each phase 11.Verification report 12.Unsuspected land contamination 13.Bus stop scheme 14.Details of road infrastructure to be submitted 15.Works within vicinity of hedgerow restricted until LPA has copy of licence for Dormice 16.Site preparation or vegetation clearance restricted until LPA has copy of licence for Great Crested Newts 17.LEMP to be submitted detailing habitat maintenance measures 18.CEMP to be submitted detailing timings and work methodologies 19.Provision of electric charging points 20.Provision of a travel plan 21.Construction Management Plan 22.Full hard and soft landscaping details 23.Full tree protection measures 24.Arboricultural method statement 25.Full cut/fill soil volume calculations and details of removal of surplus spoil to a licenced disposal facility 26.lighting scheme and lighting unit details 27.Use restricted to B1, B2 and B8 28.No lorries to be delivered or despatched from site between 23.00 and 07.00 29.No refrigeration units to operate on lorries between 23.00 and 07.00
Section 106 Requirements: - Applicant shall use best endeavours to designate the Dorridge Lane as a Quiet lane. £5000.00 towards the provision of a Quiet Lane Traffic Regulation Order which shall be paid prior to the commencement of development. Details of Quiet Lane traffic signing to also be agreed as part of the Planning Obligation.
Site Description: The site is located at Beacon Park which is situated off the A385 to the south, around 0.5KM to the west of the eastern edge of Dartington. Beacon Park is an existing light industrial park which comprises a mix of employment and A1 retail uses within converted and extended agricultural buildings.
The application comprises around 4.5 hectares of open grassland, separated by hedges to the east of Beacon Park. The site slopes gently from the A385 to the north, to a stream which forms the southern boundary.
The Proposal: The application seeks outline planning consent to extend Beacon Park into the open grassland to the east. The proposal comprises a mixed employment development comprising a mix of B1, B2 and B8 together with the provision of a new access, parking, landscaping and all other associated work. The submitted design and access statement lists matters which are not reserved and includes: - - Blocking up of existing access, new access and internal distribution road; - Provision of engineering works to form non-structural plateaus to accommodate new workspace; - Provision of services to support employment provision; - Details of phasing of development; - Design code for buildings; - Provision of southern ecology corridor.
Matters concerning appearance of building, layout, scale and landscaping are reserved.
An illustrative site masterplan has been provided to show how development might come forward. The plan show development concentrated to the north with drainage and landscaping to the south. Detailed plans have also been provided showing proposed B1, B2 and B8 units.
The submission includes the following documents: - - Design and Access Statement - Illustrative master plan - Detailed drawings of proposed Type 01 and Type 02 B2-B8 units & Type 01 B1units - Flood Risk Assessment and Proposed drainage strategy - Details of new access - Phasing plans - Highways and Traffic Statement - Ecology Surveys - Contamination reports - Work Demand Assessment, dated 2013
Consultations:
County Highways Authority objection but if minded to approve conditions suggested
Environmental Health no objection subject to conditions
Natural England no comments but refer to standing advice
Environment Agency comments awaited
Lead Local Flood Authority (DCC) no objection subject to conditions
Landscape no objection subject to conditions
Ecologist no objection subject to conditions
Harberton Parish Council resolved to make the following comments: -
Consider additional ecology reports are insufficient but any recommendations made by the Council’s Ecologist should be conditioned. Request the number of refrigerated lorries allowed within the site overnight is restricted.
Parish Council objection
Objection on the grounds the proposals constitute overdevelopment within a predominately rural area and concerns regarding flooding, increased traffic, inadequate pedestrian and public transport links and inadequate mitigation in respect to ecology.
Following the proposal for a Quiet Lane additional comments were received from Dartington Neighbourhood Plan & Parish Council. They maintain their objection but accept the site is suitable for mixed employment use advise if planning officers are minded to support the proposal the following things should be considered: - - Seek high quality business space which displays high quality natural landscaping, low density development and request that the industrial estate is served by fibre optic broadband technology. - Request a green travel plan to mitigate the effect of increased traffic throughout the village and request an ‘all weather’ pedestrian and cycle link into the village from the site is provided as part of the scheme. - Extension of the habitat corridor proposed in the application and increased landscaped areas.
Supplementary information has also been provided which supports the provision of Quiet Lanes throughout Dartington.
Representations: The Council has received a number of letters of third party representation with respect to the proposal. Letters of objection and support can be summarised as follows: - Approximately 19 letters of objection have been received raising issues which include the following: - Unsustainable development with inadequate public transport and no safe pedestrian access - Unacceptable increase in traffic throughout Dartington - Designating Wrenford Lane as a ‘Quiet Lane’ will be ineffective and ‘rat running cannot be prevented. - Increased traffic will result in air and noise pollution - Increased light pollution within a ‘dark’ area - Undesirable urban sprawl and encroachment into the open countryside - Question the need for the development when industrial estates within neighbouring Totnes appears to have vacant units & the JLP includes a number ‘more appropriate’ of neighbouring allocations - Proposal is too dense and will result in an overdevelopment - Proposed drainage strategy risks contamination of the existing stream of exacerbate existing flooding - Proposed internal highways will have an adverse impact on ecology - Overall scale of Beacon Park exceeds that proposed in the emerging JLP - Inadequate information to show detrimental impacts on local environment - Inappropriate development within the countryside which conflicts with policies.
Comments received from ‘Dartington Neighbourhood Plan’s Economic Task Group’ - Overall consider site is suitable for mixed use employment but careful regard should be given to rural location, increased traffic generation, existing residents, flooding and possible future redevelopment of existing buildings. - Overall employment numbers in excess of 400 would put undue strain on the local infrastructure and community. - Insufficient parking provision which could create inappropriate ‘ad-hoc’ parking elsewhere within the village - Considerable increase in traffic using village ‘back lanes’ which reduces pedestrian movement and adversely affects air quality - Adverse impact on ecology from new internal roads - No safe pedestrian routes or formal bus stops - Existing broadband connections are inadequate
Approximately 12 letters of support have been received raising issues which include the following:
- Consider visual impact would be minimal - Existing development at Beacon Park has no negative impact on the landscape or water ways - Good connection with the A38, whilst avoiding Totnes - Consider Wrenford Bridge into Droridge Lane provides an appropriate route for pedestrians and cyclists - Good location for industrial development with limited impact on existing residents. - Expansion of Beacon Park will be beneficial for the local economy – bring jobs and encourage new businesses - Larger units will enable existing successful local businesses to grow - Illustrative masterplan shows a good scheme, units well-spaced with ample parking and green spaces, unlike existing ‘crammed’ neighbouring industrial estates - Support from existing business owners, who have outgrown existing premises and are currently unable to find existing suitable larger premises. - Comments from the owners of Beacon Park who note they currently have 8 prospective tenants hoping to locate at Beacon Park, all of which are successful businesses but currently cannot find any suitable premises within the Totnes/Dartington area. - Whilst plenty of existing units within the area to rent, currently lack of available units to buy - Comments from commercial property consultants who welcome the proposed development, noting a desperate shortage of suitable premises generally within South Devon which is resulting in businesses moving further afield
Relevant Planning History LA_Ref 14/2086/91/4: COU Change of use from Agricultural Education Proposal Centre to storage and distribution of products for use in agriculture SiteAddress Beacon Farm Dartington. Decision Conditional approval
LA_Ref 14/0853/96/3: FUL Replacement of store extension to office and Proposal extension to turning area SiteAddress Beacon Park Dartington. Decision Withdrawn: 17 Jun 96
LA_Ref 14/0671/94/3: FUL Extension to warehouse and screening to Proposal loading area SiteAddress Beacon Park Dartington. Decision Conditional approval: 13 Jun
LA_Ref 14/0886/92/3: FUL Proposal Extension for storage of agricultural products SiteAddress Beacon Farm Dartington. Decision Conditional approval: 14 Oct 92
LA_Ref 14/0592/92/3: FUL Proposal Alterations to access from highway SiteAddress Beacon Farm Dartington. Decision Conditional approval: 15 May 92
LA_Ref 14/0591/92/5: ADV Display of name on building and erection of Proposal entrance signs SiteAddress Beacon Farm Dartington. Decision Conditional approval: 27 May 92
LA_Ref 14/0593/92/3: FUL Proposal Alterations to external elevations Agricultural Merchants Depot Beacon Farm SiteAddress Dartington. Decision Conditional approval: 18 May 92
ANALYSIS
Principle of Development/Sustainability: The proposal is considered under the current adopted planning policies as set out within the Local Development Framework which includes the Core Strategy and Development Policies Development Plan Document. It is also considered against emerging policy as set out within the draft Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan. The JLP is at a relatively advanced stage and is currently being considered by the Planning Inspectorate.
Looking at current adopted planning policies, the site is not allocated and is located outside the development boundary for Dartington. As such the proposal constitutes development within the countryside where DP15 is applicable. This policy seeks to ensure only essential development takes place in rural areas. Those activities being agriculture, forestry and a use which “meets the essential, small scale, and exceptional local development needs of a settlement which cannot be met within development boundaries.” Having regard to the evidence base for the JLP it could be argued that the proposed development does meet a need which cannot be met within Dartington. Policy CS 13 allows for rural diversification, where it is compatible with its location and setting and will cause no harm to the surrounding landscape. Clearly the introduction of an industrial estate onto land which is currently pasture land will have an impact on the landscape, however it that use can be assimilated with a good amount of appropriate landscaping, and in light of the increasing amount of development to the east of the site, a case could be made that the development meets CS13.
With regard to the emerging JLP, the site is allocated under TTV29. The allocation is for employment uses B1b,c, B2 and B8. 11,300 sq metres is allocated and the allocation requires: a. Appropriate landscaping to address the prominence and scale of development. b. Appropriate flood risk mitigation measures. c. Improved pedestrian and cycle connectivity with the Dartington Estate and village centre.
Although the amount of weight attached to the emerging JLP is limited in its current state, the proposed allocation of the site for a mixed employment use is a material planning consideration which cannot be disregarded. The provision of employment sites is vital to the success of the South Hams economy. The Council’s evidence base for the JLP demonstrates that there is significant under provision of new employment within the district. This site is considered to be within a good location, on the edge of Dartington, adjacent to and existing employment site, and with good links to the A38 Devon Expressway. In principle the delivery of this scheme would go some way towards meeting the demand. There is also significant employment benefits.
Design/Landscape: The proposal has been assessed by the Council’s Landscape Specialist who notes that the site forms a proposed allocation in the emerging Joint Local Plan for Plymouth, South Hams and West Devon. As part of the evidence base for the local plan, the landscape impact of this site was assessed, which concluded that:
Strong boundary features including a high proportion of trees result in a highly vegetated character which is very characteristic of the area. Wider views towards the south are available which take in the site in a rural, countryside context. The existing employment uses here are notable, but sensitive to their landscape setting. The existing employment uses at this site sit well within the landscape, and an extension into the adjoining field could reasonably continue this sensitive approach without significant impacts on landscape character or views. If employment development were to be promoted at this site, retention of boundary vegetation would be critical to achieving this sensitive approach, and should be prioritised. Continuing the low-lying agricultural form of development, with muted materials, would also aid in reducing impacts, particularly in wider views from the south. Carefully designed highway infrastructure, retaining/replacing boundary hedgerows and avoiding the use of large engineered splays and kerbs would further help to minimise localised impacts on rural character.
As an outline application, the Council’s Landscape Specialist has not raised any principle issues on landscape grounds. The indicative landscape masterplan, tree constraints and tree protection plans are acceptable in principle, and the proposed development appears, in outline, to be able to be accommodated at the site without adversely affecting the landscape or arboricultural interests of the site.
However, concern is raised over the inconsistency in indicative design codes for the buildings, and the extent to which some of these may be considered as approved through this application. Although the application has come in on an “All Matters Reserved” application form, the submitted D&A Statement suggests that some matters are to be considered at this stage, to include Design Code for buildings. Whilst the D&A section on Design Code sets out a fairly standard rural industrial building with an appearance akin to an agricultural building (Slate grey composite roof panels, Olive green wall panels, roller shutter doors) which currently sits sensitively within the site, the set of unit drawings contained within the application (SK220-222, SK320,321, SK420-423 (NB there are two differing versions of SK423)) include various features that depart substantially from this agricultural character and would have far more significant landscape and visual impact. At present, the level of detail in these drawings is insufficient to allow proper consideration of the impacts of these building forms as we would for a full application, yet they appear to be seeking detailed approval of a number of unacceptable design principles.
- High level (second storey) fenestrations on the B2/B8 use buildings and roof lights extending above the roof profile are not characteristic features of a rural industrial use, and are unlikely to be supported in this countryside location unless they are internally facing. - A similar but more significant concern lies with the drawings for the B1 uses, which are large, monopitch predominantly glazed buildings; more akin to a city-centre office block than a rural business use. It is also not clear what “rainscreen cladding” is.This form of building would be visually prominent in the site, would not reflect the rural, agricultural character, and is unlikely to be supported as part of a Reserved Matters application.
It was requested that the drawing set be expressly excluded from the consent, and on this basis the Council’s Landscape Specialist did not raise any objections to the principle of a mixed employment use in this location subject to conditions. The agent has subsequently agreed that these drawings will not form part of any approval.
Neighbour Amenity: Officers are comfortable with the relationship between the proposed development and residential dwellings and note that whilst a number of concerns have been raised in respect to the proposal they do not specifically refer to loss of amenity. With the exception of a cluster of dwellings located on the opposite side of the A385 to the existing entrance to Beacon Park, the nearest dwellings are around 300m from the site. The Council’s Environmental Health Specialist has advised that he is comfortable with the proposal in respect to noise, given the location away from residential properties. However, should the detailed design include proposals to fix external plant to buildings, it is requested that a noise assessment (in accordance with BS4142:2014 is submitted. This will be reflected within the conditions.
Highways/Access: The proposal has attracted a number of objections with regards to highway matters and in particular the adverse effects of increased traffic within Dartington, inadequate public transport and lack of safe pedestrian routes from the site into the Dartington. The Highways Authority originally objected to the proposals on the grounds of lack of suitable safe pedestrian routes leading from the site to Dartington. Within their observations it is noted that the submitted Transport Assessment refers to the county lane which crosses Wrenford Bridge as an option for pedestrians. However, it was felt that this was not a satisfactory option due to the absence of street lighting and narrow and poorly aligned sections of the road which mean drivers would be unaware of approaching pedestrians. It was also felt that the alternative routes were considerable in length and pedestrians may opt to walk along the A385, which has no footways and is not considered safe for pedestrians.
Following a meeting between the Highways Authority, Planning Officers and the applicant’s agents, a proposal has been put forward to use best endeavours to designate the existing county lane which crosses Wrenford Bridge, as a Quiet Lane. The Highways Authority have subsequently provided revised comments in which they acknowledge that the site is now allocated within the emerging JLP. Whilst their objection in respect to pedestrian safety remains, they welcome the proposal to designate the lane as a Quiet Lane, noting that evidence suggests when such measures are implemented vehicle speeds can reduce. In the event that the application is approved they have requested monies, secured through a Planning Obligation, towards the provision of a Quiet Lane Traffic Regulation Order. Conditions regarding signage is also advised although planning officers consider that this should be included as part of the S106.
The Highways Authority also raised concerns within their original response with regards to the provision of existing bus stops, disputing the claims made within the Transport Assessment that the existing bus stops are formal. It was suggested that officers seek further information prior to determination such as a Section 278 bus stop layout plan which includes safe pedestrian routes from the site. Following discussions within the agents, the Highways Authority now accept that it might be possible for the applicant to investigate the installation of some formal bus stops on the A385 which might help to provide an alternative choice for site users who do not drive. A suitable condition which would help to secure this is recommended and will be included as part of any notice of approval.
The proposal also includes ‘blocking up’ the existing vehicular access onto the A385 and its replacement with a new access, just to the east of the existing. The Highways Authority have not raised any specific comments in respect to this element of the scheme but have suggested a condition which requires the details of new infrastructure including estate roadways, verge junctions, visibility splays and car parking etc., to be provided prior to construction.
Whilst the concerns raised by the Highway Authority in respect to pedestrian safety are noted and understood, when balanced against the benefits of providing much needed employment units within an otherwise good location on the edge of Dartington, it is not considered to be a reason for refusal. Having regard to the revised (draft) NPPF, while there is still a requirement to ensure new development provides safe and suitable access is achievable for all users, it is notable that it also recognises that to meet local business and community needs, sites may be located outside of existing settlements where it is difficult to achieve good public transport and pedestrian links. Paragraph 85 states: -
‘Planning policies and decisions should recognise that sites to meet local business and community needs in rural areas may have to be found outside existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport. In these circumstances it will be important to ensure that development is sensitive to its surroundings, does not have an unacceptable impact on local roads and exploits any opportunities to make a location more sustainable (for example by improving the scope for access on foot, by cycling or by public transport). The use of previously developed land and sites that are well-related to existing settlements should be encouraged where suitable opportunities exist.
Drainage: Devon County Council Lead Local Flood Authority specialist officers have considered the proposal in respect to the proposed drainage. An initial holding objection has subsequently been removed following the submission of additional information which now demonstrates that all aspects of the proposed surface water drainage management system have been considered. However, within their observations it is noted that the proposed soakaway draining Unit 14 is located within close proximity to TP13 which recorded groundwater at 1.80m below ground level. Groundwater will therefore need to be carefully considered within this location and this should be confirmed before the site layout is fixed. Further details of the exceedance routes, especially within the vicinity of Units 9 and 10 are required at the detailed design stage. A number of conditions are suggested which will be attached to any notice of approval.
Ecology: The proposal has been carefully reviewed by the Council’s Ecologist who has not raised any objections but recommends conditions.
An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken in 2013. After the initial survey a series of detailed protected species surveys were undertaken, and more recently (February 2018) a further verification report was undertaken to note any changes to the site since the date of the original surveys. The site comprises grassland fields of varying quality, a pond, hedgebanks, scrub, a stream to the south, and two small broadleaved woodland copses.
The 2018 verification report confirmed that habitats and conditions on site remain as described in the 2013 survey with the following minor changes: - The species-poor semi-improved grassland field in the east of the site has been subjected to agricultural improvement and management as opposed to previous grazing. This is a minor change, although the seasonal value for foraging GHS bats could be reduced due an absence of dung beetles associated with grazing. - Part of the north-western field has had its topsoil stripped. - A new building has been created on an area of previous hardstanding.
The key findings from the reports and as set out in the 2018 Ecological Mitigation Strategy (16/2078.04rev01), and in relation to the proposal are noted below: - Very low levels of slowworms were recorded (2) during a Reptile survey in 2016. The survey report includes a method statement to minimise impacts from site clearance on reptiles, and includes proposals for hibernacula and enhanced habitat for reptiles along the southern boundary of the site. - Dormice were confirmed present at the site during 2013 surveys with 3 nests recorded in the north-eastern corner of the site. There will be a loss of some hedgerow on site (95m), with some 565m being retained, and 270m of new hedgerow being created. There is also native tree planting proposed around the north of the site. - Since the initial ecology surveys were undertaken at the site, the site now falls within a mapped potential Cirl Bunting range (this comprising 2km winter foraging zones around recorded breeding locations). No detailed CB surveys have been undertaken as there is no suitable winter foraging habitat on site. The hedgerows and adjacent grassland may provide potential nesting and summer foraging habitat, although the habitat condition is not optimal; both the hedgerows and grassland have historically been regularly maintained at a short height. The proposal will maintain existing hedgerows and improve the quality of habitat within the site in terms of summer of potential summer forging and nesting habitat for CBs. - Since the initial ecology surveys were undertaken at the site, the site now falls within a Great Crested Newt consultation zone (the zones were extended from 2km around records of GCN to 5km). The pond was assessed as having average quality for GCN, being large and well-connected to good habitat, although there was limited emergent vegetation and elevated nutrient levels in the water. Subsequent eDNA testing has confirmed presence of GCN at the pond (confirmed by email from consultant ecologist on 10th May 2018), and further survey is underway to obtain a population size class as required for the subsequent EPSL application. - Greater horseshoe bats were recorded at the site, predominantly associated with the southern boundary and the pond. Activity was also recorded along the central hedgerow which links the northern and southern boundaries. The proposal would safeguard the foraging/commuting route along the southern boundary as a dark wildlife corridor, and ensure the eastern boundary can act as a north-south link in the absence of the central hedgerow. The habitat proposals for the site would ensure that the impacts on GHS would be minimal, with potential for improved foraging habitat onsite, and would not lead to a Likely Significant Effect on the South Hams SAC (alone or in-combination with other development). - The proposal has incorporated from the outset (i.e. designed in) a 20m wide ‘strategic habitat corridor’ alongside the southern boundary of the site, this area incorporating and buffering the areas with the highest biodiversity value (stream corridor, pond, marshy grassland and treeline, where the highest number of GHS passes were recorded). The corridor will include meadow and tussocky grassland, an attenuation pond, shrub and tree planting. The foraging value of the site would be improved for CBs and GHS, with improved habitat conditions for reptiles and amphibians. - There will be no building within 5m of this corridor, and light levels will not exceed 0.5 lux within this corridor (a condition will be applied requiring evidence that 0.5 lux will not be exceeded in this corridor at Reserved Matters). Windows will be omitted from the southern elevations of the southernmost buildings. There will also be a new native hedgebank along the corridor, with shrub and tree planting within.
The development as proposed would trigger Habitats Regulations offences with respect to dormice and GCN, accordingly European Protected Species Licences would be required for both species in order for the development to proceed lawfully. Where a Habitats Regulations offence is to be triggered, the LPA must consider whether the proposal meets the 3 derogation tests, and accordingly whether Natural England are likely to grant a EPSL.
Derogation tests in relation to dormice. Imperative reasons of overriding public interest There is significant under provision of employment sites within the district and therefore significant demand for new sites. The provision of employment sites is vital to the south hams economy. Though it has not been adopted, and therefore carries limited weight, the site is allocated for employment development within the emerging JLP. It has been considered by the Council as a good site for employment development, next to an existing employment site, within close proximity to Dartington and close the A38 Devon Expressway.
No Satisfactory Alternative The loss of the hedgerow is unfortunate but its retention would potentially render the development unviable. The proposal includes the removal of a small section of hedgerow within the north eastern corner of the site which will provide an access point for cyclists and pedestrians onto Doridge Lane. This offers a safer route into Dartington, compared with going along the main, busy A385. In terms of highway safety it is imperative that there is an easy access point from the site onto this lane. The proposal also includes the removal of a section of hedgerow which runs north south and is located fairly centrally within the site. To retain this hedgerow would significantly restrict the amount of development on the site, and in all likelihood render the scheme unviable.
Maintenance of Favourable Conservation Status The ecologist has outlined precautionary working methods and compensatory provisions (timing/method of hedgerow removal, creation of 270m of new hedgerow, new native tree planting, nest boxes, limiting lighting) which would maintain the favourable conservation status of the dormice. This test is considered met.
Derogation tests in relation to greater crested newts
Imperative reasons of overriding public interest There is significant demand for new employment sites within the South Hams District. The delivery of this site would go some way towards meeting the current under provision with significant employment benefits. The site is allocated for employment use within the emerging JLP. The site is considered to be within a good location, close to Dartington and the A38.
No Satisfactory Alternative If no site preparation including vegetation clearance was undertaken then the development of the site could not come forward. In this respect it is considered that there is no alternative option than what is being proposed.
Maintenance of Favourable Conservation Status The ecologist has advised that whilst the breeding pond will remain undisturbed, construction would include site preparation and vegetation clearance works (albeit of habitat of limited quality). The approach would include fencing the development site and translocating any GCN to the retained and enhanced southern wildlife corridor. Any areas requiring excavation, such as the SUDS pond would be fenced off temporarily whilst the habitats are created. The ecologist has outlined the translocation methodology which would be fully detailed within a subsequent EPSL application to Natural England. The existing pond and adjacent terrestrial habitat would remain undisturbed and act as a receptor site for any GCN found elsewhere on the site. Subsequently the southern wildlife corridor would provide enhanced habitat quality and connectivity for GCN, with additional breeding habitat. The Favourable Conservation Status of the local population of GCN would be maintained, and this 3rd test is considered met.
Other matters: There are a several Grade II listed buildings within 300 metres of the site; Doridge to the east and Yarner Farm and Yarner Barn to the north east. The case officer have verbally discussed the relationship between the site and the heritage assets with the Council’s Heritage Specialist who has advised that the visual separation between the two is sufficient and the development would not cause harm to the buildings themselves or their setting.
The Council’s Environmental Health Officer considers that there could be a potential for land contamination but the risk associated depends on the phase of the development, noting that there is a risk within one phase from suspected landfill. Appropriate conditions are recommended which will be attached to any notice of approval.
Having regard to air quality and the scale of the development, the Council’s Environmental Health Specialist has requested the installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Points as well as facilities such as bike racks to encourage and support a more sustainable means of accessing the site. An appropriate condition is recommended.
Flooding – The Environment Agency originally objected to the proposal on the grounds insufficient information had been provided to demonstrate the proposed development would be safe from flooding over its lifetime. It was recommended that a Flood Risk Assessment be submitted. This was provided but an objection is maintained because further information is required. Additional information has now been provided by the agent and is with the EA for review. Any recommendation of approval for the proposal is based on the Environment Agency withdrawing their objection.
Conclusions There is a significant need for new employment sites within the district and the proposal would go some way towards addressing this shortfall. The site is located within the countryside and is not allocated within the existing adopted development plan although it could be argued that the principle of the development broadly complies with its policies by - providing essential development which cannot be accommodated within the existing development boundary. The site is allocated within the emerging JLP which is clearly a materially planning consideration even though the weight attached to the allocated is limited until the JLP is adopted.
Having given regard to a range of material planning considerations, officers are satisfied that the proposed development can be accommodated without significant harm arising, and where necessary mitigated with planning conditions. The Highway Authority’s objections regarding pedestrian access to Dartington from the site are noted, however, within the planning balance, given the need for the development and the fact that in all other respects this is a good site, it was not considered that this alone was sufficient to warrant a recommendation of refusal for the scheme. The applicant has agreed to use best endeavours to try and designate Dorridge Lane as a ‘Quiet Lane’ suitable for use by pedestrians and cyclists. The Highway Authority have acknowledged that when used successfully Quiet Lanes can reduce the flow of traffic. This would offer an alternative and safer route into Dartington compared with using the A385. Conditions regarding a green travel plan and bus routes into Dartington and beyond are recommended. The Environment Agency have raised a holding objection. The officer recommendation of conditional approval is based on the removal of this objection.
This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and, with Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Planning Policy
Section 70 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that regard be had to the development plan, any local finance and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act requires that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The relevant development plan policies are set out below:
South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development CS3 Employment land provision CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment CS10 Nature Conservation CS11 Climate Change CS13 Rural Diversification
Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP4 Sustainable Construction DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP15 Development in the Countryside DP16 Conversion and Reuse of Existing Buildings in the Countryside DP17 Residential Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside
Emerging Joint Local Plan
The Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (the JLP) will replace the above as the statutory development plan once it is formally adopted.
Annex 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides guidance on determining the weight in relation to existing and emerging development plan policies.
For current development plan documents, due weight should be given to relevant policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). For the JLP, which is an emerging development plan, the weight is to be determined by the stage of its preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections, and its degree of consistency with the Framework.
The JLP is at a relatively advanced stage of preparation. The precise weight to be given to policies within the JLP will need to be determined on a case by case basis, having regard to all of the material considerations as set out on the analysis above.
PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017) SPT1 Delivering sustainable development SPT2 Sustainable linked neighbourhoods and sustainable rural communities SPT4 Provision for employment floorspace SPT7 Working with neighbouring areas SPT8 Strategic connectivity SPT9 Strategic principles for transport planning and strategy SPT10 Balanced transport strategy for growth and healthy and sustainable communities SPT11 Strategic approach to the natural environment SPT12 Strategic infrastructure measures to deliver the spatial strategy SPT13 European Protected Sites – mitigation of recreational impacts from development TTV1 Prioritising growth through a hierarchy of sustainable settlements TTV2 Delivering sustainable development in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area TTV29 Site allocations in the Smaller Towns and Key Villages TTV30 Empowering local residents to create strong and sustainable communities TTV31 Development in the Countryside DEV1 Protecting amenity and the environment DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise and land DEV10 Delivering high quality housing DEV14 Maintaining a flexible mix of employment sites DEV15 Supporting the rural economy DEV19 Provisions for local employment and skills DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment DEV21 Conserving the historic environment DEV22 Development affecting the historic environment DEV24 Landscape character DEV28 Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation DEV30 Trees, woodlands and hedgerows DEV31 Specific provisions relating to transport DEV34 Delivering low carbon development DEV35 Renewable and low carbon energy (including heat) DEV36 Community energy DEV37 Managing flood risk and Water Quality Impacts DEV38 Coastal Change Management Areas
Dartington Neighbourhood Plan – Regulation 7, Date of NP Area Designation agreed on 05/06/14
Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report. Proposed Conditions
1. In the case of any matter reserved by this permission, application for approval of any reserved matter must be made not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of grant of outline planning permission.
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:
(i) the expiration of five years from the date of the grant of outline planning permission; or if later
(ii) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby approved shall in all respects accord strictly with drawing numbers 172012 100 (site location plan), Phasing Plan 1 of 2 and 2 of 2 (only the phasing of development is hereby approved and not the buildings which show and indicative layout), Highways Long Sections drawing numbers 080 Rev P2, 081 Rev P2, 082 Rev P2, 083 Rev P2, 085 Rev P2 (only the highway information is approved and the outline of the buildings is indicative, shown for illustrative purposes only) General Arrangement and Layout (only the highway information is approved and the outline of the buildings is indicative, shown for illustrative purposes only)
Reason: To ensure the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which this approval relates.
3. Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to obtain adequate information for consideration of the ultimate proposal.
4. The details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority as part of the reserved matters shall include: - details of proposed ground levels, - proposed finished floor levels - building height - Noise assessment in accordance with BS4142:2014 where an external plant affixed to buildings is proposed. - Lighting plan (showing lux contours/isoclines) to demonstrate that the proposal will not exceed light levels of 0.5lux within the 20m southern habitat corridor.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to obtain necessary information for consideration of the ultimate proposal.
5. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a programme of percolation tests has been carried out in accordance with BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design (2016), and the results approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. A representative number of tests should be conducted to provide adequate coverage of the site, with particular focus placed on the locations and depths of the proposed infiltration devices.
Reason: To ensure that surface water from the development is discharged as high up the drainage hierarchy as is feasible.
6. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed permanent surface water drainage management system has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. The design of this permanent surface water drainage management system will be informed by the programme of approved BRE Digest 365 Soakaway Design (2016) percolation tests and in accordance with the principles set out in the Flood Risk Assessment (Ref. 1007w0006), Drainage Design Report (Storm Network 1; dated 4th January 2018), Drainage Design Report (Storm Network; dated 4th January 2018), SuDS Maintenance Regime (Ref. 1007w0011) and Proposed Drainage Strategy (drawing No. 50; Rev. P3; dated 4th January 2018).
Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the development is discharged as high up the drainage hierarchy as is feasible, and is managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems.
Advice – refer to Devon County Council’s Sustainable Drainage Guidance.
7. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the full results of a groundwater monitoring programme, undertaken over a period of 12 months, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This monitoring should be conducted to provide adequate coverage of the site, with particular focus placed on the locations and depths of the proposed infiltration devices.
Reason: To ensure that the use of infiltration devices on the site is an appropriate means of surface water drainage management.
8. 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.
9. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the detailed design of the proposed surface water drainage management system which will serve the development site for the full period of its construction has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Devon County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system must satisfactorily address both the rates and volumes, and quality, of the surface water runoff from the construction site.
Reason: To ensure that surface water runoff from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area.
Advice: Refer to Devon County Council’s Sustainable Drainage Guidance.
10. Prior to commencement of each phase of development (as set out in the Phasing Plan), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. That scheme shall include all of the following elements unless specifically excluded, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.
1. A preliminary risk assessment/desk study identifying: All previous uses Potential contaminants associated with those uses A conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors Potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site
2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for an assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.
3. The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these agreed elements require the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: The Geo-technical and Geo-Environmental Assessment has stated that there is a risk of a previously unidentified landfill site in area 2 that requires further investigation. The condition covers the full range of measures that may be needed depending on the level of risk at the site and within each phase of development. If the LPA is satisfied with the information submitted with the application they can decide to delete any of elements 1 to 4 no longer required, therefore an investigation schedule for the site would be beneficial when discharging this condition for each phase. The LPA may still decide to use the whole condition as this would allow them to declare the information no longer satisfactory and require more or better quality information if any problems are encountered in future.
11. Prior to occupation of any phase of the permitted development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy for that phase and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include, where relevant, a plan (a “long-term monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action and for the reporting of this to the local planning authority.
Reason: Without this condition, the proposed development on the site may pose an unacceptable risk to the environment. This is listed as a separate condition as it gives the LPA the option to choose a later control point: i.e. prior to occupation, rather than commencement of the development for the main phase of the remedial works.
12. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an amended investigation and risk assessment and, where necessary, an amended remediation strategy and verification plan detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation strategy and verification plan and prior to occupation of any part of the permitted development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority.
Reason: No site investigation can completely characterise a site. This condition is required to ensure that any unexpected contamination that is uncovered during remediation or other site works is dealt with appropriately.
Note – this condition can be used in addition to the universal condition, or on sites where no contamination is known or suspected.
13. Prior to occupation of any of the buildings a bus stop scheme for the installation of bus stops on the A385 shall be agreed by the Planning Authority and the Highway Authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented fully in accordance with the details agreed prior to occupation of the development and thereafter retained in perpetuity.
Reason - In the interests of highway safety. 14. The proposed estate road, cycleways, footways, footpaths, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, road maintenance/vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, car parking and street furniture shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before their construction begins, For this purpose, plans and sections indicating, as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that adequate information is available for the proper consideration of the detailed proposals.
15. No works to or in the vicinity of the existing hedgerow shall commence until the LPA has been provided with a copy of the licence for Dormice issued by Natural England pursuant to Regulation 55 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 authorising the works to go ahead.
Reason: To safeguard the welfare of protected species of wildlife, in the interests of the amenity of the area and the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 and the 1981 Wildlife and Country Act (as amended).
16. No site preparation or vegetation clearance works should commence until the LPA has been provided with a copy of the licence for Great Crested Newts issued by Natural England pursuant to Regulation 55 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 authorising the works to go ahead.
Reason: To safeguard the welfare of protected species of wildlife, in the interests of the amenity of the area and the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 and the 1981 Wildlife and Country Act (as amended).
17. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the Ecological Impact Assessments and shall not begin until details of a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) for the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The LEMP shall include details of management and maintenance of existing and new habitat features of the site, reflecting recommendations of ecology and landscape reports (and in a manner which benefit Greater Horseshoe Bats reflecting measures detailed in section 5.3.2 of the DWC Greater Horseshoe Bat survey report). The LEMP will include clear enhancement, avoidance and compensation measures showing how impacts on wildlife will be avoided/minimised and how a net gain for biodiversity at the site will be achieved.
Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and environmental protection.
18. Prior to the commencement of development a Construction and Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. It shall include details of timings and working methodologies to minimise potential for impact on protected species and measures to avoid illumination impacts, reflecting measures in section 5.2.2 of the DWC Greater Horseshoe Bat survey report.
Reason: In the interests of ecology.
19. Prior to the first occupation of the development, an Electric Vehicle Charging Point network for the site shall be installed in accordance with the standards set out below:
Industrial, <50 Parking At least two parking bays should Business Bays be marked out for use by estates electric vehicles only, together and other with a standard* charging point commercial and cabling. premises. > 50 Parking The above plus further dedicated Bays bays totalling 4% of the total provision, including standard* charging points and cabling
*Reference to standard charging points shall refer to the latest guidance on workplace chargepoint scheme guidance from the Office of Low Emission Vehicles. Similarly installation standards shall also be taken from these guidance documents. The installation shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: In the interests of air quality.
20. Development shall not be commenced until a Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
No part of the development shall be occupied prior to implementation of the Approved Travel Plan [or implementation of those parts identified in the Approved Travel Plan as capable of being implemented prior to occupation]. Those parts of the Approved Travel Plan that are identified therein as being capable of implementation after occupation shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable contained therein and shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is occupied.
The records of implementation shall be made available to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to reduce or mitigate the impacts of the development upon the local highway network and surrounding neighbourhood by reducing reliance on the private car for journeys to and from the approved development.
21. No development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CMP shall include details of: (a) the timetable of the works; (b) daily hours of construction; (c) any road closure; (d) hours during which delivery and construction traffic will travel to and from the site, with such vehicular movements being restricted to between 8.00am and 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays incl.; 9.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays, and no such vehicular movements taking place on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays; (e) the number and sizes of vehicles visiting the site in connection with the development and the frequency of their visits; (f) the compound/location where all building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste will be stored during the demolition and construction phases; (g) areas on-site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will load or unload building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery vehicles will park on the County highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by the Local Planning Authority; (h) hours during which no construction traffic will be present at the site; (i) the means of enclosure of the site during construction works; (j) details of proposals to promote car sharing amongst construction staff in order to limit construction staff vehicles parking off-site; (k) details of wheel washing facilities and obligations; (l) proposed route of all construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes; (m) details of the amount and location of construction worker parking; (n) photographic evidence of the condition of adjacent public highway prior to commencement of any work.
This approved CMP shall be strictly adhered to during the construction of the development hereby permitted, unless variation is approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity, public convenience and highway safety and preventing inconvenient obstruction and delays to public transport and service vehicles and to emergency vehicles.
22. No development shall take place until full details of a hard and soft Landscape Scheme have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Landscape Scheme shall be prepared by an appropriately qualified professional and shall include: - a concept statement explaining how the proposed landscape treatment, both hard and soft, responds to the landscape character of the area; - details of ground preparation prior to importation of topsoil, including decompaction of material and removal of any debris including plastic, wood, rock and stone greater in size than 50mm in any dimension; - arrangements for stripping, storage and re-use of top soil; - arrangements for importation of top soil, including volume, source, quality, depth and areas to be treated; - details of earthworks associated with the development, including volumes of cut and fill and arrangements for disposal of any excess excavated material or importation of material; - details, including design and materials, of any ancillary structures such as bin stores and signage; - details of lighting including function, location, design and intensity; - details of new ground profiles including retaining bunds and banks; - materials, heights and details of any fencing and other boundary treatments; - materials, heights, levels and extent of hard landscape treatment, including access points, tracks, roads and any hardstanding areas; - the location, number, species, density, form and size of proposed tree, hedge and shrub planting including new hedgerows; - the method of planting, establishment and protection of tree, hedge and shrub planting; - maintenance schedules for the establishment of new planting over a period of 15 years and its ongoing management; - a timetable for the implementation of all hard and soft landscape treatment
All elements of the Landscape Scheme shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. All work shall be completed in accordance with the timetable agreed in writing
Reason: In the interest of public amenity and the conservation and enhancement of the local landscape character and ecology.
23. No works or development shall take place, or any equipment, machinery or materials be brought onto the site for the purpose of development until the tree protection measures detailed within the arboricultural impact assessment report and shown on the accompanying Tree Protection Plan by Aspect Tree Consultancy been fully implemented.
Reason: In order to protect trees of public amenity value.
24. No development shall commence until an arboricultural method statement, developed in accordance with the arboricultural impact assessment report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to identify, and protect, trees of public amenity value.
25. Prior to the commencement of development full cut/fill soil volume calculations and details for the removal of surplus spoil which shall be disposed of at a licenced disposal facility shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: In the interest of public amenity and the conservation and enhancement of the local landscape character.
26. Prior to installation a lighting scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the number, position and lighting unit details. The development thereafter shall be carried out in strict accordance with the details agreed. No other external lighting is permitted at the site.
Reason: In the interest of public amenity and the conservation and enhancement of the local landscape character and ecology.
27.The development hereby approved shall only be used for business and general industrial purposes in accordance with Classes B1, B2 and B8 of The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), or in any provisions equivalent to those Classes in any Statutory Instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order.
Reason: To ensure the development, when completed is complementary to the area.
28. No Lorries shall be delivered to or dispatched from the site between the hours of 23.00 and 07.00.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
29. No refrigeration units shall operate on Lorries between the hours of 23.00 and 07.00.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
30.Prior to their installation details / samples of facing materials, and of roofing materials to be used in the construction of the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with those samples as approved.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT
Case Officer: Jacqueline Houslander Parish: East Portlemouth Ward: Stokenham
Application No: 3967/17/VAR
Agent/Applicant: Miss Catherine Middleditch The High Nature Centre East Portlemouth TQ8 8PN
Site Address: The High Nature Centre, East Portlemouth, TQ8 8PN
Development: Variation of condition number 3 following grant of planning permission 20/0785/12/F to allow the roundhouse to be granted permanent permission
Reason item is being put before Committee: In the Ward Member’s view, the recommendation does not take account of the social, economic and environmental benefits of the application which outweigh any negative visual impact. Recommendation: Refusal
Reasons for refusal:
1. The proposed variation of condition 3 would result in a permanent roundhouse structure in this isolated rural location, without any essential justification and would therefore be contrary to Policies CS01 of the Core Strategy; policies DP15 of the Development Policies’ DPD and emerging policy TTV31 in the draft Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan.
2. The variation of the condition would result in a permanent incongruous roundhouse being located in a highly sensitive South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast and undeveloped coast, harmful to the special qualities and character of the landscape and contrary to adopted Core Strategy policy CS9 (2 & 3), Development Policies DPD policy DP2 (1 a, b, d, e and 2) as well as the emerging Joint Local Plan Policies DEV 24, DEV25 and DEV27.
3. The variation of the condition would add a permanent building to an existing small campsite, where it has not been demonstrated that a large roundhouse is necessary, contrary to policy DP13 of the Development Policies DPD and criteria 7 of emerging policy DEV15 in the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan.
Key issues for consideration: AONB, landscape and tourism impact Tourism need Employment and business impact Social Sustainability Highway Impact Ecology Neighbour amenity
Site Description: The application site is located a kilometre east of East Portlemouth on the corner of the main road to the village and the turning south to Rickham. The land was previously used for a mixture of grazing and occasional horticulture. Planning consent was granted in 2012 for the use of the site for a Construction of roundhouse and siting of five yurts to be used in association with nature holiday enterprise. Provision of additional facilities for educational, recreational and business activities together with associated car parking and landscaping works
To the south and towards the coastal area there is a small caravan site with roads bounding the west and northern edge of the land. The land area amounts to just over 2 hectares (5 acres) and is moderately flat. Access to the land is via a well-established track from the main East Portlemouth road shared with farmers and Seacombe Bungalow.
The entire area is an exposed coastal part of the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
The Proposal:
The 2012 planning permission had attached to it a condition limiting the time that the site can be used for these purposes. It read: “The use hereby authorised shall cease not later than 10 years from the date of this permission. On cessation, the land shall be returned to agricultural purposes, the Roundhouse, yurts and all other structures except for the polytunnels shall be permanently removed from the land.
Reason: Permission is granted on the basis of the employment offer to local economic and social sustainability. The temporary period given will allow the Local Planning Authority to reassess the success and merit of the employment offer over the medium term when considering a permanent permission.”
The applicant is requesting a variation on the condition which provided for a 10 year temporary use of the roundhouse only. The variation seeks to allow a permanent consent for the roundhouse. The next stage of business development for the Centre is the construction of this building. The applicant states:
“I am not able to raise the capital to construct a building which meets the BREEAM standards of 'very good' (condition 18) unless the permission for it's use is permanent. No-body is willing to invest in a business with the looming risk that the building might be asked to be removed when the temporary planning runs out in 2022.”
The original proposal which was given planning permission in 2012 was to: utilise the existing polytunnels by changing their use to business purposes for small scale, local, sustainable commercial operations. 5 holiday yurts are proposed for the warmer parts of the year in the western field, with a composting toilet and 18 metre diameter roundhouse near the centre of the site made of a timber frame, straw bale walls, clay and lime render, green roof and rammed earth floor. Set one metre into the ground, the roundhouse would be 6 metres tall at its highest point. The yurts would be 3 metres tall with a diameter ranging from 4.8 metres to 6 metres. A series of associated works around the three principal elements would include a sustainable drainage system, ponds, parking bays, Devon bank work and access tracks.
In support of the current application, a document entitled “High Nature Centre Development – Evidence of economic and social benefits” has been submitted, which comprises a detailed history of the evolution of the High Nature Centre, with photographs, testimonials from people who have used the High Nature Centre and details of investments into the centre.
Plans have been submitted of the proposed roundhouse, which indicate: a round building measuring 6 metres high to the middle of the building; 19 metres across. Internally it has, a large central space for a variety of uses; storage areas; a café; a quiet zone; a kitchen; office; library /meeting room and a treatment room. The proposed building has a grass roof, with two windows (eyebrow dormer style) in the elevation which faces the sea and one in the elevation that faces the rest of the site. Other doors and windows are located around the building at ground floor level. The building is proposed to be sited within an area previously created with a low bund – approximately 0.3 -0.5 metres high.
Consultations:
County Highways Authority: No comments
Environmental Health Section: No comments
Town/Parish Council: Object Granting permission for the roundhouse would contradict the reason for the temporary permission for the whole site (c0ndition 9) with the particular concern of the Parish Council that condition 17 @the roundhouse and existing site office shall not be used for residential purposes or human habitation at any time. Reason: To prevent a residential unit being established in an unsustainable location and the avoidance of doubt might be breached. The Parish has ample experience that Condition 8 relating to noise pollution has been contravened on a number of occasions and there is concern that this could worsen with permanent permission Landscape/ AONB: This response is based upon an examination of the planning file and submitted plans, and site visits carried out in February and April 2018.
Landscape Character and Visual Impact The site lies within the South Devon AONB, South Devon Heritage Coast, and emerging Undeveloped Coast (previously Coastal Preservation Area) designations. On an open and elevated stretch of coast, the character of the landscape in this location typifies the Open Coastal Plateaux character type within which it sits:
Regular medium to large field pattern of arable cropping, with stone boundary walls and dense low hedges Limited woodland, particularly on higher ground immediately adjacent to the coast. Trees in field boundaries may be windswept due to the exposed conditions. Sparse settlement pattern, with isolated farms or large houses and several villages, often distinguished by their uniform appearance Long, panoramic views out to sea due giving a horizon of approximately 25km offshore and contributing to a sense of expansiveness Local vernacular building styles of whitewash, local stone and thatch
The extant temporary consent at this site afforded strict limitations on the duration and use of the site; in part because of the high sensitivity of this landscape, and the potential deterioration in character caused by the non-agricultural use of the land. On visiting the site, it is evident that the anticipated deterioration in character has occurred; although well-vegetated, the loss of the field pattern, creation of engineered banks, introduction of structures, fencing, play equipment and other more-typically residential paraphernalia has had a negative impact on an otherwise high quality rural landscape.
The site at ground level is generally well contained in the landscape, however the two larger buildings on the site (3m and 3.7m tall) are seen from the site entrance, the road to the north, and that to the west of the site. All the lanes in this location are well-frequented by walkers and are therefore highly sensitive to change. The proposed roundhouse extends to 6m high, and would be substantially taller than any building on the site. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the roundhouse would form a visible structure in the landscape; and one which not being an agricultural form, would further erode character in this area.
With a permanent non-agricultural structure in this location, the requirements of the existing consent to restore the land to its former condition on or before 16th November 2022 will be impossible in some areas of the site. The development would therefore result in a permanent erosion of character in this nationally protected landscape. Policy and Recommendation Planning policy at all levels gives great weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, seeks to protect the valued coastal landscape, and to conserve and enhance local landscape character. For the reasons set out above, I would consider that the permanent siting of the roundhouse would fail policy objectives of adopted Core Strategy policy CS9 (2 & 3), Development Policies DPD policy DP2 (1 a, b, d, e and 2). On this basis, I would raise an objection on landscape grounds to the application for the permanent siting of a non-agricultural building in this area.
If you, or members of the planning committee were minded to weigh against this objection in the planning balance, I would request that the use of the building is strictly controlled by condition, that the presence of the building on the site is strictly tied to its use by this particular business (in that it should be removed if the current owners no longer operate out of this site), and that a comprehensive landscape management plan for the site is conditioned to provide for the proper management of landscape features across the site on the basis that the current temporary use may become permanent. As this is a variation of condition application, please also ensure that all other conditions relating to the control of use of the land and buildings, and the removal of permitted development rights on the site are also carried forward from the previous consent.
I would reiterate however, that these conditions would not mitigate the landscape impacts, or overcome the landscape objection to the proposed development.
Representations:
Representations from Residents Comments have been received and cover the following points:
Support: The condition was required to enable the LPA to reassess the success of the site in contributing to economic and social development of the area. The full potential economic and social benefits cannot yet be assessed because the development has not yet been completed. Variation of the condition would allow the applicant to proceed with the development High Nature has developed into a model for sustainable tourism and is hugely popular, both locally and from further afield. Due to the hard work of the owner and helpers who offer craftsmanship; nature study; yoga. The roundhouse design will be low impact based on an iron age roundhouse, timber framed with walls constructed from stone, cord wood and straw bales, with a lime render and living roof. It will provide tourism around the year for the area It is an exemplary site, well managed and offering a variety of sustainable activities and the roundhouse should be allowed to stay permanently It offers hugely positive effects for the community and children. The activities are for peoples overall wellbeing which is necessary in this fast paced life. The project creates the potential for local employment and imaginative social facilities needed in this remote location. The roundhouse will enable the business to operate throughout the year which will add to its profitability. Such low impact and sustainable development is entirely appropriate in this area It is already a space that is used by the local community A permanent structure present all year round for workshops, courses and classes would be a real bonus for the people in the area. Potential for local employment Therapeutic and learning activities will take place here. Keeps peoples connections with nature alive It is innovative and inspiring Have stayed at High Nature several times and enjoyed learning about how I can live a more sustainable and environmentally friendly lifestyle. Lots of local groups benefit – scouts, cubs, children’s centres; refugee groups and support groups.
Objections: Recent experience of excessive noise at High Nature including loud music to 5am, loud voices and car doors slamming. This is at odds with the general quiet character of the area. Amplified music has been used on site. Believes noise condition on the temporary consent has been breached on more than one occasion. Conditions of trial temporary consent have not been met and planning conditions breached. Original planning permission was to improve employment opportunities for local people with further benefits to local community but not aware of anyone locally working in the polytunnels or employed on site. No evidence of such has been provided. Support letters are from people who have holidayed on the site. Condition 17 - We request clarity on the intended use of the roundhouse. Use of the roundhouse for human habitation would contravene condition 17 of the current temporary consent. The round house is not the type of building which would generally be approved for residential use in this area and will be visible from the road and our adjacent land. The site has been running as a summer holiday yurt business for the past 4 years without a roundhouse. Condition 8 - No amplifier or other audio equipment shall be used on any part of the site. This condition is not being adhered with. If the permission for the yurts and tunnels is withdrawn in 2022 and they are removed what would the ‘permanent’ roundhouse become? Impact on the Character and Appearance of a Coastal Protection Area Extra buildings and tents have appeared on site The applicant has let it be known that her ambition is to obtain permission to live permanently on the site and this is a step in that direction.
Relevant Planning History
20/1139/92/3: FUL-Erection of eight polytunnel’s. Conditional approval: 07 Oct 92 20/1622/94/3: FUL - Construction of Devon hedge banks and planting of trees to form shelter belts for existing polytunnel’s repositioning of one tunnel and erection of temporary gale break where required. Conditional approval: 07 Dec 94 20/2596/11/PREMIN: PRE - Pre-application enquiry for change of use of agricultural land to mixed use including tourism education recreation and rural business development construction of low impact round house and siting of 4 eco-yurts - Pre-app - Partial Support: 10 Sep 12 20/0785/12/F: FUL - READVERTISEMENT: Construction of roundhouse and siting of five yurts to be used in association with nature holiday enterprise. Provision of additional facilities for educational recreational and business activities together with associated car parking. Conditional approval: 16 Nov 12 20/2932/13/VAR - Variation of condition 2 (amendment to plans) of planning approval 20/0785/12/F - Conditional approval: 13 May 14 20/0098/13/DIS: Discharge of conditions 4 6 12 14 19 21 and 22 to planning approval 20/0785/12/F - Discharge of condition approved: 25 Apr 13 20/1750/15/DIS: ARC - Application for approval of details reserved by condition 11 (Schedule of Materials and Finishes) of planning consent 20/0785/12/F. Discharge of condition approved: 06 Oct 15 20/2412/13/MIN: NMM - Non-material minor amendment (additional information about yurt camp kitchen toilets and showers) to planning approval 20/0785/12/F (Construction of roundhouse and siting of five yurts to be used in association with nature holiday enterprise. Refusal: 21 Jan 14
ANALYSIS
Principle of Development/Sustainability: The principle of this kind of development was considered and examined comprehensively in 2012 in the Planning Officers report. The main issues covered were: Tourism impact and need; employment need and social sustainability; development in the countryside and landscape impact; employment impact and long term viability; highway impact; neighbour impact; flooding and ecology. At the time the proposal was recommended for refusal, but was granted at the Planning Committee. The Structure Plan policies considered in 2012 are no longer relevant to this consideration, however the other policies are the same and so are also relevant to the consideration of the variation to the condition. In addition, the JLP has now been fully developed and is a good way along the process towards adoption. It is therefore relevant to consider the emerging policies as well as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in the consideration of this application.
At the time of the previous application it was considered that the roundhouse was not acceptable. The planning officer commented… “However, the large roundhouse that is proposed is a significant alteration to the site that will result in a permanent built structure in the protected landscape. This structure is not essential for rural purposes or indeed for the function of this proposal and other less permanent and intrusive methods could be used. At 18 metres wide and 6 metres tall, such a landscape and visual impact contrary to rural protection policies such as DP15 of the Development Policies DPD is considered unacceptable and far outweighs the benefits of reusing the site for local employment and tourism outlined.”
With regard to the holiday yurts which was also contrary to development plan policy the planning officer commented: “The applicant suggests that this policy is outweighed by the social and economic benefit of providing local, low key employment in the polytunnels. This is backed up by a range of environmental improvements. It is considered that this, on its own is a persuasive case and there is a tangible benefit to local social sustainability, especially for the East Portlemouth area. There is no guarantee that businesses will thrive at the site and it is considered that a temporary permission for 3 to 5 years would be a suitable test period to review the success of businesses at the site.”
The current planning submission includes a detailed history of the site and the events that have taken place since it first came into being in 2009. The yurts have become popular tourist accommodation in the last few years. Other community events such as yoga; creative lunches; craft activities and visits by the local cub group have taken place at various times. It is thus accepted that the site has had some community and social benefits.
At the time of the site visit, albeit during March, the site did not appear to be being used by very many people or activities. The polytunnels in the main were empty or used for storage, the areas where the yurts are erected were marked by planting and a large circle created as a circular mound was apparent and is the proposed location of the roundhouse.
In terms of planning policies the policies which are of relevance to this proposal are:
CS01, restricts developments to within identified development boundaries. In this case the site is not located within a development boundary and as such is in the open countryside. However there is already some development on this site, which includes 6 polytunnels, a reception building (a small timber building; toilet facilities and a kitchen. During the summer months the 2012 consent allows for 5 Yurts for tourism accommodation. Whilst there is some development here and a temporary roundhouse is permitted the proposal is contrary t this policy.
DP12: Tourism and Leisure: Proposals for tourism and leisure development, and tourist accommodation, will be permitted where they are located in sustainable and accessible locations; do not undermine the vitality or viability of nearby settlements; provide a high quality attraction or accommodation; and encourage an extended tourist season. In addition, in the countryside proposals will only be permitted where they: demonstrate they require a rural location and cannot be accommodated elsewhere and support the objectives of rural regeneration. Proposals involving the loss of tourist or leisure development, including holiday accommodation, will only be permitted where there is no proven demand for the facility and it can no longer make a positive contribution to the economy.
The previous consent is relevant. The proposal was granted based on the social sustainability the yurts and other facilities provided to the East Portlemouth community and the tourist economy. The planning permission is therefore extant and is a relevant material consideration.
In this case the issue is whether the roundhouse structure could be a permanent structure on the site and whether that would comply with DP12. The roundhouse is in effect a building which will provide for the activities that are undertaken by both the local community but also the tourists who will stay in the yurts. The location of the building to a degree is dictated by the existing approved poly tunnels, yurts and ancillary buildings on the site, for which consent already exists, as it is a supporting building for those uses. However it is not essential that it is a roundhouse of the scale proposed. A small storage building could cater for the storage needs and a smaller barn style accommodation could accommodate the other uses. The site has also managed successfully since 2009 without the roundhouse accommodation. There are also the polytunnels which at the site visit were underutilised. It has not been demonstrated that a roundhouse is essential on this site.
DP13: Caravan, Camping and Chalet Sites: Within AONBs and the undeveloped coast, proposals for new and extensions to existing caravan, camping and chalet sites will not be permitted. Alterations to existing sites should only be permitted where all the DP12 criteria are met.
This policy is relevant to the consideration of this variation application. The previous consent was granted on the basis of 10 years so that the impact on this very sensitive landscape could be reassessed in the future and the landscape character would not be permanently impacted upon. The landscape comments have already indicated that the previously consented scheme has had a negative impact on the landscape. The addition of a large permanent roundhouse structure will only serve to add to that harm, by virtue of its uncharacteristic built form and its permanency. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DP13.
DP15: Development in the Countryside: Within the countryside, development will be permitted where it requires a countryside location and: supports the essential needs of agriculture or forestry interests; or meets the essential, small scale, and exceptional local development needs of a settlement which cannot be met within development boundaries. All development in the countryside should: make use of suitable existing buildings or previously developed land before proposing new buildings or development of greenfield land; be well related to an existing farmstead or group of buildings, or be located close to an established settlement; and be complementary to and not prejudice any viable agricultural operations on a farm and other existing viable uses.
The roundhouse is clearly a permanent structure, it will be very visible year round and although relatively sensitive in design, it is not considered essential to the function of the site. It is therefore not essential for rural purposes and fails the test set out in Policy DP15 of the South Hams Development Policies DPD.
To an extent this policy has been breached by virtue of the 2012 consent, albeit that consent is of a temporary nature and so the land could be restored to its former use should the enterprise not succeed. The policy also refers to buildings and indicates that existing buildings should be used where possible and be close to an existing farmstead or group of buildings. Whilst there are a few small buildings on the site, they are dispersed across the site and do not form any kind of cohesive group. The roundhouse is proposed away from those buildings and so reinforces the dispersed nature of the site. Its permanent nature would also mean that this situation cannot be revisited in the future. The proposal to vary the condition would also be contrary to Policy DP15.
In conclusion, the principle of allowing a large roundhouse in this location despite the existing consent, is still found to be contrary to Policies DP13 and DP15.
Design and Landscape CS9 relates to landscape and the historic environment. There is a specific reference in this policy to the great weight which should be given the Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB). This site is within the AONB. The site is on high land above the coastal settlement of East Portlemouth, it is therefore prominent in the landscape. The site is surrounded by hedgerows, however the site is visible when walking along the roads in the locality and through farm gates. The proposed roundhouse would therefore be visible from public roads in the vicinity. In this high quality landscape is a roundhouse of the design and size proposed an acceptable and appropriate permanent addition to the site? Would an alternative building style and design be a more appropriate solution which would sit more comfortably in this very sensitive landscape?
It is considered that the storage, activities and utilities could be provided elsewhere or by other means on the site through the polytunnels or using a small agricultural style shed similar to that already approved, but not built, on the site. Alternatively a more traditional building reminiscent of a farm building could provide the accommodation required whilst also being more appropriate and respectful of the landscape character of the AONB and Heritage Coast.
DP1 indicates that all development should display high quality design which, in particular, respects and responds to the South Hams character in terms of its settlement and landscape. As mentioned above, is the roundhouse a building which responds to the South Hams character? It is considered that it is not.
DP2, this policy seeks to protect the distinctive South Hams landscapes and as expressed by the landscape consultee, the site lies within the Open Coastal Plateaux character type. The landscape officer has commented specifically about the site and has acknowledged that the existing use of the site for a non-agricultural use) has had a negative impact on the landscape character and quality. “ “it is evident that the anticipated deterioration in character has occurred; although well-vegetated, the loss of the field pattern, creation of engineered banks, introduction of structures, fencing, play equipment and other more-typically residential paraphernalia has had a negative impact on an otherwise high quality rural landscape.”
Further to that the landscape officer indicates that…. The proposed roundhouse extends to 6m high, and would be substantially taller than any building on the site. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the roundhouse would form a visible structure in the landscape; and one which not being an agricultural form, would further erode character in this area.
The proposal is clearly at odds with these development Plan policies.
Emerging policies JLP TTV31 Development in the countryside, reiterates the issues referred to in DP15, but is clearer that development in the countryside in isolated locations will only be permitted if it meets an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at their place of work in the countryside and maintain that role for the development in perpetuity, or; to secure the long term future and viable use of a significant heritage asset, or; secure the re-use of redundant or disused buildings and brownfield sites for an appropriate use, or; secures a development of truly outstanding or innovative sustainability and design, which helps to raise standards of design more generally in the rural area, significantly enhances its immediate setting and is sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area. As such and as mentioned in relation to the landscape policies, the proposal is not sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area and is therefore contrary to this emerging policy.
DEV15 supporting the rural economy, seeks to improve the balance of jobs within the rural areas and diversify the rural economy. Criteria 1 and 7 are particularly relevant to this proposal. Criteria 1 states Appropriate and proportionate expansion of existing employment sites in order to enable retention and growth of local employers will be supported. Criteria 7 includes: Camping, caravan or chalet facility that respond to an identified local need will be supported, provided the proposal is compatible with the rural road network, has no adverse environmental impact and is not located within the Undeveloped Coast policy area.
The planning officer in the report for the proposal in 2012 stated that:
Therefore whilst the policy seeks to encourage rural employment and the retention and expansion of it, that has to occur where there is no adverse environmental impact and it is not located in the Undeveloped Coast policy area. This site is located with the undeveloped coast and there will be a negative impact on the landscape.
All developments for employment in rural areas also have to meet a number of criteria as follows: i. Demonstrate safe access to the existing highway network. ii. Avoid a significant increase in the number of trips requiring the private car and facilitate the use of sustainable transport, including walking and cycling, where appropriate. Sustainable Travel Plans will be required to demonstrate how the traffic impacts of the development have been considered and mitigated. iii. Demonstrate how a positive relationship with existing buildings has been achieved, including scale, design, massing and orientation. iv. Avoid incongruous or isolated new buildings. If there are unused existing buildings within the site, applicants are required to demonstrate why these cannot be used for the uses proposed before new buildings will be considered.
This proposal fails to meet criteria iii and iv
DEV 24 Landscape character seeks to protect the landscape and other character and avoiding significant and adverse landscape or visual impacts. Development should be located and designed to respect scenic quality and maintain an area’s distinctive sense of place and reinforce local distinctiveness; Conserve and enhance the characteristics and views of the area along with valued attributes and existing site features such as trees and hedgerows that contribute to the character and quality of the area; be of high quality architectural and landscape design appropriate to its landscape context.
The location of the roundhouse will impact on the scenic quality of the area and a building such as the roundhouse is not a distinctive characteristic on this part of the South Hams coastal landscape. As has been expressed by the landscape comments it is not considered to conserve and enhance the characteristics and views of the area, albeit the proposal does not impact on existing hedgerows and trees. Whilst a lot of effort has gone into the design of the proposal, it is still a very large structure and will be highly visual in the sensitive landscape. It is not the quality of the architecture which is the issue, but rather the fact that the proposed building is incongruous with the landscape character and overly large. DEV 25 undeveloped coast. This policy protects the unspoilt character, appearance or tranquillity of the Undeveloped Coast, estuaries and the Heritage Coast. In order to be supported development must: that it requires a coastal location; cannot reasonably be located outside the Undeveloped Coast; it Protects, maintains and enhances the unique landscape and seascape character and special qualities of the area; and is consistent with policy statements for the local policy unit in the Shoreline Management Plan 2. In addition the policy states: “Development for the purposes of agriculture, forestry, public access and enjoyment of the coast and estuaries, or community facilities that meet the objectively assessed needs of the local community, will be supported if it meets the above tests.” The proposal does not meet the objectives set out in the policy and neither has it demonstrated that the proposal meets the objectively assessed needs of the local community.
DEV 27 Nationally protected landscapes protect the AONB and Dartmoor national Park. Greta weight is placed on the conservation and enhancement of the landscape qualities of the AOND in decision making and the following criteria must be met. i. Conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. ii. Be designed to prevent the addition of incongruous features, and where appropriate take the opportunity to remove or ameliorate existing incongruous features. iii. Be located and designed to respect scenic quality and maintain an area’s distinctive sense of place, or reinforce local distinctiveness. iv. Be designed to prevent impacts of light pollution from artificial light on intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation interests. v. Be located and designed to prevent the erosion of relative tranquillity and, where possible use opportunities to enhance areas in which tranquillity has been eroded. vi. Be located and designed to conserve and enhance flora, fauna, geological and physiographical features, in particular those which contribute to the distinctive sense of place, relative wildness or tranquillity, or to other aspects of landscape and scenic quality. vii. Retain links, where appropriate, with the distinctive historic and cultural heritage features of the area. viii. Further the delivery of the relevant protected landscape management plan, having regard to its supporting guidance documents. ix. Avoid, mitigate, and as a last resort compensate, for any residual adverse effects.
As stated in the narrative above it is considered that the proposal does not meet: i,ii,iii,iv,v, and viii and 1x.
The NPPF is clear also that the AONB must be given great weight in the decision making and plan making processes. Indicating that valued landscape must be protected. The NPPF states: Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. It is considered that in this case great weight should be given to the very sensitive and opne nature of the landscape and the proposed round house would have a negative impact on that landscape. The proposal would thus not conserve the landscape and scenic beauty in this AONB.
Neighbour Amenity: There are some sporadic properties near to the site. The use of the site has already been agreed and as far as I am aware there have been no complaints about any of the tourist or community activities that have taken place. The removal of the temporary nature of the site, may however have a bigger impact both on the use of the site and the frequency of those uses. It seems clear that much of the activity on the site takes place in the summer. However with a permanent building on the site, would allow for more winter activities, which may impact on the local property occupants.
Highways/Access: The Highway Authority did not comment on this application although on the 2012 application had raised objection based on it being an unsustainable location. However it was accepted at the time that East Prawle and East Portlemouth and very remote locations almost exclusively access by cars, but that the proposal had the potential to create local jobs which in these areas are inherently difficult to create and so whilst in an unsustainable location, the highway impact was accepted.
Planning Balance The extant consent does have a bearing on the consideration of this proposal as it has been partially implemented for a number of years. However in the same way as the roundhouse presented a problem in 2012, the same is the case today. The potential impact of the roundhouse in terms of size, scale and design would impact on the beauty and character of the costal landscape. The rest of the site has managed up until now without the facility and it is suggested could manage into the future. If storage facilities are still required then a smaller traditionally styled building could accommodate this. This highly sensitive landscape is too precious to allow in appropriate development when a smaller and more appropriately design building could meet the needs required but without the negative impact on that special landscape.
This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Planning Policy
Section 70 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that regard be had to the development plan, any local finance and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act requires that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The relevant development plan policies are set out below:
South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment
Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP15 Development in the Countryside
South Hams Local Plan (please delete as necessary) SHDC 1 Development Boundaries
Emerging Joint Local Plan
The Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (the JLP) will replace the above as the statutory development plan once it is formally adopted.
Annex 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides guidance on determining the weight in relation to existing and emerging development plan policies.
For current development plan documents, due weight should be given to relevant policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). For the JLP, which is an emerging development plan, the weight is to be determined by the stage of its preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections, and its degree of consistency with the Framework.
The JLP is at a relatively advanced stage of preparation. The precise weight to be given to policies within the JLP will need to be determined on a case by case basis, having regard to all of the material considerations as set out on the analysis above.
PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017) SPT1 Delivering sustainable development TTV31 Development in the Countryside DEV15 Supporting the rural economy DEV24 Landscape character DEV25 Undeveloped coast DEV27 Nationally protected landscapes Neighbourhood Plan
Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report.
PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT
Case Officer: Clare Stewart Parish: Frogmore & Sherford Ward: Allington and Strete
Application No: 3880/17/OPA
Agent/Applicant: Applicant: BBH Chartered Architects Ltd The Perraton family Creek House Winslade Farm 1 Island Street, Salcombe Frogmore TQ8 8DP Kingsbridge TQ7 2PA
Site Address: Proposed development site at SX 775 424, East Of Creek Close, Frogmore, Devon
Development: Outline application (with all matters reserved) for the erection of 8 dwellings (including affordable housing), access and associated landscaping.
Reason item is being put before Committee
Called in by the Ward Member (Cllr Foss) on the following grounds:
The application is within the AONB and all that goes with it. There are issues with the access that have not been addressed There are unresolved land issues with creeks close that need to be addressed The Parish Council have done extensive consultation which shows lack of support for housing on this site and claim there is a better site outside the AONB available within the village. Recommendation: Delegate to CoP Lead Development Management, in conjunction with Chairman to conditionally grant planning permission, subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.
However, in the event that the Section 106 legal Agreement remains unsigned six months after this resolution, that the application is reviewed by the COP Lead Development Management, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, and if no progress is being made delegated authority is given to the CoP to refuse to application in the absence of an agreed S106 Agreement.
Conditions
1. Time limit (Reserved matters) 2. Submission of Reserved Matters 3. Accord with plans 4. Construction Management Plan 5. Details of highway, footpath, verges, junctions etc. to be agreed and implemented 6. Foul drainage 7. Surface water drainage 8. Construction phase surface water drainage 9. Full hard and soft landscape details, including maintenance schedules and a timetable for implementation, cross sections, boundary treatments and lighting 10. Tree/hedgerow protection plan and an Arboricultural Method Statement 11. Landscape Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) 12. Works to potential bird nesting habitats not undertaken within bird nesting season unless ecologist confirms absence 13. Unsuspected contamination
Key issues for consideration:
Principle of development. Impact on AONB.
Site Description:
The site lies on the edge of the village of Frogmore, immediately to the east of a recently developed housing site now known as Creek Close. The northern boundary of the site adjoins residential properties in Winslade Close, with agricultural fields to the east and south. The land rises to the south.
Frogmore is a small village which straddles the A379. The village contains a bakery/café, a pub, village hall, amenity ground and a children’s play area. All land south of the A379 in this area, including the application site, lies within the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site lies outside of, but adjacent to the Development Boundary of Frogmore (which does include the existing dwellings in Winslade Close). Environment Agency mapping shows the site lies within Flood Zone 1.
The Proposal:
Permission is sought in Outline with all matters reserved for the erection of 8 dwellings, access and associated landscaping including a communal/sports green area.
Heads of Terms for a Section 106 Agreement are proposed as follows:
2 affordable units to be provided within the development (detailed design to be agreed at Reserved Matters stage) DCC Education Contributions - £26,305.00 towards Secondary School infrastructure, £10,852.00 towards Primary School Transport, £4,997.00 towards Secondary School Transport Provision of on-site play equipment (full details including ongoing maintenance and management to be agreed at Reserved Matters stage) Management Company for management and maintenance of communal landscape areas Public access and on-going management and maintenance of the on-site public open space, in perpetuity and in accordance with the LEMP Highways – amendments as requested by DCC Highways to the adoptable road to be undertaken by the developer Management and maintenance of SuDs Appropriate compensatory commuted sum for lost arable habitat, or compensatory habitat and its ongoing management in perpetuity for Cirl Buntings Resolution of site boundary between application site and 6 Creek Close
Consultations:
County Highways Authority – “It has been discussed previously with the highway agent for the site that the private section of road leading from the Creek Close extent of public highway has not been built in accordance with the required 4.8m width. It is in fact 4.3m wide. It has been discussed that this private section of road needs to be widened to 4.8m and the agent has agreed to these works. The Highway Authority is however concerned that the red line boundary for the application site does not include this stretch of road nor the verge required to widen the road. If this site therefore receives an approval any future purchasers may have no obligation to widen the road to the required width. The Highway Authority would ask the Planning Authority to consider this matter and advise how the matter can be resolved. No formal recommendation is made by the Highway Authority at this time. It is requested this issue is clarified.
Notwithstanding the above concern the Highway Authority in principle has no objections to the proposal noting the levels of traffic likely to be generated equate to around 48 daily two way vehicle movements. In the peak hours it is expected around six two way movements will be generated. It is not considered this level of traffic will have any noticeable effect on the public highway.
The proposals now do not provide a footway leading back towards the A379 now that the development has been scaled back to 8 dwellings. There is no evidence in the form of accidents reported to the Police to the contrary which suggests the lack of a footway should give rise to unacceptable safety issues. If there is an overriding need for houses in this location then an overriding highway safety argument should not be raised.
Recommendation: Notwithstanding the first concern regarding road widths if the Planning Authority is minded to approve the application the Highway Authority would request the following conditions” – Construction Management Plan, details of estate road, footpaths, verges, junctions etc to be agreed.
Affordable Housing – “The Affordable Housing team support this application as it will be providing two affordable homes in the parish of Frogmore. There is a need for additional affordable homes in the parish as evidenced by the Council’s housing register Devon Home Choice and the Help to Buy South West register for the South Hams. Further discussions would be needed with the applicant on the unit size and tenure of the affordable homes at Reserved Matters stage. We would also require the affordable homes to have a local connection criteria restriction.”
Environmental Health Section – No objection subject to standard unsuspected contamination condition SHDC Drainage – No objection based on revised details, conditions regarding final foul and surface water drainage management. Management and maintenance obligation for the SuDs to be included in the S106
Devon County Education – “The proposed 8 family-type dwellings will generate an additional 2 primary pupil and 1.2 secondary pupils.
Regarding the above planning application, Devon County Council would need to request an education contribution towards secondary school infrastructure and school transport.
There is currently capacity at the nearest primary school for the number of pupils likely to be generated by the proposed development and therefore a contribution towards primary education would likely not be sought. Devon County Council will however likely seek a contribution towards additional education infrastructure at the local secondary school that serve the address of the proposed development. The secondary contribution sought would likely be £26,305.00 (based on the current DfE extension rate per pupil of £21,921) which will be used to provide education facilities in the area.
In addition, DDC will likely seek a contribution towards primary and secondary school transport due to the proposed development site being on an unsafe walking route to Charleton Primary School and further than 2.25 miles from Kingsbridge Academy. The costs required would be as follows: -
2.00 primary pupils £4.08 per day x 2 pupils x 190 academic days x 7 years = £10,852.00
2.00 secondary pupil £2.63 per day x 2 pupils x 190 academic days x 5 years = £4,997.00
The County Council would also 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.”
Landscape – “In considering this application and assessing potential impacts of the development proposal against nationally protected landscapes, in addition to the Development Plan, the following legislation, policies and guidance have been considered:
Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act; Section 11 of the NPPF in particular paragraphs; 109 and 114-116; The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) particularly Section 8-001 to 8-006 on Landscape; and The South Devon AONB Management Plan and its Annexes. In respect of the principle policy tests in the NPPF, this application is not considered to constitute “major development” in the context of paragraph 116, due to its small scale in the context of the village and its limited potential for significant effects on the AONB. The provisions of NPPF paragraph 116 therefore would not apply.
Landscape Character and Visual Impact This scheme represents a significant reduction in the scale of development proposed in this location. The proposed development would form a small area of new built form in the context of the village. As recognised in the LVIA there would be minimal adverse landscape and visual effects, and limited to the immediate site area. Built form would be seen in a clear context of the existing development at the settlement, with minor additions to dwelling ridges perceived in the immediate site area. Appropriate primary and secondary mitigation measures are proposed in the LVIA, which would effectively control landscape and visual effects.
In light of the above, the impacts on the AONB and its special qualities are similarly considered to be minimal, with, in principle, a well-proportioned development site for a highly sensitive location.
Detailed Design / Landscape Design As an outline application it is not relevant to consider detailed design at this stage. There are no principle issues with indicative layout, but I would note that should the application be approved, subsequent Reserved Matters applications should include the primary and secondary mitigation contained within the LVIA. Failure to do so may result in a landscape objection. I would welcome the opportunity to work with the applicant on the detailed design and mitigation proposals of the scheme if this application is approved.
Arboricultural Impact The development indicated could be achieved at this site without impacting on any significant trees or hedgerows and I would therefore raise no objection on arboricultural grounds, subject to securing appropriate protection for the existing trees and hedgerows during construction.
Policy In light of the limited impacts now considered to result from the proposed development, and the opportunity to provide appropriate and effective mitigation, I would not raise an objection on landscape grounds under policies DP2 and CS9. Although the enhancement of the landscape of the site would be limited, there are opportunities to improve the relationship of this site and the adjacent site with the rising field above with new landscaping.
Recommendation No objection on landscape grounds, subject to securing detailed information through conditions as set out below.
Suggested Conditions
Full hard and soft landscape details, including maintenance schedules and a timetable for implementation. Detailed cross sections through site, particularly detailing the relationships between the existing field level and the southern site boundary, and the site with adjacent development to the north and west. Boundary treatments. Lighting details. Tree/hedgerow protection plan and an Arboricultural Method Statement.”
Open Space, Sport and Recreation (OSSR) – “The proposal is for the provision of 8 new dwellings and includes a communal/sports green to the south of the proposed new access road. Whilst the provision of the communal/sports green is welcomed, and will provide some opportunities for informal play and recreation, it is considered that the new residents will also use existing open space, sport and recreation facilities in Frogmore, particularly the existing Frogmore play area located at Apple Tree Close to the north of the A379. The play area is within walking distance of the proposed development and is a key piece of the village OSSR infrastructure along with the village amenity ground to the north of Mill Lane.
The Play Audit undertaken in 2017 as part of the Joint Local Plan evidence Base (OSSR Study, 2017) scored the play area as 3 out of 5 (average, needs improvement), noting that there was potential for a small expansion to accommodate additional equipment. The new residents will add pressure to this facility which has already been identified as in need of improvement, and the pressure will require mitigating to assist with making the facility sustainable.
Applying Tables 3 and 6 of the SHDC OSSR SPD (2006) the following sum should thus be secured within the s106 agreement: Play provision = number of occupants (based on Table 3 of the SPD) x £380
It is noted that planning application 1768/16/OPA, which forms a larger proposed development site, incorporating the area covered by this application, was refused in July 2017 and is currently undergoing an appeal process (APP/K1128/W/17/3185418). Application 1768/16/OPA includes provision of an equipped play area. Thus it is recommended that the play contribution should be sought for either ‘improvements to the existing Frogmore play area at Apple Tree Close or towards provision of a new play area on land to the east should this come forward in due course’.
With regard to the proposed communal/sports green, the following should also be secured by condition/s106 agreement: submission and agreement of details of the communal/sports green to include details of on-going management and maintenance. Public access and on-going management and maintenance of the on-site public open space, in perpetuity.”
Ecology – Holding objection overcome by amended draft Heads of Terms to secure compensation for Cirl Bunting habitat “Suggested conditions and s106 clauses (if minded to approve) o Pre-commencement LEMP, to include maintenance schedules for the Public Open Space, including all existing and new hedgerows (which should be retained, and not form part of residential curtilage). o Works to potential bird nesting habitat shall not be undertaken within the bird nesting season (March to August inclusive) unless a suitably qualified ecologist confirms the absence of nesting birds. o S106 clause to secure ongoing management and maintenance of POS and boundary hedgerows in perpetuity and in accordance with the LEMP o S106 clause securing appropriate compensatory commuted sum for lost arable habitat, or compensatory habitat and its ongoing management in perpetuity for Cirl Buntings o Incorporation of nest sites for swifts built into the external walls of proposed new dwellings, a minimum of one per dwelling. These should be sited at least 5m above ground and high under the eaves, ideally on north (or west) elevations – to be shown on plans at RM stage.”
Frogmore and Sherford Parish Council – “Frogmore and Sherford Parish Council has considered the planning application and recommends that this proposed development in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in Frogmore be refused.
This is on the basis that there are no exceptional circumstances to justify the development, and that the development would not be in the public interest.
1 PLANNING OBSERVATIONS As with application 1768/16/OPA a main consideration in determining the present application is its impact on the AONB and compliance with the government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The cumulative impact on the AONB must be taken into account in this assessment. The proposed new development (part of the site referred to as phase 2 in the last application, 1768/16/OPA), together with the adjacent Creek Close housing development (a parish affordable housing initiative) lying within the AONB, amounts to an incursion of 19 dwellings, being 8 proposed in this application plus 9 completed affordable house and 2 consented, but undeveloped, housing plots at Creek Close.
The present application would therefore give rise to incremental major development within the AONB. In determining the question of ‘major’ in this context we reference the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2015 provisions. The Order states in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e):
“Major development” means development involving any one or more of the following:‐ (c) The provision of dwelling houses where ‐ (i) The number of dwelling houses to be provided is 10 or more; or (ii) The development is to be carried out on a site having an area of 0.5 hectares or more and it is not known whether the development falls within sub‐paragraph (c)(i); (d) The provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is 1,000 square metres or more; or (e) Development carried out on a site having an area of 1 hectare or more;
If it is deemed that this application culminates in an incremental major development in the AONB, consideration must be given to whether there are exceptional circumstances to justify the development, and whether the development would be in the public interest.
The requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) protecting AONBs to be addressed include:
NPPF Paragraph 14 specifies in this extract: At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless:
any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. (Refer to Footnote 9).
Footnote 9 (development should be restricted): For example, those policies relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a National Park (or the Broads Authority); designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion.
NPPF Paragraph 115 then goes on to say: Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas.
And then NPPF Paragraph 116 specifies: Planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of:
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. The cost of, and the scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and The detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.
The applicant’s proposals need to be tested accordingly under the provisions of NPPF Paragraph 116
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.
30% of Frogmore’s existing housing stock is in the ‘affordable’ category, managed by registered social landlords and, in a handful of cases, part‐owned or purchased by sitting tenants under ‘right to buy’ regulations. This is a creditably high proportion compared with an 11% Devon county average. 9 new affordable homes were recently completed a Creek Close, Frogmore.
Frogmore is located in ‘Rural South Hams’, shown as having a 4.2 year’s housing land supply. The absence of a 5‐year target housing land supply is a district wide issue and does not amount to a exceptional local need for additional housing in Frogmore. There would be benefits to the local economy no matter where in the South Hams the housing was situated.
The determination of housing need and allocation criteria, is usually deduced though professional case examination and interview. The 2016 objectively assessed need (OAN) for housing in the Frogmore and Sherford parish was met by Hastoe Homes at Creeks Close.
The cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the AONB designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way.
Alternative sites for any ascertained local housing need that lie outside the AONB within the South Hams district have not been explored. This is a pre‐requisite to considering a need for major development within an AONB.
The applicant is silent on this policy requirement.
The SHDC agreed Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014‐2034 (JLP), now at final Government Inspectorate stage, cites Frogmore as one of 46 sustainable villages, each of which is targeted with procuring not less than 10 new dwellings during the Plan period (16 years now remaining). Since 2014 ten new homes have been built in Frogmore and planning consent has been granted for a further two.
JLP policy TTV30 – ‘Empowering local residents to create strong and sustainable communities’ supports ‘the preparation of neighbourhood plans as the means of identifying local development needs in the sustainable villages.
SHDC designated the Frogmore & Sherford Neighbourhood Plan (NP) area on 23rd March 2017. Under the provisions of the Localism Act the community will determine and monitor, through its Neighbourhood Plan, the parish’s objectively assessed (OAN) housing needs and preferred siting for future development, including housing.
Neighbourhood Plan community consultation meetings have taken place in the parish and the Plan is being drafted. Community engagement comments received to date highlight the need to protect the AONB against development. There is not evidence to support the development of the applicant’s site. The application is premature and time should be allowed to determine demand and support, or otherwise, for substantial development within the parish within the context of the Neighbourhood Plan. The Parish Council mounted village hall ‘drop‐in’ sessions on 1st and 2nd December to enable members of the Frogmore and Sherford parish community to view the current planning application details. Community comments are appended and show that the proposed development would not be in the public interest.
Any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.
The site is described as ‘inappropriate for development’ in SHDC’s 2016 land assessment. Although a reduced scale of development, the South Devon AONB Unit previously concluded that there are no exceptional circumstances to justify development, citing negative impacts, the proposals do not conserve or enhance the AONB and compromise the character of the village and its rural setting.
2 HOUSING NEED
The present application includes BBH Architects’ Affordable Housing Needs Survey – Frogmore and Sherford, dated May 2017.
The applicants state that the survey results ‘have identified 25 households in need of affordable housing, with 24 of these households having a local connection to Frogmore & Sherford parish and requiring an affordable home within the parish’
This is a very different picture to the one to which the Parish Council referred in its May 2017 consultation report in response to application 1768/17/OPA thus:
‘The latest housing survey was carried out by Hastoe Housing Association in 2014 and has been monitored since. This indicates that the 9 new Creek Close, Frogmore affordable houses meet present local demand. As with all Registered Social Landlord housing allocations, the determination of need and qualification will be deduced though professional case examination and interview. It should be noted that the 2007 ‘need for 24 new affordable homes within the parish’ resulted in 9 qualifying cases each of which has been met in the last few months’.
The SHDC’s planning officer’s report upon which the previous planning application 1768/16/OPA was refused includes the following passages:
‘It is relevant (therefore) to consider each of the tests set out in paragraph 116. 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
At present this Council cannot evidence a 5 year housing land supply; whilst sufficient sites have been identified with the emerging Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (JLP) the evidence base for this has not yet been tested so cannot yet be relied upon. The last objective housing needs survey was undertaken in 2007 and identified a local need for 27affordbale homes. Nine affordable homes have since been provided in Creek Close. The applicant undertook a housing needs survey very recently but this has not been published.
Frogmore, relative to other villages in the South Hams, has a reasonable provision of affordable homes and has accommodated additional market and affordable development schemes in recent years.
It is likely that there will always be an argument to say that there is a need for more homes, but this on its own cannot be a compelling reason to allow major development in the AONB. Having regard to the great weight to be given to conserving the AONB and the presumption that major development should be refused, this would indicate that the need for housing would have to be an exceptional need to meet this test. The need for housing in Frogmore is not considered to be exceptional. Permitting this development is likely to have a positive impact on the local economy during the construction phase, but again not in any exceptional way that would, on its own, justify major development in the AONB. The cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; Frogmore has this year completed a scheme of nine affordable houses, meeting an immediate need for this type of housing in the village.
Planning permission, outside of the AONB, has recently been granted for circa 65 dwellings (market and 35% affordable) in the nearby village of Chillington and it is expected that this site will come forward for development.
Frogmore is a village which straddles the AONB; it is possible that future housing need could be met on sites on the northern side of the A379, outside of the AONB. It is considered that the social and economic cost to the village of not permitting this development is low having regard to the recent provision of affordable housing in the village. There is scope for meeting future housing need outside of the designated area, or if within the designated area, with less adverse impact.
Any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.
The section on landscape and design sets out objections from the AONB Unit and the Council’s landscape specialist. This detailed analysis shows that there will be demonstrable harm to the landscape and scenic beauty of this part of the AONB as a consequence of this development. This harm cannot be overcome through mitigation landscaping, sensitive design or other means.
The proposed development does not meet the exception tests as set out in paragraph 116 of the NPPF and no other exceptional circumstances to justify this development have been demonstrated.
The Parish Council has consulted the South Hams / SW Devon Housing Office with regard to BBH Architects’ housing survey in order to clarify its status. The conclusion is that it is not an objective housing needs (OAN) survey and cannot be considered in respect of any formal planning consultation.
There are nine households presently living in Frogmore registered on the Devon Home Choice register. We are advised that:
One person is awaiting a re‐let at Creek Close, as erroneously advised that they were ineligible when the properties were originally advertised. One person is living at Creek Close with her child in a property occupied by her daughter and child and seeks separate accommodation. Five people on the register are elderly / with special needs, awaiting transfer to live in Kingsbridge. Two people are in private sector rented accommodation within the village.
There are two further registrations:
One is a Sherford resident seeking accommodation in Salcombe One is a Dartmouth resident seeking accommodation in Sherford
BBH Architects’ advise that their survey was distributed within the parish and that copies were available for open collection from Frogmore Bakery. They also publicised the survey in the Kingsbridge & Salcombe Gazette, Dartmouth Chronicle and Ivybridge & South Brent Gazette. It would appear that the response opportunity was district wide. The survey ‘summary report’ is numerical and does not provide names, addresses or evidence of local connections.
Frogmore has a creditable track record in providing affordable housing, including the new Creek Close homes. The Parish Council does not consider that BBH Architect’s ‘Affordable Housing Needs Survey – Frogmore and Sherford’ demonstrates exceptional circumstances for further affordable housing in Frogmore at this time.
As the applicant’s scheme proposes less than 11 units we note that, in policy terms, there is no requirement for on‐site affordable housing provision, normally an off‐site financial contribution would be provided. In this case the applicants have agreed to on‐site provision, although we should be aware that they could opt to vary the 106 in the future’.
3 COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONS
In the absence of any applicant pre‐application community consultations, the Parish Council mounted two drop‐in sessions at Frogmore village hall in order to afford parishioners the opportunity to view the available planning application details. 32 people attended and 74 written comments were recorded. The transcribed comments are at appendix A.”
The Appendix A can be viewed in full on the Council’s website – it can be noted all 74 comments are against the development.
Further comments received 22/05/18:
“Frogmore and Sherford Parish Council reviewed the planning application at its 21st May 2018 meeting. A revised ‘general Plan’, (ref: 3139.304 Rev D Plan) was posted on the original 13th November 2017 application planning portal on 11th March 2018.
1. Visual and environmental impact The revision proposes a significant alteration to the building configuration, reintroducing houses on the upper, south site of the site, similar to the 28-house scheme layout, now the subject of a Planning Appeal, thus maximising visual impact within the AONB.
2. Major development The Parish Council’s December 2017 submission to the planning authority maintains that the 8-house application constitutes ‘major development’ within the AONB and thus full National Planning Policy Framework protection against development remains enforceable.
The planning authority concur in their Planning Appeal statement in relation to the 28-house application (1768/16/OPA) that the effect of the ‘phase 1’ (Creek Close) development should be taken into account in relation to impact on the AONB. The latest application aggregates to an AONB impact of 19 houses (9 affordable houses and 2 unbuilt plots at Creek Close and 8 in the new application). It is noted that in November 2017 HM Government’s Planning Inspector dismissed a Planning Appeal for 15 restricted (older peoples’) dwellings proposed for a site in the AONB at Wembury, near Plymouth on grounds that it constituted major development. Wembury parish has a population some 4 times larger than Frogmore and Sherford. The development impact on Frogmore at this scale would be substantially greater.
3. Housing land supply The argument that there is less than a 5-year housing land supply is no longer supportable. The JLP Councils’ 19th April 2018 response to the Inspector’s request for updated housing land supply figures, following very extensive hearings and adjustment, are recorded as increased to 7.6 years for the ‘Thriving Towns and Villages’ assuming a 20% buffer, and 8.7 years land supply with a 5% buffer. These key, refined figures can no longer be afforded only ‘little weight’. Frogmore’s emerging JLP ‘sustainable village’ 20-year housing supply target is already met and will be monitored against objectively assessed housing needs within the context of the parish Neighbourhood Plan.
4. Objectively assessed housing need Frogmore village boasts a rewarding ratio of 30% affordable housing to 70% private sector housing. By way of comparison, South Hams District Council’s Housing Department advise that a figure of under 10% is the typical affordable housing proportion in a rural community.
Frogmore & Sherford Parish Council takes a responsible, proactive approach to optimising affordable housing opportunities, demonstrated most recently with its sponsorship of the Village Housing Initiative at Creek Close which met 2016/7 objectively assessed housing needs in full. These 9 Creek Close houses were developed and are managed on social rents by Hastoe Housing Association. Their availability was advertised twice following completion in order to secure qualifying tenants.
Meanwhile, Guinness Housing Trust built and manages 43 houses in Frogmore at Winslade Close and Apple Tree Close. 39 of these are let at social rents, 3 are now in shared ownership and 1 has been bought by the tenant.
As to housing need, South Hams Housing Office recently advised that there were 9 households within the Frogmore post code area on its Devon Home Choice housing register. They were recorded as follows:
Present Current Number in Children Area Parish bedrooms Household preference Address Creek Close 2 2 1 Frogmore Winslade 1 1 0 Kingsbridge Close Winslade 1 1 0 Kingsbridge Close Apple Tree 1 2 0 Kingsbridge Close Winslade 1 2 0 Kingsbridge Close Apple Tree 1 1 0 Chillington Close Apple Tree 1 1 0 Kingsbridge Close (not 1 2 0 Frogmore identified) Jeffreys 2 3 0 Frogmore Meadow
6 existing households were seeking to leave the village and 3 existing households wished to exchange their accommodation within the village. Those wishing to leave are typically elderly requiring enhanced services better provided in Kingsbridge or Chillington where, for example, health services are to hand.
Consistent with its small size and rural nature, Frogmore has limited employment, no school and few facilities and amenities. Affordable housing need is a district wide consideration and there are no exceptional circumstances to justify the applicants’ housing proposals in the AONB. Given consistently recorded community opposition, neither would the development be in the public interest. 5. NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) compliance The NPPF ‘Paragraph 14’ presumption in favour of development is negated in respect of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs). NPPF ‘Footnote 9’ provides that development policies within the framework should be restricted. NPPF Paragraph 115 states great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Paragraph 116 states that planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: • 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. The cost of and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way: and • Any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.
The applicants’ site is within the SHDC /’South Hams Our Plan’ site ref: SH 43 02/08/13 and assessed as follows: ‘Due to the significant constraints identified relating to its location, scale and landscape impact, the site is not considered to have potential for development at this time.
The need for the development is not proven. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that the cost and scope of developing elsewhere has been considered. The imposition of a housing estate with its attendant traffic, light pollution and services will demonstrably have a serious detrimental effect on one of the nations most important Areas of Outstanding Natural beauty, set above and outside the village boundary of Frogmore and the SSSI protected estuary.
6. Neighbourhood Plan The Frogmore and Sherford Parish Neighbourhood Plan will guide provision for future housing, including the siting and quantum of new housing balanced with community life, services, the parish economy and infrastructure criteria. Following autumn 2017 community consultations, detailed completed Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaires (NPQs) were submitted by over 50 % of the Parish’s adult population during February 2018. Relevant to the present application, published recorded community views include:
Question Agree Neutral Disagree Need for new 39% 18% 43% housing in parish Priority to 64% 17% 19% affordable housing where required Site within 71% 15% 15% existing village boundaries New housing not 80% 7% 13% to be in AONB
7. Timing The Parish Council reaffirms its recommendation that the present application be refused. We submit that the concurrent Planning Appeal judgement and Joint Local Plan adoption are matters pertinent to the determination of this application.”
Representations: 4 letters in support of the application have been received, with comments made summarised as follows:
Provision of home for young working people and families with local connections Provision of much needed housing, smaller homes Small scale, ‘infilling’ nature Obvious place for extension to village without detriment to the AONB Proposal is not ‘major’ development Communal green space will be of public benefit
35 letters of objection have been received, with concerns made summarised as:
Applicant trying to achieve greater ambitions by stealth Should be refused for same reasons as previous applications Trying to avoid “major development” definition when in fact it is Derogation tests for building in the AONB have not been met Does not conform with NPPF Progressive erosion and encroachment of the AONB No special circumstances to warrant approval Frogmore has already met its target for housing identified within the JLP Two previously approve houses on adjoining site still not built, demonstrating lack of need for additional housing At odds with Frogmore and Sherford Neighbourhood Plan Duty to protect AONB Disturbance to natural environment Light pollution Proposal not informed by an evidence base SHLAA considered site does not have potential for development Village has limited facilities, shop is currently for sale No school places, doctors surgeries stretched High risk of flooding Traffic pressure Sewage Residential amenity Lack of engagement with community from applicant Impact on neighbouring property values
The RSPB have commented that the site lies in an important area for cirl buntings, and threats to this farmland bird include built development that removes important habitat. They support the recommendations of the submitted PEA in relation to retention and enhancement of hedgerows. In the absence of a site-specific cirl bunting survey to show otherwise it is reasonable to assume the site has the capable for support them. A planning obligation is recommended to provide for suitable management of retained and new native hedges, and to provide a habitat equivalent to that lost to the development to be managed for cirl buntings in perpetuity. Also recommend a condition to ensure potential nesting habitat is not removed in the bird breeding season. Integral nest sites for swifts should be built into the external walls of the new dwellings.
Relevant Planning History
In relation to the development immediately to the west of the current application site:
3749/16/VAR: Variation of condition 2 (revised site layout plan) following grant of planning permission 43/2855/14/F. Development Site of Sx 7752 4240, Creek Close, Frogmore, Kingsbridge. Under consideration – it can be noted the decision on this application does not affect the Council’s ability to determine the application subject of this report.
3704/16/FUL: Retrospective application to alter boundary and new site layout (following planning approval 43/2855/14/F). Creek Close, Frogmore. Under consideration - it can be noted the decision on this application does not affect the Council’s ability to determine the application subject of this report. Whilst it appears there would be some overlap between the two sites the boundary treatment etc. could be resolved at the Reserved Matters stage. It is also proposed to reference this issue in the Section 106 Agreement for the current application.
1708/16/ARC: Application for approval of details reserved by conditions 5 (Hardsurfacing Materials), 6 (Landscaping Details), 7 (Inbuilt bat and bird nesting Details) & 10 (Lighting Details) planning consent 43/2855/14/F. Development Site of Sx 7752 4240, Creek Close, Frogmore, Kingsbridge. Discharge of condition approved: 27 Jul 16
43/2058/15/DIS: Application for approval of details reserved by condition 3 (schedule of materials and finishes) of planning consent 43/2855/14/F Development site of SX 7752 4240 Frogmore Kingsbridge. Discharge of condition approved: 21 Oct 15
43/1661/15/F: Amendment to Plot No 10 of planning approval 43/2855/14/F to include erection of two semi-detached dwellings in-lieu of one detached dwelling. Plot 10, Proposed Development Site At Sx 7752 4240, Frogmore. Conditional approval: 07 Dec 17
43/1646/15/DIS: Application for approval of details reserved by conditions (9, 11, 14-16) of planning approval 43/2855/14/F Development site of SX 7752 4240 Frogmore Kingsbridge. Discharge of condition approved: 25 Nov 15
43/2855/14/F: Erection of 9 affordable houses and 1 open market house together with creation of new vehicular access parking and turning facilities and landscaping. Development site of SX 7752 4240 Frogmore Kingsbridge. Conditional approval: 31 Mar 15
Also of relevance including and to the east of the current application site (including a much larger parcel of land):
1768/16/OPA – READVERTISEMENT (Revised Documents submitted) Outline Planning application (with all matters reserved) for the erection of 28 dwellings (including affordable/starter homes), creation of community allotments, accesses, highway improvements and associated landscaping. Proposed Phase 2 Development Site Land at Ngr Sx77664245, Mill Lane, Frogmore. Refusal: 17 Jul 17. Appeal ongoing (APP/K1128/W/17/3185418). This was a reduced scheme from an original submission for 46 dwellings and a new community hall/sports pavilion.
ANALYSIS
Principle of Development/Sustainability:
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that, regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts. The determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The application site lies outside the established Frogmore Development Boundary. Notwithstanding the latest comments from the Parish Council, the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five year supply of housing. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states: “Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”
Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states:
“At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking…. For decision-taking this means: approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.”
The “tilted balance” set out in paragraph 14 above is engaged in relation to this application. In terms of restrictive specific policies consideration of the impact on the AONB is set out in the landscape section below. If it were concluded that overall the proposal would not result in sustainable development, the presumption in favour of development would not apply. The main issue, therefore, in respect of whether the development is acceptable in principle is whether the proposal represents sustainable development and if it is, whether there are significant and demonstrable adverse impacts that would outweigh its benefits with strict regard to the AONB which is afforded the highest status of protection.
Paragraph 7 of the NPPF identifies three dimensions to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. The economic and social benefits of the scheme include the provision of new housing, including two affordable units within the application site. The site is well-related to the village of Frogmore, which historically benefits from a Development Boundary and has been identified as a Sustainable Village within the emerging Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (although the emerging policies can be given only limited weight at this stage). Devon County Council are seeking financial contributions towards education infrastructure, and do not object to the application providing these are secured through a Section 106 Agreement. Consideration of the environmental/landscape impact of the development is included later in this report.
Whilst third parties have questioned the need for more residential development in Frogmore, commenting that new dwellings on the adjoining site have remained undeveloped, in the absence of a five year housing land supply it is considered refusal on the sole basis of lack of housing need could not be substantiated.
There are outstanding planning matters on the development immediately to the west of the site subject of the current application – two possible resolutions have been put forward (application refs. 3749/16/VAR and 3704/16/FUL). Neither application has been determined to date – both options require the signing of a new legal agreement, and it is understood discussions have become protracted. It is considered that the current application can still be determined in Outline, but it should be noted that the situation on the neighbouring site would need to be resolved prior to any subsequent Reserved Matters approval as the access and boundary treatment between the two sites would need to be agreed.
Design/Landscape: The application is submitted in Outline with all matters reserved, although indicative details have been provided which suggest the quantum of development proposed can be adequately accommodated within the site. The final layout and detailed design of the dwellings could be appropriately dealt with at Reserved Matters stage.
Paragraph 115 of the NPPF states that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.
Given the location of the site within the South Devon AONB, great weight must be given to the impact of the development on this landscape. Notwithstanding comments made by the Parish Council, there is no definition of major development within the AONB for the purposes of paragraph 116 of the NPPF (there being no specific reference to the definition provided in the Development Management Procedure Order within the NPPF as suggested by the Parish Council). This paragraph states that applications for major development in an AONB should be refused unless there are special circumstances and the development is in the public interest. At present it is for the Council to determine what constitutes major development in the AONB on a case by case basis. The consultation response from the Council’s Landscape Specialist includes the following: “In respect of the principle policy tests in the NPPF, this application is not considered to constitute “major development” in the context of paragraph 116, due to its small scale in the context of the village and its limited potential for significant effects on the AONB. The provisions of NPPF paragraph 116 therefore would not apply.”
(A draft revised NPPF which does provide definition of major development in the AONB is out for consultation, but does not yet carry weight. It can be noted that using the definition proposed in the consultation draft the development subject of this application would not constitute major development in the AONB.)
The consultation response from the Council’s Landscape Specialist is included in full above, and raises no objection subject to a number of conditions. The reduced scale of development being proposed compared with the previous application is noted. Officers do not dispute the assessment provided by the Landscape Specialist, and the basis of this technical advice it is considered an objection on landscape grounds could not be sustained.
Whilst concern has been raised in objection regarding potential plans for further development in this area, the Council can only consider the application as currently presented. Any subsequent applications would have to be considered on their own merits and having regarding to the planning policy situation at that time. (The outcome of the appeal on the larger site to the east would also be a consideration in due course.)
Neighbour Amenity:
Whilst some concern has been expressed regarding amenity impacts, this would need to be considered in more detail at Reserved Matters stage and does not form grounds for refusal at this stage.
Highways/Access:
DCC Highways have commented that the access road through the neighbouring Creek Close development has not been constructed to the required width, but has raised no in principle objection to the application subject of this report. There are two outstanding planning applications which seek to resolve the planning issues on this site. As the application subject of this report has been submitted in outline with all matters reserved it is considered highways matters can be dealt with at the Reserved Matters stage, having regard to the resolution of matters on the adjoining site.
Drainage: There have been lengthy discussions between the Agent and their specialist advisors and the Council’s Drainage Specialist after an initial holding objection was raised. On the basis of revised drainage details the holding objection has been removed and conditions requested (with management and maintenance of SuDs to be included in the Section 106 Agreement). In the absence of any technical objections it is therefore considered that drainage does not constitute grounds for refusal.
Ecology:
The application is accompanied by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (surveys carried out August 2017), which notes that all hedges are to be retained and it is unlikely the proposal would damage or have negative effects on protected species or habitat. The report states no further ecology surveys are considered necessary.
The RSPB have provided detailed comments on the application particularly in relation to Cirl Buntings. They include recommending a planning obligation to provide suitable management of retained and new native hedges at the application site and to provide an equivalent to that lost to the development for the management of Cirl Buntings in perpetuity. The Council’s Ecologist raised concern regarding the lack of reference to Cirl Buntings within the submitted PEA, and initially raised a holding objection:
“Typically, detailed cirl bunting surveys would be expected to establish the presence of and impacts upon this species (noting that Cirl buntings are a red listed bird of high conservation concern, specially protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and a species of principal importance (Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act), and accordingly the NERC Act requires LPAs to have due regard to the conservation of the species.
In the absence of such surveys, cirl buntings must be assumed present, and an equivalent habitat would need to be provided and its management secured (including arable, hedgerow and margin habitats). Or a commuted sum would be required to enable subsequent provision and management of a compensatory habitat (in accordance with the latest Wildlife and Development Guidance Note: Cirl Bunting, October 2017). I note that the proposal includes creation of approx. 130m Devon hedgebank, and despite such habitat being less than ideal for Cirl Buntings (due to potential predation from domestic cats) it is noted that the existing hedgerow bordering the application site also backs on to residential development. Accordingly, it is considered that it is arable habitat (and associated winter stubble) which must be compensated.”
The Applicant/Agent subsequently submitted revised draft Heads of Terms to address the above issue, and the holding objection was removed on this basis. A number of conditions and Section 106 clauses are still recommended as listed at the beginning of this report.
Planning Obligations:
The Applicant is proposing two affordable housing units to be provided within the development and secured through a Section 106 Agreement. The Draft Heads of Terms also provide a commitment to pay the education contribution being sought by DCC Education – whilst third parties have raised lack of school places as grounds for objection the issue can be dealt with through a financial contribution as requested by DCC. Following further discussion in respect of OSSR are on-site solution has been proposed to be secured through the Section 106 Agreement.
Other Matters:
There was no statutory requirement for the Applicant to carry out their own community consultation/engagement. Impact on neighbouring property values is not a material planning consideration.
The Planning Balance:
In the absence of a demonstrable five year housing land supply that can be relied upon, on the basis that the proposal does not in the view of Officers constitute major development in the AONB and that the proposed development will conserve the scenic beauty of the AONB as required by para 115 of the NPPF, the “tilted balance” needs to be applied in this case. Decisions should be taken in accordance with paragraph 14 of the NPPF which sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This tilts the balance heavily in favour of housing development unless any adverse impacts of doing do would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted.
The proposed development would contribute towards the housing needs of the district including affordable housing, and this weighs in favour of the application. There has been notable concern raised by third parties regarding landscape impact, however the Council’s Landscape Officer has not raised an objection (subject to a number of conditions). Other technical matters can also be addressed by condition/Section 106 obligation.
In the absence of any significant harm arising from the proposal, which is considered to be a sustainable form of development, the balance tilts in favour of the application. It is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions as detailed above and signing of a Section 106 legal agreement.
This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Planning Policy
Section 70 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that regard be had to the development plan, any local finance and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act requires that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The relevant development plan policies are set out below:
South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment CS10 Nature Conservation CS11 Climate Change
Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP4 Sustainable Construction DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP15 Development in the Countryside
Emerging Joint Local Plan The Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (the JLP) will replace the above as the statutory development plan once it is formally adopted.
Annex 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides guidance on determining the weight in relation to existing and emerging development plan policies.
For current development plan documents, due weight should be given to relevant policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). For the JLP, which is an emerging development plan, the weight is to be determined by the stage of its preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections, and its degree of consistency with the Framework.
The JLP is at a relatively advanced stage of preparation. The precise weight to be given to policies within the JLP will need to be determined on a case by case basis, having regard to all of the material considerations as set out on the analysis above.
PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017) SPT1 Delivering sustainable development SPT2 Sustainable linked neighbourhoods and sustainable rural communities SPT3 Provision for new homes TTV1 Prioritising growth through a hierarchy of sustainable settlements TTV2 Delivering sustainable development in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area TTV29 Site allocations in the Smaller Towns and Key Villages TTV30 Empowering local residents to create strong and sustainable communities TTV31 Development in the Countryside DEV1 Protecting amenity and the environment DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise and land DEV3 Sport and recreation DEV8 Meeting local housing need in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area DEV9 Accessible housing DEV10 Delivering high quality housing DEV15 Supporting the rural economy DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment DEV21 Conserving the historic environment DEV22 Development affecting the historic environment DEV24 Landscape character DEV27 Nationally protected landscapes DEV28 Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation DEV29 Green and play spaces (including Strategic Green Spaces, Local Green Spaces and undesignated green spaces) DEV30 Trees, woodlands and hedgerows DEV31 Specific provisions relating to transport DEV32 Meeting the community infrastructure needs of new homes DEV33 Waste management DEV34 Delivering low carbon development DEV35 Renewable and low carbon energy (including heat) DEV37 Managing flood risk and Water Quality Impacts
Neighbourhood Plan A Frogmore and Sherford NP area has been designated but not progressed to next formal stage.
Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report. Recommended conditions in full:
1. In the case of any matter reserved by this permission application for approval of any reserved matter must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of grant of outline planning permission.
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:
(i) the expiration of three years from the date of the grant of outline planning permission; or if later
(ii) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. PRE-COMMENCEMENT CONDITION: Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, application shall be made to the Local Planning Authority for the approval of reserved matters which shall show the details of the development. Reserved matters shall include the design and external appearance of all proposed buildings, their siting, the materials of which they are to be constructed, the arrangements for the disposal of foul and surface water, the means of access from public highways, areas for vehicles parking, landscaping, and all other works including walls, fences and other means of enclosure and screening. The application drawings shall indicate the location and species of all trees existing on the site, those which it is proposed should be retained and those to be felled, and no tree on the site shall be felled until these drawings are approved.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to obtain adequate information for consideration of the ultimate proposal.
3. The development hereby approved shall in all respects accord strictly with drawing number .300 (Site Location Plan) received by the Local Planning Authority on 13th November 2017.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which this approval relates.
4. PRE-COMMENCEMENT CONBDITION: Prior to commencement of any part of the site the Planning Authority shall have received and approved a Construction Management Plan (CMP) including:
(a) the timetable of the works;
(b) daily hours of construction;
(c) any road closure;
(d) hours during which delivery and construction traffic will travel to and from the site, with such vehicular movements being restricted to between 8:00am and 6pm Mondays to Fridays inc.; 9.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays, and no such vehicular movements taking place on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays unless agreed by the planning Authority in advance; (e) the number and sizes of vehicles visiting the site in connection with the development and the frequency of their visits;
(f) the compound/location where all building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste will be stored during the demolition and construction phases;
(g) areas on-site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will load or unload building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery vehicles will park on the County highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by the Local Planning Authority;
(h) hours during which no construction traffic will be present at the site;
(i) the means of enclosure of the site during construction works; and (j) details of proposals to promote car sharing amongst construction staff in order to limit construction staff vehicles parking off- site (k) details of wheel washing facilities and obligations
(l) The proposed route of all construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes.
(m) Details of the amount and location of construction worker parking. (n) Photographic evidence of the condition of adjacent public highway prior to commencement of any work.
The development shall thereafter be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved CMP.
Reason: In the interests of highways safety and amenity.
5. The proposed estate road, cycleways, footways, footpaths, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, road maintenance/vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, car parking and street furniture shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before their construction begins, For this purpose, plans and sections indicating, as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that adequate information is available for the proper consideration of the detailed proposals.
6. PRE-COMMENCEMENT CONDITION: Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall be commenced until:
1. Details of the works for the disposal of sewage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the dwelling shall not be occupied until the approved works have been completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. {Details to include a completed FDA1 form and justification for private foul system}.
Reason: In the interests of the prevention of pollution.
7. PRE-COMMENCEMENT CONDITION: Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall be commenced until:
1. Notwithstanding the submitted details, the development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until full details of drainage scheme for the surface water have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The drainage scheme should follow the drainage hierarchy with soakaways as the first choice. Only if soakaways are not feasible will an alternative scheme be considered. Design steps as below • Percolation testing in accordance with DG 365 will be required to support the use of soakaways, or justify an alternative option. The report should include the trail logs and calculate the infiltration rate. • Soakaways to be designed for a1:100 year event plus an allowance for climate change. (Currently 40%)
• If the ground conditions are not suitable then a controlled discharge a water course or Sewer can be considered. The surface water should be attenuated for a 1:100 year event plus 40% for climate change. The discharge must be limed to the green field run off rate.
2. Full details of the drainage system to manage the overland flows through and around the site from the upper catchments to mimic pre-development flow routes
3. If the Local Planning Authority concludes that the method of drainage approved as part of this permission is undermined by the results of the percolation tests, a mitigating drainage alternative shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority
4. The drainage scheme shall be installed in strict accordance with the approved plans, maintained and retained in accordance with the agreed details for the life of the development.
Reason: To ensure surface water runoff does not increase to the detriment of the public highway or other local properties as a result of the development.
8. PRE-COMMENCEMENT CONDITION: No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a detailed surface water drainage management plan for the full period of the development’s construction, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. This temporary surface water drainage management system shall then be constructed in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall thereafter be so maintained.
Reason: To ensure that surface water from the construction site is appropriately managed so as to not increase the flood risk, or pose water quality issues, to the surrounding area.
9. PRE-COMMENCEMENT CONDITION; No development shall take place until full details of a hard and soft Landscape Scheme have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Landscape Scheme shall be prepared by an appropriately qualified professional and shall include:
• details of ground preparation prior to importation of topsoil, including decompaction of material and removal of any debris including plastic, wood, rock and stone greater in size than 50mm in any dimension;
• arrangements for stripping, storage and re-use of top soil; • arrangements for importation of top soil, including volume, source, quality, depth and areas to be treated;
• details of earthworks associated with the development, including volumes of cut and fill and arrangements for disposal of any excess excavated material or importation of material;
• details, including design and materials, of ancillary structures such as bin stores and signage;
• details of lighting including function, location, design and intensity;
• details and cross sections of new ground profiles including retaining bunds and banks, particularly detailing the relationships between the existing field level and the southern site boundary, and the site with adjacent development to the north and west; • materials, heights and details of fencing and other boundary treatments;
• materials, heights, levels and extent of hard landscape treatment, including access points, tracks, roads and any hardstanding areas; • the location, number, species, density, form and size of proposed tree, hedge and shrub planting;
• the method of planting, establishment and protection of tree, hedge and shrub planting;
• maintenance schedules for the establishment of new planting and its ongoing management;
• a timetable for the implementation of all hard and soft landscape treatment
All elements of the Landscape Scheme shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. All work shall be completed in accordance with the timetable agreed in writing.
Reason: In the interest of public amenity and the conservation and enhancement of the local landscape character and the natural beauty of the AONB.
10. PRE-COMMENCEMENT CONDITION: No works or development shall take place until a scheme for the protection of the retained trees has been agreed in writing with the LPA. This scheme shall be in accordance British Standard 5837:2012 -Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations and shall include:
• Arboricultural method statement
• a plan to a scale and level of accuracy appropriate to the proposal that shows the position, crown spread and Root Protection Area of every retained tree on site and on neighbouring or nearby ground to the site in relation to the approved plans and particulars (section 4 of BS5837:2012). The positions of all trees to be removed shall be indicated on this plan.
• the details of each retained tree in a separate schedule (section 4 of BS5837:2012).
• a schedule of tree works for all the retained trees in the paragraphs above, specifying pruning and other remedial or preventative work, whether for physiological, hazard abatement, aesthetic or operational reasons. All tree works shall be carried out in accordance with BS3998: Recommendations for Tree Work.
• the details and positions (shown on the plan at paragraph (a) above) of the Root Protection Zones (section 6.2 of BS5837:2012) • the details and positions (shown on the plan at paragraph (a) above) of the Tree Protection Barriers (section 6.2 of BS5837:2012), identified separately where required for different phases of construction work (e.g. demolition, construction, hard landscaping). The Tree Protection Barriers must be erected prior to each construction phase commencing and remain in place, and undamaged for the duration of that phase. No works shall take place on the next phase until the Tree Protection Barriers are repositioned for that phase.
• the details and positions (shown on the plan at paragraph (a) above) of the Construction Exclusion Zones (section 6.2 of BS5837:2012)
• the details and positions (shown on the plan at paragraph (a) above) of the underground service runs (section 11.7 of BS5837:2012) • the details of any changes in levels or the position of any proposed excavations within 5 metres of the Root Protection Area of any retained tree, including those on neighbouring or nearby ground • the details of any special engineering required to accommodate the protection of retained trees (section 7 of BS5837:2012), (e.g. in connection with foundations, bridging, water features, surfacing) • the details of the working methods to be employed for the installation of drives and paths within the RPAs of retained trees in accordance with the principles of “No-Dig” construction
• the details of the working methods to be employed with regard to the access for and use of heavy, large, difficult to manoeuvre plant (including cranes and their loads, dredging machinery, concrete pumps, piling rigs, etc) on site • the details of the working methods to be employed with regard to site logistics and storage, including an allowance for slopes, water courses and enclosures, with particular regard to ground compaction and phytotoxicity
• the details of the method to be employed for the stationing, use and removal of site cabins within any RPA (para. 5.5 of BS5837:2012)
• the details of tree protection measures for the hard landscaping phase
• the timing of the various phases of the works or development in the context of the tree protection measures.
The approved scheme shall be strictly followed throughout the course of development works.
Reason: In the interests of the protection of trees of public amenity value.
11. PRE-COMMENCEMENT CONDITION: No development hereby approved shall commence until a Landscape Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Maintenance and management shall thereafter be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved LEMP.
Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and amenity.
12. Works to potential bird nesting habitat shall not be undertaken within the bird nesting season (March to August inclusive) unless a suitably qualified ecologist confirms the absence of nesting birds.
Reason: To safeguard the welfare of a protected species of wildlife, in the interests of the amenity of the area and the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 and the 1981 Wildlife and Country Act (as amended).
13. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an investigation and risk assessment and, where necessary, a remediation strategy and verification plan detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation strategy and verification plan and prior to occupation of any part of the permitted development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority.
Reason: No site investigation can completely characterise a site. This condition is required to ensure that any unexpected contamination that is uncovered during remediation or other site works is dealt with appropriately.
PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT
Case Officer: Matthew Jones Parish: Bigbury Ward: Charterlands
Application No: 3545/17/FUL
Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Andrew Lethbridge Associates The Yin Family 102 Fore Street Rosslyn Park Mews Kingsbridge Lyndhurst Road TQ7 1AW London NW3 5NJ
Site Address: Seafront, Marine Drive, Bigbury On Sea, TQ7 4AS
Development: Demolition of existing building and outbuildings and erection of 2no replacement dwellings including creation of new access off Marine Drive. Reason taken to Development Management Committee:
Cllr Baldry has requested that this application be determined by Development Management Committee due to concerns regarding the following:
‘1. The continued level of public objection, even to the revised plans. 2. The Parish Council objection. 3. Bigbury on Sea is not a sustainable community 4. The objection to the ridge height of the dwelling on plot 2. It is approx 1 metre higher than the existing garage on the plot. In order to maintain the staggered appearance as seen from coastal path and beach, it would be preferable if the height of the proposed dwelling on plot 2 could be reduced by 1 metre. I am aware of the sensible decision taken by DMC for Waves Edge, Challaborough. 5. The drawings show a chimney. The preference is to be in keeping with other new builds in the area and to have a low level flue, preferably built into the roof. Chimneys provide nesting places or seagulls. All new dwellings on Marine Drive have flues. It has been suggested by neighbours that chimneys are an eyesore. 6. I would ask for a construction management plan to ensure that construction vehicles do not enter the site from Warren Road, but do so from the new access on Marine Drive.[see letter of objection from Mr Peet of 10 December]. The corners are not wide enough for plant to turn in using Warren Road.’
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
Conditions
Time Accord with Plans Roof specification, including solar panels, prior to installation Materials samples prior to installation Landscape plan prior to commencement Accord with Japanese Knotweed mitigation, updated report prior to commencement Accord with recommendations of ecological report Retain garage for parking, plot two Unsuspected contamination
Key issues for consideration:
The main issues are the scale, massing and design of the proposal, the implications of the previous dismissed appeal, the impact upon the AONB, neighbour impact, drainage, ecology, access and parking and land contamination
Site Description:
The application is the detached dwelling ‘Seafront’ and its curtilage and garage located within the village of Bigbury-on-Sea. The site is within the village Settlement Boundary, and is also within the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Undeveloped Coast. The SW Coastal Path is very close by to the South and the site is visible from the path, and from the beach below.
The building is a two storey property with twin gables facing towards the sea, finished in pebble dash and tile with a small chimney stack within the roof. It enjoys a disproportionately large garden in comparison to other properties within the vicinity. There is an existing access from Marine Drive.
In 2015 an application for a pair of two storey dwellings was refused on AONB grounds due the scale, massing and degree of glass within the seaward elevation. In 2016 the associated appeal was dismissed on the same grounds. The Proposal:
Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing building and outbuildings and erection of 2no replacement four bedroom dwellings including the creation of a new access off Marine Drive.
This scheme is very different to that dismissed at appeal. The replacement dwellings are two bungalows set under hipped slate roofs with integral solar panels. The main ridge of each dwelling runs parallel to the beach and coastal path, but both have glazed gable elements projecting from their principal elevations. Both dwellings are lower than the existing dwelling on the site.
Both properties are set back into the site with the front gardens forming the principal outdoor amenity space. Soakaways are located within these garden areas. Private driveways provide vehicular access to garages at the rear. A new access is proposed from Marine Drive
The scheme has been revised during its lifetime, reducing the ground floor of the plot one by 500mm, and clarifying identified drawing errors.
Consultations:
County Highways Authority
No objection, standing advice
Bigbury Parish Council
Objection – acknowledge improvements in design but maintain objection to houses height and roof pitch
Representations:
14 letters of representation have been received at the time of writing this report, 11 in objection and 3 letters of support. Concerns raised are summarised as follows:
The scheme doesn’t follow the descending ridge height across the street scene The properties are unnecessarily elevated above existing ground levels Will be harmful to the AONB designation The solar panels are inappropriate The Japanese Knotweed is an impediment to the development Prefer flues to chimneys Consideration should be made to access during construction There are errors in the drawings
Comments made in support of the scheme are summarised as follows:
The design improves the standard of design within the village The applicant has listened to criticism The proposal addresses all points raised by the Inspector
Relevant Planning History
05/1229/15/F - Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and erection of 2No replacement dwellings to include creation of new access (Resubmission of planning approval 05/2922/14/F) – Refused and appeal dismissed Analysis
Principle of Development/Sustainability:
The site is within the Settlement Boundary, where the principle of new residential development is supported, subject to all other material planning considerations. The principle of two units was accepted by the Inspectorate when determining the previous appeal.
The current site, including the existing dwelling, owing to its design, incongruous massing and tired state, is considered by officers to present a negative contribution to the village. The site also presents a land contamination issue with four separate areas of Japanese Knotweed infestation.
The Dismissed Appeal
The previous, dismissed scheme is markedly different to that now proposed. Although the Inspector identifies the height of buildings to be an important factor for dwellings along Marine Drive, the primary reason for dismissing the appeal was the contrived two storey appearance of the proposed dwellings, achieved through the excavation of two storey buildings into the site, in combination with the extensive degree of glass within the principal elevations.
Design/Landscape:
The new scheme is not comparable as it shows two clearly identifiable bungalows, with a far better ratio of glass, wall and roof. Plot one is now set well below the ridge of the existing dwelling it would replace, and, although plot two is not lower in height than its previous iteration, it does not have a two storey appearance and is clearly identifiable as a well-designed bungalow.
In addition, the new scheme has also been itself revised during the lifetime of the application, taking into account third party comments, with plot one having been lowered by an additional 500mm, and it now sits at the same ground level as the existing dwelling. This achieves the stepping down of ridge heights across the street scene, as identified as a component of distinctiveness by the interested parties.
Overall, officers consider the scheme to have taken full account of third party, the Council and PINS’ concerns, and it has gone above and beyond what was necessary to render the scheme acceptable in planning terms by providing a design response which adheres to local distinctiveness and which will sit most comfortably within the village without detriment to the AONB designation nor the undeveloped coast and the South West Coastal Path. .
Officers do not consider it reasonable or necessary to require a further reduction of the height of plot two to bring it in line with the height of the existing garage outbuilding. Such a further reduction is not considered necessary to make the scheme acceptable in planning terms.
With regard to the chimneys, there are examples of both chimneys and flues in use throughout the village, and, on this basis, either approach is acceptable in planning terms.
Japanese Knotweed
The site is partially infested by Japanese Knotweed, which is a highly invasive plant species, the spreading of which is prohibited under Environmental legislation. Although the site has benefited from an herbicide control strategy since 2016, clearly the development of the site, as proposed, does have the potential to disturb the knotweed and its rhizomes if not carried out by a suitably qualified professional.
As such, the applicants are now proposing the complete removal of the contaminated soil prior to the commencement of other development within the site. This will be ensured through the use of an appropriately worded planning condition which will require an up to date survey, taking into account the most effective times of the year, to survey the existing level of infestation within the site.
Neighbour Amenity:
The neighbour impacts associated with this proposal are no different or greater than that from the existing dwelling, and there will be no undue loss of light, dominance or overlooking above and beyond that generally accepted within the locality.
Highways/Access:
The proposed accesses are consistent with others throughout the village and will not represent a specific highways safety issue. The proposal provides adequate onsite parking and turning. The dwellings will require retention of the garaging and hardstanding in perpetuity to ensure that turning on site is retained.
Ecology
The ecological report identifies that the demolition of the existing building will lead to the loss of bat habitat, specifically the occasional, not maternal use of the roof space by bats as a roost. However, in this case, the removal of the incongruous site and replacement with a well-designed scheme providing a positive contribution to the village justifies the loss of the existing building and its habitat in the public interest.
Works to renovate and retain the existing building appear to be extensive and unsatisfying aesthetically, and in themselves would likely disturb the roost. Leaving the building alone and unoccupied would likely cause its loss in the long term, leading officers to conclude that there is no satisfactory alternative.
Maintenance of Favourable Conservation Status is achieved through adherence to the recommendations of the submitted ecological report, and the Council’s ecologist has raised no objection to the technical aspects of the ecological work or its findings and recommendations.
Other Matters:
Surface water drains to on site, individual soakaways and foul is connected to the sewer. Officers are satisfied that the front gardens of each plot will provide capacity for a suitably specified on site soakaway.
The connectivity of the site to Marine Drive and Warren Road, combined with the onsite space for storage of materials, leads officers to conclude that it is not necessary or proportionate to impose a CEMP condition in this instance.
Although officers acknowledge that Bigbury-on-Sea itself can be poorly connected during the summer months, it is found that it is unreasonable to impose blanket time restrictions on construction during certain times of the year, and, in any case, such an approach would likely extend the construction period, and therefore the inconvenience to affected third parties.
Conclusion
Significant alterations and concessions have been made in comparison to the appeal scheme and further amendments have been made during the planning process made pursuant to third party and Parish comments.
These amendments mean that the scheme now goes above and beyond what was required to make this acceptable in planning terms; the bungalows will sit harmoniously within the village without detriment to its streetscape, public receptors or land designations, and the scheme provides a social benefit through housing provision and an environmental benefit through the removal of an incongruous site and the Japanese Knotweed infestation.
The scheme represents sustainable development and is recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions.
This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Planning Policy
Section 70 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that regard be had to the development plan, any local finance and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act requires that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The relevant development plan policies are set out below:
South Hams LDF Core Strategy
CS1 Location of Development CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment CS10 Nature Conservation CS11 Climate Change
Development Policies DPD
DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP4 Sustainable Construction DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP7 Transport, Access & Parking
South Hams Local Plan
SHDC 1 Development Boundaries
Emerging Bigbury Neighbourhood Plan
Emerging Joint Local Plan
The Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (the JLP) will replace the above as the statutory development plan once it is formally adopted.
Annex 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides guidance on determining the weight in relation to existing and emerging development plan policies.
For current development plan documents, due weight should be given to relevant policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).
For the JLP, which is an emerging development plan, the weight is to be determined by the stage of its preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections, and its degree of consistency with the Framework. The JLP is at a relatively advanced stage of preparation. The precise weight to be given to policies within the JLP will need to be determined on a case by case basis, having regard to all of the material considerations as set out on the analysis above.
PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017)
SPT1 Delivering sustainable development SPT2 Sustainable linked neighbourhoods and sustainable rural communities PLY49 Sherford Community Park Strategic Greenspace DEV1 Protecting amenity and the environment DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise and land DEV8 Meeting local housing need in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area DEV9 Accessible housing DEV10 Delivering high quality housing DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment DEV24 Landscape character DEV25 Undeveloped coast DEV27 Nationally protected landscapes DEV28 Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation DEV35 Renewable and low carbon energy (including heat)
Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010
The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report.
Planning Conditions
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby approved shall in all respects accord strictly with the following drawing numbers:
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which this approval relates.
3. The roofs of the buildings shall be clad in natural slates, fixed in the traditional manner with nails rather than slate hooks. Prior to installation, a full roofing specification including the types and sizes of natural slates to be used, together with the type, colour and profile of the ridge tiles, hip detailing, a section through the solar panels, and chimney stack and pot detailing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out only in accordance with the details so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing.
Reason: To ensure that the development displays good design practice and to allow the Local Planning Authority to assess the details of the scheme to ensure that is maintained.
4. Prior to installation, a schedule of materials and finishes, and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces shall have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out only in accordance with the details so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to consider the details of the materials.
5. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the site and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development, details of the location and finish of all new areas of hardstanding, details of new terracing and the form and finish of retaining walls.
All planting, seeding, turfing or hardsurfacing comprised in the approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out by the end of the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. The landscaping scheme shall be strictly adhered to during the course of the development and thereafter.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscaping scheme in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and to assimilate the development into its surroundings.
6. Notwithstanding the details within the approved plans and documents, prior to the commencement of development a Japanese Knotweed Survey and Removal/Mitigation Strategy shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The document will include:
A detailed survey of the current extent and location of Knotweed contamination within influence of the application site. Details of how the knotweed will be removed and disposed of prior to the commencement of development and/or how further land contamination will be prevented during the course of the development Details for the provision of onsite monitoring by a suitably qualified ecologist during the demolition, excavation and construction phases
The Survey and Removal/Mitigation Strategy will be strictly adhered to during the course of the development.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not spread or cause land contamination
7. The recommendations, mitigation and enhancement measures of the Ecological Report, by David F Wills dated 7 September 2017, shall be strictly adhered to at all times. In the event that it is not possible to do so all work shall immediately cease and not recommence until such time as an alternative strategy has been agreed in writing with the local planning authority.
Reason: To safeguard the interests of protected species
8. The garages and hardstandings hereby permitted shall remain available in perpetuity for the parking and turning of motor vehicles in association with the use of the dwellings.
Reason: To ensure that the off-street parking facilities remain available in the interests of highway safety.
9. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an [amended] investigation and risk assessment and, where necessary, a[n amended] remediation strategy and verification plan detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation strategy and verification plan and prior to occupation of any part of the permitted development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority.
Reason: No site investigation can completely characterise a site. This condition is required to ensure that any unexpected contamination that is uncovered during remediation or other site works is dealt with appropriately.
PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT
Case Officer: Gemma Bristow Parish: Kingswear Ward: Dartmouth and East Dart
Application No: 3741/17/FUL
Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr Simon French Mr & Mrs Lowe Halfway Orchard Crofters Cottage, Raddicombe Lane Totnes Road Hillhead Paignton TQ5 0EX TQ4 7PY
Site Address: Crofters Cottage, Raddicombe Lane, Hillhead, TQ5 0EX
Development: New detached two bedroom bungalow to the rear of the plot (resubmission of 2615/17/FUL)
Reason item is being put before Committee: Cllr Rowe has called this application to committee as the dwelling is very close to the neighbouring properties. This will result in overlooking, loss of privacy and affect the right to sit in their gardens and enjoy the peaceful conditions as per the Human Rights Act. Recommendation: Conditional approval
Conditions - Time - In accordance with plans - Remove PD - Unsuspected contamination - Surface water drainage - Foul drainage - Details of landscaping and boundaries
Key issues for consideration: Principle, design, amenity
Site Description: Crofters Cottage occupies a large plot 0.14ha on the west side of the road within the settlement of Hillhead. It borders the gardens of neighbouring dwellings on its north, west and south sides.
Within AONB, Tree Preservation Order on southern boundary,
The Proposal: Erection of a detached two bedroom bungalow 12.2m long by 8.3m wide and 5m high to ridge of hipped roof dropping to 2.7m at eaves.
Amendment: Ridge height reduced by 1m, down from 5m as first submitted, and hipped roof introduced.
Consultations:
County Highways Authority: Standing advice
Environmental Health Section: No comments.
Town/Parish Council: objection due to loss of light to neighbouring properties, un-neighbourly and overbearing due to proximity of boundary wall, visual impact as close to neighbours property.
Representations: 8 letters of objection on the following grounds: - Increase traffic - Noise and disturbance close to boundary of 30 Hillhead Park - Loss of trees - Loss of light - Too close to boundaries of surrounding properties - Loss of privacy - Errors within the DAS - Capacity of septic tank that currently serves Crofters Cottage - Footprint too large - Noise from new driveway - Application not in compliance with Construction Design Management Regulations 2015 - Who would manage the project, length of time of project? - Trees have already been felled
In response to the amended plans 5 further responses were received stating: - The hipped roof does not reduce the overall height, would have little change to neighbours to west and north-west. - Over dominance - Too closed to boundaries - Loss of light - Loss of privacy - Noise from new drive - No section plan on the dwellings to the west/north-west
Relevant Planning History - 2615/17/FUL: New three bedroom dwelling. Withdrawn Nov 17 - 30/0350/14/PREMIN: Pre - application enquiry for proposed division of existing plot and creation of new dwelling. Not concluded as further information to be provided. May 14
ANALYSIS
Principle of Development/Sustainability: The site is located within the settlement boundary of Hillhead and so it considered a sustainable location and so there is no in principle objection, subject to the considerations below.
Design/Landscape: The position of the proposed dwelling, set back within the plot off the existing driveway would mean it would have a very limited/if any street presence. While the surrounding dwellings are generally set within more spacious plots it is noted that a variety of plot sizes exist in the general area. In this context, the constrained plot size is not considered significantly out of place in terms of the character and appearance of the area. The proposed design of the dwelling is functional, and has been amended to reduce the impact on the surrounding neighbours. It is considered that given its set back position and the variety of building designs in the area that the proposed design is acceptable.
It is acknowledged that the proposed dwelling would have a highly constrained plot, and therefore very limited outside amenity space that would be located primarily to the south of the dwelling, to the west of the garage serving the host dwelling. While this is considered a limited outdoor area, with sensitive planting and boundary treatment sufficient privacy could be achieved from the host dwelling. The details of which are recommended to be secured by condition.
Neighbour Amenity: In terms of amenity, it is noted that the proposed dwelling would be located 1.4m from its north-west boundary and between 1.5m and 5m from the south-west boundary and so the most impacted neighbours would be nos. 25 – 28 Hillhead Park. It is acknowledged that the dwelling would be located in close proximity to the surrounding neighbours, however with a ridge height reduced to 5m and the introduction of a hipped roof the dwelling is considered to have a minimal visual impact on the surrounding dwellings.
Due to the low eaves height and shallow pitch of the roof proposed and set back to the surrounding neighbours the dwelling it not considered to result in a significant loss of light to the surrounding dwellings. It should also be noted that no windows are proposed in the roofslopes, and facing ground floor windows are considered acceptable given a standard 2m boundary fence would resolve any privacy issues. The proposed dwelling would inevitably change the outlook of the surrounding neighbours, who currently look into a densely vegetated garden area, however it would not result in a significant loss of outlook or creation of sense of enclosure.
It is however acknowledged that the dwelling would introduce noise and disturbance in close proximity to the adjoining gardens of the dwellings on Hillhead Park, above which would be expected from this area of garden used by the existing house. While the position of the dwelling close to the boundaries would limit the size of rear patio area, given the external openings proposed to this area and its privacy from the host dwelling it is considered it would be reasonably well used. While this change in intensity of use of this part of the garden would impact on the neighbours to some degree, it is not considered on balance to be so significant to warrant a refusal.
In relation to the host dwelling, while the proposal would have a very close relationship, given the angle of the proposed dwelling and that the primary outlook of Crofters Cottage is to the east the proposal is not considered to result in loss of privacy, outlook or light to the host dwelling.
Highways/Access: The existing driveway would be used by both the existing and proposed dwelling and there is considered to be sufficient space to allow vehicles to enter and exit in forward gear. It is acknowledged that the intensity of driveway use would increase, but given it is existing this increase is not considered harmful in terms of noise and disturbance to the adjoining neighbours.
Other Matters: Drainage: The host property of Crofter Cottage is currently served by a septic tank, and the applicant has confirmed it has a large double chamber and is in good condition. It is therefore proposed to make an independent connection to the first chamber from the new property. This pipework will be under an easement with the original property and a formal maintenance agreement will be made between the two properties to allow for the maintenance of the septic tank. Drainage specialists have confirmed this is acceptable.
An in principle surface water scheme has been submitted to the satisfaction of drainage specialists, and so conditions are recommended to secure details of this.
Conclusion This is a finely balanced scheme given the position and size of the dwelling close to the boundaries with the adjoining neighbours. It is considered this is the absolute limit in height and footprint that could be permitted in this location and for this reason permitted development rights are proposed to be removed. The proposed dwelling is acknowledged to intensify the use of this part of the garden, however this is not considered to result in significant loss of amenity to the adjoining neighbours.
This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Planning Policy
Section 70 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that regard be had to the development plan, any local finance and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act requires that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The relevant development plan policies are set out below:
South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment CS10 Nature Conservation CS11 Climate Change
Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP4 Sustainable Construction DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking
South Hams Local Plan (please delete as necessary) SHDC 1 Development Boundaries
Emerging Joint Local Plan
The Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (the JLP) will replace the above as the statutory development plan once it is formally adopted.
Annex 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides guidance on determining the weight in relation to existing and emerging development plan policies.
For current development plan documents, due weight should be given to relevant policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). For the JLP, which is an emerging development plan, the weight is to be determined by the stage of its preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections, and its degree of consistency with the Framework.
The JLP is at a relatively advanced stage of preparation. The precise weight to be given to policies within the JLP will need to be determined on a case by case basis, having regard to all of the material considerations as set out on the analysis above.
PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017) SPT1 Delivering sustainable development SPT2 Sustainable linked neighbourhoods and sustainable rural communities SPT3 Provision for new homes TTV1 Prioritising growth through a hierarchy of sustainable settlements TTV2 Delivering sustainable development in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area DEV1 Protecting amenity and the environment DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise and land DEV8 Meeting local housing need in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area DEV9 Accessible housing DEV10 Delivering high quality housing DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment DEV24 Landscape character DEV27 Nationally protected landscapes DEV28 Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation DEV30 Trees, woodlands and hedgerows DEV37 Managing flood risk and Water Quality Impacts
Kingswear Neighbourhood Plan
Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report.
Conditions 1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby approved shall in all respects accord strictly with drawing numbers received by the Local Planning Authority on:
2(D) 29/3/18 3(D) 10/11/17 4(F) 29/3/18 7(A) 29/3/18 Site location plan 9/11/17
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which this approval relates.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (and any Order revoking and re enacting this Order), no development of the types described in the following Classes of Schedule 2 shall be undertaken without the express consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority other than those expressly authorised by this permission:
(a) Part 1, Class A (extensions and alterations) (b) Part 1, Classes B and C (roof addition or alteration) (c) Part 1, Class D (porch) (d) Part 1, Class E ((a) swimming pools and buildings incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse and; (b) container used for domestic heating purposes/oil or liquid petroleum gas) (e) Part 1, Class F (hardsurfaces) (f) Part 2, Class A (means of enclosure) (g) Part 14, Classes A & B (domestic solar equipment)
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to exercise control over development which could materially harm the character and visual amenities of the development and locality.
4. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an investigation and risk assessment and, where necessary, a remediation strategy and verification plan detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation strategy and verification plan and prior to occupation of any part of the permitted development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority.
Reason: No site investigation can completely characterise a site. This condition is required to ensure that any unexpected contamination that is uncovered during remediation or other site works is dealt with appropriately.
5. Notwithstanding the submitted details, the development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until full details of drainage scheme for the surface water have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The drainage scheme should follow the drainage hierarchy with soakaways as the first choice. Only if soakaways are not feasible will an alternative scheme be considered. Design steps as below
• Percolation testing in accordance with DG 365 will be required to support the use of soakaways, or justify an alternative option. The report should include the trail logs and calculate the infiltration rate. • Soakaways to be designed for a 1:100 year event plus an allowance for climate change. (Currently 40%) • If the ground conditions are not suitable for soakaway then a controlled discharge to a watercourse or Sewer can be considered. The surface water should be attenuated for a 1:100 year event plus 40% for climate change. The discharge must be limed to the green field run off rate. • If discharging to the sewer written permission from SWW will be required.
If the Local Planning Authority concludes that the method of drainage approved as part of this permission is undermined by the results of the percolation tests, a mitigating drainage alternative shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority
The drainage scheme shall be installed in strict accordance with the approved plans, maintained and retained in accordance with the agreed details for the life of the development.
Reason: To ensure surface water runoff does not increase to the detriment of the public highway or other local properties as a result of the development.
6. Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall be commenced until: Details to demonstrate condition and capacity of the existing foul sewage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details to include a location plan, cross sections/elevations, specification and its capacity to accommodate foul sewage from this development. Details to include a completed FDA1 form and justification for private foul system. Reason: In the interests of the prevention of pollution
7. The building works shall not be implemented until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, indicating the boundary treatment of the proposed development.
The scheme submitted shall be fully implemented in the planting season following the completion of the development and the plants shall be protected, maintained and replaced as necessary for a minimum period of five years following the date of the completion of the planting.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity in order to protect and enhance the amenities of the site and locality.
PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT
Case Officer: Gemma Bristow Parish: Wembury Ward: Wembury and Brixton
Application No: 3078/17/FUL
Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr & Mrs Charles Stewart Mr & Mrs Charles Stewart 1 Old Coastguard Cottage 1 Old Coastguard Cottage Wembury Wembury PL9 0EJ PL9 0EJ
Site Address: 1 Old Coastguard Cottages, Wembury, PL9 0EJ
Development: Construction of a new quay to improve access
Reason item is being put before Committee: Cllr D Brown called this application to committee given the large scale local objection to this application from both Newton Ferrers and Noss Mayo, and Wembury Parish Council’s, and the impact he perceives to have on the coastline, and the AONB, Cllr Brown would like this to be heard by the Development Management Committee. Recommendation: Delegate to CoP Lead Development Management, in conjunction with Chairman to conditionally grant planning permission, subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.
However, in the event that the Section 106 legal Agreement remains unsigned six months after this resolution, that the application is reviewed by the COP Lead Development Management, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, and if no progress is being made delegated authority is given to the CoP to refuse to application in the absence of an agreed S106 Agreement.
The Section 106 should secure the following:
To restrict the use quay for boat launching/recovery and the storage of two access boats .
Conditions 1. Time limit 2. In accordance with plans 3. If no longer needed to be removed 4. CEMP compliance 5. No external lighting 6. Natural England best practice on construction on the foreshore 7. Quay to be constructed with at least 50mm wide gaps in the timber planks
Key issues for consideration: Impact on AONB and Undeveloped coast, listed buildings and boathouse, SSSI, design and materials
Site Description: No.1 Old Coastguard Cottage forms part of a terrace of four dwellings located on the south (Wembury) side of the River Yealm, almost opposite the Yealm Steps/pontoon on the Newton Ferrers side. It is noted that all the cottages are used as holiday lets. The Coastguard Cottages are only accessed by foot on the Wembury side down a coastal track or boat from the Newton Ferrers side. Below the cottages on the foreshore edge is a Grade II listed boathouse and steps leading down to the foreshore, both of which are not within the ownership of the applicant. The applicant owns the section of land between the steps and the boathouse but must maintain rights of access to the boathouse to the owner cottage nos. 2 – 4.
Within Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Undeveloped Coast and SSSI.
The Proposal: Construction of a new timber quay to improve access, 7.7m long by 2.6m wide on 8.7m high timber/steep supports.
Amendments: the proposed davit has been removed, the quay shortened and reduced in height.
Consultations:
Natural England: Based on the plans submitted and providing the methods within the revised application are strictly adhered to Natural England considers that the proposed development will not have significant adverse impacts on designated sites Plymouth Sound and Estuaries SAC, Yealm Estuary SSSI and protected landscape South Devon AONB and has no objection.
South Devon AONB Estuaries Officer: As part of the proposed development is within the foreshore, the applicant is also certain to require a Marine License from the MMO for the same proposed development. I suggest that the health of the estuary and nearby coast needs to be carefully considered, and all required mitigations detailed within a Construction Environmental Management Plan. I would expect this to contain detail of how all dust, silt and other potential pollutants will be effectively captured and prevented from entering the estuary, both during the construction phase as well as the new developments proposed uses. Excellent guidance is contained within the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidance 5 & 6 (appended). NB Whilst these documents are no longer supported by the EA, they still contain sound advice that I am confident that the applicant will find useful. The CEMP should also pre-empt any potential need for transportation by water or along the shore of construction materials.
Any external lighting of this proposed development needs to be carefully considered for its impacts on navigation (a Yealm Harbour Authority function) and on the estuarine waters below and suggest that it is strictly conditioned that no external lighting may spill out over the waters.
We would also draw your attention to the new emerging Newton & Noss Neighbourhood Plan and Policy N3P-4: Development and Construction of their submitted plan http://www.n3p.co.uk/
To fit/blend/reduce the aesthetic impact of the proposed quay and davit with the historic status of the existing buildings and seawalls, etc. of the site, we would suggest the consideration of the following; the overall expanse of the proposed quay might be reduced to the realistic size of the vessels that it is likely to be used for, reducing the height of the decking slightly and exploring the source of a black painted and period styled davit.
Landscape officers: The proposed addition of development in this area is regrettable as the foreshore is under significant pressure for recreational uses, and currently contributes to the estuary character as a special quality of the AONB. However when viewed from both the opposite bank and the water, the proposed location lies between existing built features, and would not extend the visible area of development. In addition, the level horizontal platform means that the change in view would be limited. I note the intention to limit the number of boats stored in this area through a Unilateral Undertaking and this is welcomed as a means to lower the associated visual impacts of the proposals. Despite the principle concern about further foreshore development, the impacts of this particular proposal on both landscape character and visual amenity would be limited, and I would therefore not raise an objection on landscape grounds under Development Plan policies DP2 and CS9, and the emerging policies of the Joint Local Plan. Heritage officers: Officers provided advice at pre-application stage that confirmed a low level structure positioned between the boathouse and steps would not adversely impact on the setting of the listed buildings.
Newton and Noss Parish Council: Objects due to visual impact of a modern structure affecting a listed building/heritage asset. Requests site is viewed from Yealm steps, Yealm Road.
Wembury Parish Council: Objects due to adverse impact of the proposed development on these listed buildings, so the original reasons for objection remain ie Overdevelopment, which will dominate a listed building. Adverse visual impact on a listed building.
The revised plans do not change the adverse impact of the proposed development on these listed buildings, so the original reasons for objection remain ie Overdevelopment, which will dominate a listed building. Adverse visual impact on a listed building.
Representations: 20 letters of objection received on the following grounds: - Concern that residents on Yealm Road were not notified - Could only be used at high tide - Boathouse damaged in storm but understood will be repaired - Oversized development of this iconic site - Existing steps, slipway and boathouse are in need of restoration and would be a better way to improve water access - Decking over the original armoured wall is out of keeping and would harm the special setting and historical value - The anchoring of the new quay to the armoured wall will shatter the stones and so damage the historical feature. - Damage the natural beauty of the area - The crane/derrick would be completely out of place - Raised height of decking is unnecessary and out of place - Applicant has not provided an assessment of when the quay could be used in relation to the tides - The proposal would not give no.1 direct access to the foreshore, which could still only be via the existing steps owned by the adjoining neighbour.
1 letter of support on the following grounds: - Development is minor and would look smarter than it looks now
Relevant Planning History 0038/15/PRH - Pre-app enquiry to 1. restore external door and 2. timber decking to existing quay. Officer support given.
ANALYSIS
Principle It is acknowledged that the terrace of four Old Coastguard Cottages are in a very unique position given they are not accessible by car, but by boat from the Newton Ferrers side of the river. In addition, the boathouse and slipway that historically served all the cottages are now in the ownership of no.2-4 and so the owners of no.1 do not have a means to safely launch boats at this site. Nevertheless, this is a highly sensitive site within a very prominent position on the waters edge opposite Newton Ferrers, added to which the cottages and boathouse are Grade II listed.
In terms of the existing access arrangements the applicant has confirmed there is a ferry in operation from April to September which runs for three hours a day (10:00 – 12:00 & 15:00 – 16:00) which can drop occupiers off 200m away from the cottages, although can sometimes drop on the foreshore at the cottages themselves. The applicant has stated the nearest location to access by car is to park at Thorn House and walk 1.2/2km down a steep track and the applicant has rights of access by foot, wheel barrow or hand cart, but in practice this route is only used in an emergency or bad weather in winter.
At present the property is normally accessed by boat from the harbour pontoon over the beach at low water and alongside the existing stone quay or the neighbour’s steps at high water. Heavy or bulky materials are usually loaded from Bridge End Quay. Unloading or alighting on the stone quay is difficult and hazardous as it is sloping, uneven and slippery but necessary to operate the outhaul mooring. It is noted that while the applicant states they have rights of access of the stone steps this is disputed by the neighbour.
The proposed quay would provide a safe level platform on which the occupants of no.1 Coastguard Cottages could launch and recover a small boat, or unload/load heavy goods for roughly an hour either side of high tide. While this is acknowledged to offer a small window for safer access, it would provide the only opportunity for the owners to safely bring in or out bulky goods from the property and recover their boat. It is also a given that access to this property by boat is constrained by the tide and conditions, however there is currently no opportunity for safe access at any point as the use of the outhaul mooring requires the occupiers to stand on the sloping stone quay. Outside of the window that the quay could be used either side of high water the occupiers would still need to climb down to the foreshore to board a boat, however the use of the outhaul mooring would be much improved given it would be operated when stood on the level platform. The second purpose of the quay is to provide a platform to store the two boats that are used by the occupiers of no.1 through the winter months. At present it is not possible to lift the boats out of the water at the property due to the steep slope of the stone quay, added to which the applicant has to retain rights of access over the narrow strip of level land above the quay. The initially proposed davit has been removed from the plans and a smaller less visually intrusive roller proposed to aid with the recovery of boats from the water.
Visual appearance This is a highly sensitive and prominent site within the AONB and undeveloped coast that is afforded the highest level of protection. In addition, the quay would be positioned adjacent to the Grade II listed boathouse and below the listed terrace of cottages. Nevertheless, the proposed structure would be low level and supported on timber posts that would fade into the surrounding landscape over time. The structure itself is not considered to harm the setting of the listed boathouse given its subservient nature or the setting of the listed cottages above. The visibility of the quay would be limited by being positioned between the boathouse and stone steps, and it would be read in the context of the existing stone quays located either side which are currently used to store boats.
There is concern that this could lead to a domestication of the quay from use as sitting out/sun deck/BBQs etc. While the applicant contends this point given the cottage is served by a large terrace, this is an area of concern. It is noted that a number of smaller boats/dinghies are currently stored on the land behind the existing stone quay which already detracts from the ‘unspoilt’ appearance of the foreshore but are fitting with their marine location. In this case it not possible to condition the quay for use for launching/recovery of boats only, as this is not an enforceable condition given the applicants have rights to use their land as they wish in relation to residential use. Nevertheless, the applicant has agreed to pay for a unilateral undertaking to be prepared that would ensure the quay could only be used for the launching/recovery of boats and storage of two access boats. Further to this a condition is recommended to ensure the quay planks have at least 50mm gaps which would render the surface uncomfortable for the use of standard tables and chairs. It is considered that in light of the low nature of the structure and legal agreement to restrict its use, it would not now have an adverse impact on the AONB or landscape setting.
It is noted that Newton and Noss Neighbourhood Plan is now made so has full weight, and includes policies N3P-2 on protecting the waterfront and N3P-9 on protecting the landscape. While the proposal is outside of the boundary of Newton and Noss it clearly has a strong link by the water access and the views of the proposal from the Newton side. Nevertheless, in line with the discussion above the proposal is considered to comply with these polices as it is not considered to harm the landscape character or marine environment.
Marine conservation In terms of the impact on the estuary Natural England have reviewed the application, and in response to additional specifications of the works provided and a Construction Environmental Management Plan have confirmed the works would not have a significant adverse impact on Plymouth Sound and Estuaries SAC, Yealm Estuary SSSI and protected landscape South Devon AONB. It is recommended that further conditions are imposed to ensure:
Vehicle movements on the foreshore are kept to a minimum and access/egress routes clearly defined. No storage of equipment on the foreshore. Contractors adhere to pollution prevention best practice guidelines including use of materials that are not toxic to the marine environment and measures to ensure no leakage of materials into the marine environment
The need to obtain a Marine Licence is outside the remit of this application, however it is noted that applicants state they own the land on which the quay would be constructed. This is separate matter that would need to be resolved once a decision has been reached on this application. Conclusion This is a highly prominent and protected site within the AONB, undeveloped coast and SSSI, however the structure proposed is low level and not considered to be visibly harmful to the landscape or listed buildings. While any development on the foreshore is going to be highly sensitive it is considered that in this case there is a strong need to provide improved access to No.1 Coastguard cottage given it does not benefit from the use of the boathouse slipway and disputed use of the steps. It is considered that given the minimal visibility of the timber quay proposed, the legal safeguards on its use and the access improvements the proposal should be supported.
This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and, with Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Planning Policy
Section 70 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that regard be had to the development plan, any local finance and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act requires that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The relevant development plan policies are set out below:
South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment CS10 Nature Conservation CS11 Climate Change
Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP4 Sustainable Construction DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP6 Historic Environment
Emerging Joint Local Plan
The Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (the JLP) will replace the above as the statutory development plan once it is formally adopted.
Annex 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides guidance on determining the weight in relation to existing and emerging development plan policies.
For current development plan documents, due weight should be given to relevant policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). For the JLP, which is an emerging development plan, the weight is to be determined by the stage of its preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections, and its degree of consistency with the Framework.
The JLP is at a relatively advanced stage of preparation. The precise weight to be given to policies within the JLP will need to be determined on a case by case basis, having regard to all of the material considerations as set out on the analysis above. PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017)
TTV31 Development in the Countryside TTV32 Residential extensions and replacement dwellings in the countryside DEV1 Protecting amenity and the environment DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise and land DEV3 Sport and recreation DEV10 Delivering high quality housing DEV22 Development affecting the historic environment DEV24 Landscape character DEV25 Undeveloped coast DEV27 Nationally protected landscapes DEV28 Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation DEV37 Managing flood risk and Water Quality Impacts DEV38 Coastal Change Management Areas
Wembury Neighbourhood Plan
Newton and Noss Neighbourhood Plan N3P-2 Protecting the Waterfront N3P-9 Protecting the landscape
Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report.
Conditions:
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby approved shall in all respects accord strictly with drawing numbers below received by the Local Planning Authority on
P2269-DR-002 17/5/18 P2269-DR-005 1/2/18 P2269-DR-007 1/2/18 Site Location plan 25/9/17
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which this approval relates.
3. If the quay is no longer needed for boat launching/recovery or boat storage then it shall be removed and the land reinstated to its former state.
Reason: To ensure only essential marine development is retained on the foreshore.
4. The proposed development shall be undertaken in strict compliance with the Construction Environment Management Plan received on 1st February 2018.
Reason: To protect the foreshore from impacts of construction 5. Notwithstanding the details provided, there shall be no external lighting unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect the countryside from intrusive development
6. The proposed works shall be undertaken in compliance with the best practice guidance set out in Natural England's response dated 28 March 2018 ref: 421789:
- Vehicle movements on the foreshore are kept to a minimum and access/egress routes clearly defined.
- No storage of equipment on the foreshore
- Contractors adhere to pollution prevention best practice guidelines including use of materials that are not toxic to the marine environment and measures to ensure no leakage of materials into the marine environment Reason: To safeguard the intertidal and estuarine habitats
7. The timber boarding for the quay platform shall be laid with 50mm spaces between the planks, and this spacing shall be retained permanently unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of allowing light to the foreshore beneath and to ensure the quay is only used for its intended purpose. PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT
Case Officer: Wendy Ormsby Parish: Dartington Ward: Dartington and Staverton
Application No: 4017/17/FUL
Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr Richard Boyt Mr Bernard Moles South Hams Planning Ltd Cott House, Cott Lane 7 Manor Park Dartington Kingsbridge TQ9 6HE TQ7 1BB
Site Address: Cott House, Cott Lane, Dartington, TQ9 6HE
Development: Relocation of detached garage and erection of two detached dwellings
Reason item is being put before Committee: At the request of the Ward Member due to impact on bats and having regard to the concerns raised by the Parish Recommendation: Conditional approval
Conditions
1. Time limit 2. Accord with plans 3. Approval of external materials 4. Landscaping 5. Drainage - surface water 6. Drainage - foul 7. Accord with the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal 8. Development in accordance with AIA 9. Tree protection measures 10. Provision of new access road prior to occupation 11. Construction and delivery hours 12. Removal of PD – extensions, outbuildings, means of enclosure and hardstandings 13. No external lighting on or beyond the west elevations of the dwelling houses unless agreed by LPA.
Key issues for consideration:
Design/character of the area Neighbour amenity Ecology/Trees
Site Description:
The site consists of the large, well landscaped rear garden for a large 1930’s detached house, which is situated to the west of Cott Lane, within an established residential area in Dartington. The northern boundary of the site adjoins the dwellings off Droridge, with the curtilages for the dwellings at “Deepdene” and “Little Woodcote” to the south. The western boundary of the site consists of a stream with the dwellings off Droridge to the north. Cott lane forms the eastern boundary of the site. The dwelling at “Cott House” is sited towards the centre of the plot, with a large rear garden sloping downwards to the stream on the western boundary. There is a detached garage immediately to the south west of the dwelling The surrounding area is characterised by low density detached dwellings set within large gardens.
The site is located within the Dartington Development Boundary. The access lane which serves the two adjoining dwellings to the south of the site is a Public Right of Way.
The Proposal:
The application seeks consent for the demolition of the garage adjoining “Cott House” and the construction of two detached houses within the rear garden of the existing dwelling. The proposed dwellings will be two storey with a lower ground floor and they will be set into the downward western slope of the land. The design of the dwellings is modern in form with timber framing and stone and timber cladding. The dwellings will have metal dual pitched roofs. The dwellings have a south east- north west orientation
Vehicular access to the new dwellings will be from an extension to the driveway which serves “Cott House” from Cott Lane to the east of the site. The existing garage serving “Cott House” is to be demolished to provide space to extend the driveway to the new dwellings. A new garage to serve “Cott House” is to be built on the north eastern side of the dwelling.
Consultations:
County Highways Authority – No objections to the proposals; standard advice regarding access and parking provision has been given.
Environmental Health Section – No comments received.
Dartington Parish Council. Objection: Over-development of site in view of proposed development and subsequent visual effect on adjacent properties. Loss of tree cover. Inadequate provision for drainage. Impracticable proposals for parking and access arrangements with possible subsequent effect on Cott Lane. Boundary proposals seem not to accord with land ownership records.
SHDC Trees: No objection
SHDC Ecology: No objection, potential impacts regarding light spillage can be addressed by condition.
Environment Agency: No comment received.
Drainage – No objections; sufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate a workable drainage scheme can be provided. Conditions relating to the submission and approval of a foul and surface water drainage system are required.
Representations:
Representations from Resident
Approx 11 letters raising objections to these proposals has been received from local residents with concerns including the following:
The height of the dwellings will impinge upon the adjoining dwellings Loss of privacy to adjoining dwellings Lighting and noise will adversely affect the adjoining properties Increased traffic and pollution in Cott Lane. Increased housing density in the area which is out of character Loss of trees on the site which have TPO’s An unwelcome precedent for similar development in the locality The dwelling for unit 1 is too close to the side boundary The dwellings would adversely affect the wildlife on the site. The development will encroach into an attractive wooded valley The dwellings would have an overbearing impact upon the adjoining properties
Relevant Planning History
14/1785/15/F – Erection of detached dwelling and associated parking within the garden – Deepdene, Cott Lane, Dartington – Conditional Approval. ANALYSIS
Principle of Development/Sustainability:
The site is located within the Dartington Development Boundary, where new residential development would be acceptable in principle and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, which supports development in sustainable locations. The proposals will need to be considered in relation to all other relevant development plan policies and site specific material planning issues which are highlighted below.
The site is located within the built-up area for Dartington and is conveniently sited close to the village facilities. The site can be classified as being within a sustainable location for the dwellings.
Design/Landscape
The Dartington area contains a variety of architectural styles for the buildings and two new contemporary dwellings would not be out of keeping in this context. The existing dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the site are generally detached with reasonable sized plots. The proposed development would introduce two new dwellings into the rear garden area for an existing dwelling at “Cott House”. The site is not within a prominent position from a public viewpoint in the immediate locality. The sub-division of the existing large dwelling plot would not have a significant impact on the overall residential character of the area. The design of the proposed dwellings is considered to be acceptable as a type of contemporary architecture. The well screened nature of the site would mean that the proposed dwellings would not harm the character of the area. The landscape character of the locality would not be adversely affected by these proposals.
Visual impact
The site is located to the rear of a large detached dwelling which has a well landscaped plot. It is well screened by trees and shrubs from the immediate surroundings and it can be contended that the proposed dwellings will not form a prominent or intrusive feature in the area. The visual impact of these proposals within the local area is considered to be acceptable.
Neighbour Amenity:
The adjoining properties which could be affected by these proposals are “Deepdene” and “Little Woodcote to the south of the site and the adjoining dwellings off Droridge Lane to the north of the site. However, on balance it is considered that the new dwellings would be sited sufficiently far enough away from the adjoining properties so as not to cause a significant loss of privacy or visual dominance for the adjoining residents. The two new dwellings would not result in any other harmful impacts upon the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the adjoining properties. The new dwellings would not be clearly visible from the adjoining properties off Droridge to the north of the site and from the adjoining dwellings to the south of the site. The existing dwelling at “Cott House” would still retain a good size private garden area and would not be significantly overlooked by the new dwellings.
It is also considered that noise arising from the occupation of the two new dwellings is not a justifiable reason for refusal of the development. The noise generated from a private garden is a normal domestic activity.
Impact on residential amenity is acceptable. . Highways/Access:
Devon County Council have given due consideration to the proposed access arrangements and have raised no technical objections. In view of the access arrangements and the proximity of the existing dwelling to the access driveway, a construction management plan as a conditional requirement has been recommended for any approval.
The proposals make adequate parking provision for the two new dwellings and ensure garaging and parking space for the existing dwelling is provided. It is recommended that a condition to ensure the parking provision for all three dwellings on the site is fully implemented prior to the occupation of the new dwellings.
Biodiversity
The site lies within the Bulkamore Special Area of Conservation for Greater Horseshoe Bats
The application included a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. The report considers the site is of limited ecological value and no protected wildlife species would be adversely affected. The site is unsuitable for bat foraging and isolated from woodlands or hedgerows that may hold a breeding population of protected wildlife species. It does not consider that further ecological survey work is required.
The Council’s Ecologist has reviewed the submitted information and concluded that whilst further survey work in respect of light spillage to the nearby stream and impact on bat populations would be preferred. A lighting report has since been submitted which demonstrates light hitting the sensitive bat corridor would not exceed 0.5 lux which is an acceptable level to avoid impact on bats. This is based on there being no external lighting at the rear of the new properties. A planning condition is recommended to control this.
The report comments that light on the stream cold be reduced further by denser planting, building an earth mound or reducing the size of the windows.
This has been reviewed by the Council’s Ecologist who has commented as follows:
The lighting report model shows a maximum light level resulting from the new development of 0.43lux (average of 0.1lux) which is below the 0.5lux expected.
To arrive at this figure the report does however make the assumption that the adjacent vegetation will stop 50% of light passing through to the stream (and gives some consideration to evergreen/deciduous and resulting effect). This would be offset to a degree given that the modelling is worst case so doesn’t take account of any curtains/blinds, etc.
Accordingly, to have confidence in the modelled light levels a hedgebank with screen planting should be secured by condition. The application references new screen planting (drawing no. 2213.01) on the western boundary, and within emails from the agent there have been references to a proposal for a hedgebank from their consultant ecologist, but it is unclear whether both are proposed.
A condition will be required restricting external lighting on the western elevations (unless agreed in writing by the LPA – it would need to be on a short timer and cowled, etc).
The need for the hedgebank is queried by the applicant. A planning condition requiring a landscaping scheme to be agreed will allow a variety of options to be explored and a suitable scheme achieved.
Subject to planning conditions the impact on ecology is considered to be acceptable.
Trees
Trees on the northern site boundary are protected by TPO’s. The application included a tree survey and identified that four trees (2 x category C and 2 x category U - unsafe) would be removed by these proposals. It may be necessary to prune the canopy of one of the category B oak trees by around 2m. Tree protection measures are included to ensure the protection of retained trees.
Plot 1 is in close proximity to protected trees but is outside of the root protection zone. As the trees are north of the dwelling it is less likely there would be pressure to fell trees in the future.
Additional planting is proposed and a landscaping condition will require replacement planting of the trees to be removed
Impact on trees is considered to be acceptable.
Drainage:
A drainage scheme forms part of the application submission. It is considered there is sufficient detail to enable the final details to be agreed by condition.
Flood Risk:
The lower part of the site, adjacent to the stream (west part of the site) lies within Flood Zones 2&3. The proposed dwellings sit entirely within Flood Zone 1 as does the access and parking areas. This land within Flood Zones 2&3 is already within domestic garden use and this will not change.
The proposed development does not introduce a greater element of flood risk than currently exists at the site.
Planning Balance:
The site is located within the Dartington Development Boundary, where new residential development is acceptable in principle.
In the absence of a 5 year housing land supply that can be relied upon development for housing should be considered on the basis of a tilted balance in favour of approving sustainable development (paras 49 and 14 of the NPPF) unless significant and demonstrable adverse impacts would arise.
It is considered that any adverse impacts on trees and ecology can be controlled or mitigated and impacts on neighbour amenity are acceptable. The proposal represents sustainable development and as such it is recommended that planning permission be granted
This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Planning Policy
Section 70 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that regard be had to the development plan, any local finance and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act requires that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The relevant development plan policies are set out below:
South Hams LDF Core Strategy
CS1 Location of Development CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment
Development Policies DPD
DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP4 Sustainable Construction DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP7 Transport, Access & Parking
Emerging Joint Local Plan
The Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (the JLP) will replace the above as the statutory development plan once it is formally adopted.
Annex 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides guidance on determining the weight in relation to existing and emerging development plan policies.
For current development plan documents, due weight should be given to relevant policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). For the JLP, which is an emerging development plan, the weight is to be determined by the stage of its preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections, and its degree of consistency with the Framework.
The JLP is at a relatively advanced stage of preparation. The precise weight to be given to policies within the JLP will need to be determined on a case by case basis, having regard to all of the material considerations as set out on the analysis above.
PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017)
SPT1 Delivering sustainable development SPT3 Provision for new homes TTV1 Prioritising growth through a hierarchy of sustainable settlements TTV2 Delivering sustainable development in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area DEV1 Protecting amenity and the environment DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise and land DEV8 Meeting local housing need in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area DEV9 Accessible housing DEV10 Delivering high quality housing DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment DEV21 Conserving the historic environment DEV24 Landscape character DEV28 Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation DEV30 Trees, woodlands and hedgerows DEV37 Managing flood risk and Water Quality Impacts
Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report. Recommended conditions in full
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby approved shall in all respects accord strictly with drawings entitled Location Plan no. PLU/1098/17, Tree Construction Plan, Site Survey no. SHP117_LS, Proposed Site Plan no. 2216.01, Access Plan no. 2216.02, Proposed Unit 1 no. 2216.10 and Proposed Unit 2 no. 2216.11 received by the Local Planning Authority on the 27th.November 2017.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which
3. Prior to their installation details / samples of facing materials, and of roofing materials to be used in the construction of the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with those samples as approved.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
4. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed hard and soft landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall include the following details.
(i) location, species and spread of all trees, shrubs, hedges, hard landscaping and boundary treatment existing on the site, distinguishing those proposed to be removed and those to be retained;
(ii) a plan showing ground moulding, screen banks, hedgebanks, trees, shrubs, and hedges, including proposals for protection and maintenance of the landscaping.
(iii) Details to demonstrate how proposed planting within the western part of the site will limit light spill to the western boundary
The scheme submitted shall be fully implemented in the planting season following the completion of the development and the plants shall be protected, maintained and replaced as necessary to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for a minimum period of five years following the date of the completion of the planting.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and landscape in order to protect and enhance the amenities of the site and locality and in the interest of biodiversity
5. Notwithstanding the submitted information, no development shall be commenced until soakaway testing has been carried out and the details of the most sustainable drainage option has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). Design steps as below:
a. Soakaway testing to DG 365 is required to confirm the use of soakaways or to support an alternative option. Three full tests must be carried out and the depth must be representative of the proposed soakaway. Test results and the infiltration rate to be included in the report. b. If infiltration is suitable then the soakaway should be designed for a 1:100 year return period plus an allowance for Climate change (currently 40%).
c. If the infiltration rate is good, but due to site constraints a full soakaway can’t be accommodated then a split attenuation / soakaway system should be considered to manage the surface water on site.
d. Only once all the above have been assessed and discounted will an offsite discharge be deemed acceptable. Attenuation should be designed for a 1:100 year return period plus an allowance for Climate change (currently 40%).
e. The offsite discharge will need to be limited to the Greenfield runoff rate. This must be calculated in accordance with CIRIA C753. The discharge must meet each of the critical return periods.
The drainage scheme shall be installed in strict accordance with the approved plans, maintained and retained in accordance with the agreed details for the life of the development.
Reason: To ensure surface water runoff does not increase to the detriment of the public highway or other local properties as a result of the development.
6. The recommendations, mitigation and enhancement measures of the Ecological Report, by Green Lane Ecology in March 2017, shall be fully implemented prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved and adhered to at all times. In the event that it is not possible to do so all work shall immediately cease and not recommence until such time as an alternative strategy has been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the interests of protected species
7. Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 as amended (or any Order revoking, re enacting or further amending that Order), no development of the types described in Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, E and F and Part 2, Class A of the Order, including the erection of extensions, outbuildings, hardstandings, fences or other structures shall be carried out on the site, other than that hereby permitted, unless the permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority is obtained.
Reason: To protect the appearance of the area to ensure adequate space about the buildings hereby approved and in the interests of ecology and amenity
8. The delivery of goods and building materials during the construction period for the approved development and construction/building works on the site shall not take place outside the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays, 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Reason: To safeguard the residential amenities of adjoining residential properties
9. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the disposal of foul water shall be submitted to and approved in writing by South West Water and the Local Planning Authority and the approved foul water system shall be installed prior to occupation of the dwelling(s). Following its installation the approved scheme shall be permanently retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to ensure that the development is adequately drained. A pre-commencement condition is considered necessary to safeguard the environment in the interests of the amenities of the area.
10. Development shall take place in accordance with the recommendations set out in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment by devontreeservices dated 26 September 2017.
Results: In the interests of amenity and ecology.
11. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in such a manner as to avoid damage to the existing trees and hedgerows as shown on the plans, including their root systems, or other planting to be retained as part of the landscaping scheme, by adopting the following:
(i) All trees to be preserved should be marked on site and protected during any operations on site by a fence.
(ii) No fires shall be lit within the spread of the branches of the Trees
(iii) No materials or equipment shall be stored within the spread of the branches of the trees
(iv) Any damage to the trees shall be treated with an appropriate preservative.
(iv) Ground levels within the spread of the branches of the trees shall not be raised or lowered in relation to the existing ground level, or trenches excavated, except in accordance with details shown on the approved plans.
Reason: To protect the existing trees and hedgerows in order to enhance the amenities of the site and locality.
12. No external lighting shall be installed or provided west of the rear/west facing elevations of the proposed dwellings unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
Reason : In the interests of biodiversity
13. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved the new access road and turning and parking areas shall be laid out in accordance with the approved plans, made available for use by occupants of the dwellings and retained as such in perpetuity.
Reason: In the interests of the safety and convenience of users of the highway PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT
Case Officer: Jacqueline Houslander Parish: Salcombe Ward: Salcombe and Thurlestone
Application No: 2748/17/FUL
Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr David Farrell Mr A Smith 35a Barleycroft Road C/O Agent Welwyn Garden City AL8 6JX Site Address: Brewery Quay, Island Street, Salcombe, TQ8 8DP
Development: The demolition of all existing buildings on site while retaining the southern stone boundary wall and concrete quay, erection of a 60sq m commercial unit at ground floor and a 6 bedroom dwelling with guest suite complete with existing access and the creation of five associated parking spaces
Reason item is being put before Committee The Local Ward Members have requested that it be seen by the Development Management Committee because they have serious concerns over: Introduction of residential into this part of Island Street The loss of commercial space The flood risks on the site and the suitability of the uses on the ground floor Scale and bulk of the building.
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
Conditions (list not in full) 1. Time limit 2. Accord with plans 3. Highway construction management plan 4. No mud on roads 5. Archeaological investigation 6. flood evacuation plan prior to occupation 7. samples of the stonework 8. samples of the roof slate 9. details of the joinery windows and doors 10.restriction of use on the commercial elements of the building 11.details of privacy panel.
Key issues for consideration: Whether the complete demolition is acceptable in relation to the Conservation area. Whether the proposed replacement is acceptable in design and conservation terms Whether the introduction of residential development in this locality is acceptable Whether the proposal is acceptable in a Flood Zone 2 and 3 and whether it can meet the sequential and exceptions test.
Financial Implications (Potential New Homes Bonus for major applications): It is estimated that this development has the potential to attract New Homes Bonus of £1,180 per annum, payable for a period of 5 years. Members are advised that this is provided on an information basis only and is not a material planning consideration in the determination of this application.
Site Description: The site is located at the eastern end of Island Street in Salcombe. The site currently comprises commercial space across the whole of the site, which stretches from Island Street back to Shadycombe Creek, which forms part of Batson Creek. The site is long and narrow. Buildings occupy one side (western) of the site and there is vehicular access and parking on the eastern half running for most of the length of the site. A further building is located at the very end of the site, with its rear face onto the river. The site proportions are similar to many others along Island Street.
The front southern part of the site is a more traditional building over 3 stories (the 2nd floor being in the hipped roof) constructed of stonework and timber boarding at 2nd floor level. It fronts on to Island Street. A rendered concrete block constructed 2 storey building is attached to the rear of the traditional part of the building (constructed post 1995). Laid out as offices on the first floor and garages underneath. At the northern end of the site is a two storey concrete and rendered building. It is understood that it has been used for storage and more recently as retail use. The ground floor of the Island Street elevation is currently occupied by the retail use that was previously located in the building to the rear.
The historic statement indicates that the southern part of the building is: “Painted at ground floor level and comprises mostly sub rectangular blocks of what appear to be randomly coursed local stone, with rough quoining. A large part of the elevation appears to have been rebuilt and a doorway has been inserted at ground level. Brick infill is visible around the edges of the doorway and there appears to be some replacement blockwork and patches of the stone havd been rendered with a stucco effect. At first floor level two windows have been inserted. Brick infill is visible around the edges of the windows which both have concrete lintels and sills. The first floor has been pointed in the recent past with cement, probably following the rebuilding of this part of the façade. At second floor level,, the gable of the southern elevation has external weatherboarding with a single inserted window.”
The west elevation faces a blocked courtyard associated with the adjacent site. This is a randomly coursed stone elevation. A number of horizontal red handmade bricks are sparsely incorporated across the elevation. An oval shaped anchor plate is visible as well as a number of bent iron rods. Part of the first floor on this elevation has been replaced with concrete blocks.
The eastern elevation of the southern building is mainly concrete block work with timber windows. There is some stonework in the northern elevation of the building, below the timber boarding as well as concrete blockwork. A doorway is visible at ground floor in the northern elevation, under the new metal staircase which provides access to the concrete building at the rear
The eastern boundary wall of the site is again randomly coursed local stone.
The building at the end of the courtyards (northern end of the site), is concrete construction with iron corrugated sheets on the roof. This building extends further into the creek than many of the other buildings that front the Creekside.
Salcombe and the site lies within the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site lies within the Salcombe Conservation Area The site lies within Flood Zone 2and 3 The site lies within the development boundary for Salcombe The site is adjacent to the Salcombe to Kingsbridge Estuary SSSI It has also been identified as affecting the setting of a listed building.
The Proposal: The proposal as originally submitted was to demolish all of the buildings on the site and replace them with a residential property at ground, first and second floor level with replacement commercial floor space on the ground floor at the front of the site onto Island Street.
After some considerable negotiations with regard to Policy DP14, the scheme has been revised such that the replacement building includes 265.4m2 of commercial space and two floors of residential above which forms one dwelling. The revised proposal indicates 265.4m2 of commercial space across the ground floor (excluding the space where 4 parking spaces are proposed in the middle of the site), which is equivalent to the existing employment floor space on the site. It is located at the rear of the site and in the front facing Island Street,
The residential element is located on the first and second floors, indicating a large family home with guest suite (2 bedrooms). The accommodation comprises kitchen/family room; a living/dining room; a study; a further sitting room and a guest suite (comprising 1 bedrooms with dressing room, ensuite and a covered seating area) on the first floor and 4 ensuite bedrooms and dressing rooms; a further store/bedroom; a bathroom and a further guest bedroom and ensuite on the second floor.
The replacement buildings are proposed on a similar footprint to the existing buildings, but with an additional element at the northern end of the site which would connect the two buildings. The exterior of the new buildings will be constructed from re used local stone from a nearby demolition and timber boarding. For flood defence reasons the floor level of the new buildings will be raised by 300 mm.
The reconstructed south elevation will have a gable facing Island Street and a pitched roof as existing and the northern building will also have a pitched roof. The gable end facing Island Street is proposed to use local stone on the ground and first floor with windows and timber doors to enclose the windows so as to reflect the original marine nature of the building.
Consultations:
County Highways Authority: The Highway Authority notes the proposals will overall reduce traffic using the site and whilst the proposals reduce the available parking on the site the level proposed is commensurate with the location and proposed level of development. The Highway Authority is therefore recommending conditions. Recommendation: accept subject to conditions as follows: 1. Prior to commencement of any part of the site the Planning Authority shall have received and approved a Construction Management Plan (CMP) including: (a) the timetable of the works; (b) daily hours of construction; (c) any road closure; (d) hours during which delivery and construction traffic will travel to and from the site, with such vehicular movements being restricted to between 8:00am and 6pm Mondays to Fridays inc.; 9.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays, and no such vehicular movements taking place on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays unless agreed by the planning Authority in advance; (e) the number and sizes of vehicles visiting the site in connection with the development and the frequency of their visits; (f) the compound/location where all building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste will be stored during the demolition and construction phases; (g) areas on-site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will load or unload building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery vehicles will park on the County highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by the Local Planning Authority; (h) hours during which no construction traffic will be present at the site; (i) the means of enclosure of the site during construction works; and (j) details of proposals to promote car sharing amongst construction staff in order to limit construction staff vehicles parking off-site (k) details of wheel washing facilities and obligations (l) The proposed route of all construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes. (m) Details of the amount and location of construction worker parking. (n) Photographic evidence of the condition of adjacent public highway prior to commencement of any work; Reason - In the interests of highway safety.
2. No mud stones, water or debris shall be deposited on the public highway at any time. Reason - In the interests of highway safety.
Environmental Health Section: The contamination report submitted overcomes my objection on the grounds of inadequate information, and I would suggest that the unsuspected contamination condition is applied to any permission. I still have concerns over the acceptability of the proposed use and the potential conflict with existing uses and whether this is appropriate when considering para 123 of the NPPF.
Emergency Planner: With regard to escape routes for the building, Having reviewed the submitted flood risk assessment my view is that due to the nature of the type of flooding being tidal it is possible to safely evacuate the site well in advance of a significant flood event as we should get ample warning. There is also an evacuation plan for Salcombe that can be instigated in such an event.
On this basis I would be happy that the flood risk can be overcome but I would suggest that a flood evacuation plan prior to occupation be produced and that this document is made available for all future occupants of the site.
Town/Parish Council: Objection. This is situated in an employment area by being on this side of the street and there remains a demand for employment units as recently shown by the emerging Neighbourhood Plan survey. Concerns for the need to retain employment and the impact on the sewage system with the proposed en-suite proposals were raised. Island Street sits within a Conservation Area and removal of this wall would have a significant impact on this street scene.
No further comments were received from the Parish Council after the re-advertisement and amended scheme was submitted.
Archaeology: I refer to the above application. The proposed development will involve the demolition of a historic quayside building associated with Dartmouth’s maritime history. The construction of new buildings on this site that may expose archaeological and artefactual deposits associated with the quay. For this reason and in accordance with guidance in paragraph 3.69 for South Hams Development Policy DP6 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 historic building recording and 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 guidance in paragraph 3.69 for South Hams Development Policy DP6 and paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), that an appropriate record is made of the historic building fabric to be lost and any archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development.'
Please note that this is a variation on the usually recommended archaeological condition. I would envisage a suitable programme of work as taking the form of: i) A photographic and written record of the extant building and ii) 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. The results of the fieldwork and any post-excavation analysis undertaken would need to be presented in an appropriately detailed and illustrated report.
Conservation: The building as it stands makes a positive contribution to the surrounding Conservation Area through its architectural composition, its palette of materials (albeit compromised to a degree through later 20th century intervention) and its historical relevance as a large-scale maritime building associated with maritime activities synonymous with Island Street. Any proposal which sought to demolish the structure in its entirety would be failing to meet the ‘preserve or enhance’ test and as such would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
As a result of the concerns raised, the applicant’s architect has discussed the scheme at length with the conservation Officer. The historical study submitted with the application and the structural situation with the Island Street building has convinced the Conservation Officer that there is justification in the demolition of the building, however the nature of the replacement needs to be sympathetic to the Conservation Area status of the area and reflect the existing elevation. The architect has therefore submitted revised details for the Island Street element of the building. The Conservation Officer has stated that: “I now believe that the principal front elevation facing onto Island Street offers an aesthetic that will preserve the character and appearance of the area”
Environment Agency: We object to the proposal on grounds that over the lifetime of the development the proposed habitable space on the ground floor of the development would be at risk of significant depths of floodwater, which would not be safe for occupants. The proposal should not be determined until further information has been submitted to demonstrate that the site will be developed in such a way which means it will be safe from flooding over its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.
Before determining the application your Authority will need to be content that the flood risk Sequential Test has been satisfied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) if you have not done so already. As you will be aware, failure of the Sequential Test or either part of the Exception Test is sufficient justification to refuse a planning application.
The reasons for this position are set out below.
Reasons – Flood Risk The application site lies within Flood Zones 3 and 2. It is at risk of tidal flooding in the 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 annual chance) and 0.1% AEP (1 in 1000 annual chance) events.
The proposed development would increase the vulnerability of the site from the existing ‘less vulnerable’ classification to ‘more vulnerable’, and would include residential habitable space (including kitchen, living room and dining room) on the ground floor (as shown on drawing IND-1115-PO2).
As the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) makes clear, over the 100 year lifetime of the proposed development, the design tidal flood level would be approximately 4.49mAOD, giving a potential depth of floodwater on site of 1.74m (paragraphs 5.12 and 5.13 of the FRA). The current private flood defences provide approximately a 1 in 5 year standard of protection (paragraph 5.14), having an effective crest level of approximately 1.96mAOD, and therefore they would be overtopped in the design flood event.
The proposed minimum ground floor level would be set at 3.35m AOD (paragraph 6.7 of the FRA) and therefore in the design tidal event over the lifetime of the development, the proposed new residential development (as well as the commercial aspect) could flood internally to a depth of approximately 1.14m. It does not therefore meet the Exception Test, which requires development to be safe over its lifetime.
Overcoming the objection The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) is clear that the most vulnerable development should be located in areas of lowest risk within a site, that buildings should be designed to avoid flooding by raising floor levels, and that ‘resistance and resilience measures are unlikely to be suitable as the only mitigation measure to manage flood risk’ (paragraphs 053, 054 and 060 of the PPG). The development could be redesigned so that while a commercial use is retained at ground floor level (as existing), all habitable residential development is located above the design flood level.
If the applicant is unable to demonstrate that the proposed development will be safe from flooding over its lifetime we are likely to maintain our objection to the application. Production of a revised scheme will not in itself result in the removal of an objection.
Advice to the LPA – Access and Egress We note that the FRA states that during the design flood event, ‘it is not possible to provide a safe route of escape’ (paragraph 6.12 of the FRA). Given that the proposed development could increase the number of people in need of rescue during a flood event, we strongly recommend you refer this application to your Emergency Planner for comment.
Advice to the LPA We will maintain our objection until the applicant has supplied information to demonstrate that the flood risks posed by the development can be satisfactorily addressed. We would like to be re-consulted on any information submitted to address our concerns and we will provide you with bespoke comments within 21 days of receiving formal re-consultation.
If you are minded to approve the application at this stage contrary to this advice, we request that you contact us to allow further discussion and/or representations from u
The Environment Agency were re-consulted on the amended prpo0sals and their latest comments are provided here: We welcome the alteration to the plans so that the ground floor of the proposed development would be restricted to ‘less vulnerable’ uses and not include any residential accommodation, or any accommodation ancillary to the residential dwelling on the first and second floors.
However, we recommend that you do not determine the application until the applicant has confirmed that it is not possible to raise the finished floor level of the commercial unit by more than the 300mm proposed in the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). Furthermore, before the application is determined your Authority will need to confirm that the Sequential Test has been satisfied and consult with your Emergency Planner on the proposed access and egress arrangements. If it is not possible to raise the commercial unit more than that currently proposed and your Authority is minded to grant the application on the basis that you are content that the flood risk Sequential and Exception tests have been satisfied, we would advise that the proposal is only acceptable if conditions are included to secure the Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan and to ensure that appropriate Flood Resilience measures are incorporated into the development.
Further advice is provided below.
Advice – Flood Risk While we welcome the amendments to the plans, this on its own does not address all the concerns raised in our previous response. The FRA states that the developer has offered to raise the ground floor 300mm above existing, but it is not clear how this has been derived, and it would still result in ground floor level being considerably below the design flood level. The proposed development is for a replacement building, and therefore the opportunity to raise the entire development above the design flood level must be investigated (in accordance with paragraph 036 of the Planning Practice Guidance). This is particularly important given that there is no safe escape route and no safe refuge for occupiers of the ground floor commercial element of the proposal. In the event that other constraints mean it is not possible to raise the ground floor above flood level, justification should be provided in the FRA and the maximum achievable degree of betterment should be demonstrated (in accordance with paragraphs 001 and 038 of the PPG).
We reiterate that the FRA states that during the design flood event, ‘it is not possible to provide a safe route of escape’ (paragraph 6.12 of the FRA). Given that the proposed development could increase the number of people in need of rescue during a flood event, we strongly recommend you refer this application to your Emergency Planner for comment. Access and Egress is an important consideration in whether proposed development can pass the Exception Test.
Advice to the LPA If you are minded to approve the application, we request that you contact us to allow further discussion and/or representations from us.
Representations: A number of letters of representation have been received, a summary of their comments follows: The application would increase unaffordable housing which the town does not need and remove employment opportunities Development on this road is cumulatively beginning to affect the character of the street. The property should remain as a commercial property The proposal is contrary to the existing Local Development Framework Plan of 2006. The area is designated specifically for employment use which is already in scarce supply The site is over 650sq.metres being reduced to 60sq metres. The Harbour Master has a list of names of people wanting marine business space with access to the water specifically in this area of Island Street. It is critical that Salcombe can offer local employment to the local residents and in particular younger people. Salcombe is coming to the end of its process for completing the Neighbourhood Plan. In the consultations that took place it was clear that residents want to preserve Island Street and Gould road as employment areas. The site is in the Salcombe Conservation area. The property will become another holiday home Salcombe will become a millionaire’s playground at the direct expense of local people. The site is bordered by employment uses. The design is over dominant – it increases the ridge heights on both north and south elevations and the northern ridge is higher than both neighbouring buildings, increasing the area of visible roof form higher vantage points. The scale of the building to Island Street would be overbearing The balconies will lead to overlooking the gardens of the cottages opposite. Salcombe needs employment and affordable housing A reduction in Island Streets designated commercial area will have a negative impact on the Salcombe community’s services, employment and economic sustainability. It will set a precedent for further applications of this nature The scale and proportions are out of character with Island Street and impact on light and views.
Objection from the South Hams Society: The proposal is not in compliance with prevailing planning policies. The loss of commercial properties would be damaging to the local Salcombe economy. It would create an unwelcome change of use precedent The property lies within an area which remains subject to the saved 1996 Local Plan policy KP7 providing that normally only employment uses will be permitted, retail and residential uses only permitted if forming a minor part of the overall development In accordance with DP14, justification for the loss of employment use would be required. The running down of a property into disrepair making it hard to let are not sufficient justification for a change of use.
The March 2017 pre submission Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan at para. 5.141 emphasises the need for employment premises in Salcombe. The neighbourhood plan business survey also supports the need for more B1 and B2 employment space.
Relevant Planning History
41/0540/85/3: FUL - Covered slipway and boat maintenance workshop with storage area over – (28-30 Island Street).Conditional approval: 14 May 85
41/2004/97/1: OPA - Outline application for the erection of replacement boat store and workshops. Conditional approval: 26 Jan 98.
41/0247/90/3: FUL - Renewal of permission 9/41/0540/85/3 slipway and boat maintenance workshop. Conditional approval: 12 Mar 90
41/0178/90/5: ADV - One wooden signboard. Conditional approval: 06 Mar 90 41/1683/01/F - New development and revitalisation of site to include workshop restaurant hotel and retail activities. Withdrawn: 20 Nov 01 ANALYSIS
Principle of Development/Sustainability: The principle of this development must be considered against the relevant planning policies for this area. The site lies within the development boundary for Salcombe and as such by virtue of policy CS1 the principle of development is accepted. The site is in an area long established for employment uses and so the proposal also needs to be considered against the Development Polices DPD policy DP14.
Policy DP14 is a protectionist policy whereby development is only permitted if appropriate justification can be put forward: The policy states:
Development proposals that result in the loss of employment land, including Use Classes B1 (Business), B2 (General Industrial) and B8 (Storage and Distribution) and other employment generating uses, such as the marine economy, will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that: a. the employment use of the site is no longer viable, and has no prospect to becoming so; or b. there is a sufficient supply and variety of alternative available employment uses to provide a range of employment opportunities in the local area; or c. the use is no longer appropriate in its context and there is a suitable replacement site available in the same locality; or d. the nature of the employment provided at the site is not of strategic importance to the wider economy nor has locational requirements that could not be met elsewhere.
2. Where the change of use of an employment site is considered acceptable, mixed use development will be sought. Where necessary, the proposal will only be permitted if the scheme contains an element of employment which, as a minimum, provides for the same number of jobs.
The supporting text of the policy indicates that justification should be provided: “Proposals will have to provide evidence that employment use of the site is no longer viable through relevant marketing information, and feasibility or viability studies. This will include a viability assessment, copies of accounts for the last 5 years, and evidence that the site has been marketed for an agreed length of time for an appropriate market value/rent. Where there is evidence that a business has been allowed to run-down, an independent viability assessment may be required.”
Viability However the Design and Access Statement does make reference to the previous owner of Pheonix Charters having tried to sell the business for a period of two years prior to selling the building to the current owner.
The applicant has submitted two viability assessments to justify that there is no demand for employment use. The first report assessed the demand for commercial uses in Salcombe and produced a report indicating commercial property and lettings within Salcombe over the last 3 years, (with data sourced from the Estates Gazette). The application site was on the list in 2016. So this viability assessment some marketing information. The first report by Mill Green Estates Ltd Property Consultants concludes: The property currently comprises a range of buildings in mixed retail & storage use, which have historically also included offices within use class A2 as opposed to B1, and workshops/stores. There is no recent evidence of occupation of any part of the property for marine related uses other than the fishing charger business that operated an A1 retail use only. The current occupiers comprise a retail unit employing 1 full time and two part-time members of staff, with the stores not employing anyone directly as they are mainly quasi- domestic users, as opposed to commercial storage within use class B8.
The property is within an area of high flood risk and the buildings are in a poor state of repair, with works required to improve the EPC “F” rating to render them lettable or saleable as commercial premises under the requirements of the Energy Act. The specification of the buildings is also poor from a commercial occupier’s perspective, with some areas unusable due to access restrictions.
A comprehensive redevelopment of the site is therefore required to produce floor space which is fit for purpose, and also to improve reduce the potential flood risk. In order for redevelopment to take place the proposed scheme must be financially viable. We have analysed recent planning decisions in close proximity to the property which have included mixed non-marine related uses and mixed commercial/residential uses, and also evidenced viability issues to support these uses based on market demand.
With reference to Policy DP14 we have undertaken a financial viability exercise which has demonstrated that our clients’ proposed commercial & residential scheme will meet this test, whereas alternative office or workshop/warehouse schemes which are purely commercial will not.
We have also analysed market evidence in terms of demand for commercial property, as well as availability. There is little evidence of demand for workshop/warehouse accommodation in particular, and it appears that property previously in this use class is increasingly being redeveloped or reoccupied for mainly retail related uses in line with market demand, with no evidence of any new marine related uses.
In terms of any potential loss of jobs it is our view that the commercial element of our client’s proposal will be able to deliver the same amount as is currently associated with the property, with additional temporary jobs associated with the construction of the scheme. Overall it is our view that the mixed commercial and residential development of the property as proposed by our client, with an A1 retail or A2 professional services use for the commercial element of the scheme should be pursued, as opposed to any other use.
The second report is by JLL and it comments:
“The existing property comprises of an old two and a half storey building fronting Island Street which has historically been used for boat storage. However this particular use has long since been abandoned……. Island Street is very narrow around the subject property and i=unsuitable for commercial delivery vehicles. The road is not wide enough to reverse vehicles into the property and in conjunction with the narrow access to the property safe manoeuvring of commercial vehicles would be very difficult. We note that the property is in an extremely poor state of repair…..leading to significant structural defects. It is evident that none of the existing structures would meet modern business standards and a significant amount of work would be required to bring any of the property in line with building code to enable the buildings to be let legally…….
The amount of office or industrial activity in the town continues to be very limited. Commercial space that does exist in the town is predominantly in retail or leisure use. This is a result of the town’s nature, accessibility and scale. Its remoteness makes it very difficult for the distribution of product and importantly labour. There are a small number of businesses involved in boat repair and these require external space and water access.
We are aware that there are plans for 2,000 sq m of employment development (within class B1) at Shadycombe within the town. It is envisaged that this site will pick up any latent demand for commercial use.
There are residential dwellings opposite the site and along Island Street. Whilst the road historically had an industrial character, the demand for industrial and commercial uses in this locality have declined, resulting in more sustainable and viable uses such as residential coming forwards. Conclusion The redevelopment of the subject property for commercial use is both unsuitable and unviable. Salcombe’s focus is on retail and tourism and there are centres in the South Hams that are more suitable for modern businesses. This is why demand levels for the commercial and industrial property market have historically and will continue to be very low.
In order to be fully conversant with the viability of employment in Salcombe, the LPA commissioned an independent report on the studies undertaken. That report concluded:
Our view is that the site has limited commercial life remaining and extensive refurbishment or redevelopment is now required. The main building is particularly poorly designed for modern occupation and is of low quality and therefore, in our view, a complete redevelopment of the site such as that envisioned by the applicant is the most appropriate solution.
It is our view that any redevelopment of the site would not be able to viably include B2 industrial or B8 storage and distribution. This is primarily due to the specific constraints of the site, particularly the access, but equally that there is no evidence of sufficient demand for these uses within the town to justify their inclusion.
With regards to other commercial uses it is our opinion that there is strong demand for commercial space that caters for retail, leisure and professional and businesses services of a small scale, local function. These uses are of a sufficiently high value that, at the proposed scale, they would not impact on the viability of a mixed use development.
In line DPD 14 the redevelopment should provide for the same amount of employment as the existing site. We have calculated the employment provision on the existing site as 320sqm and have tested the viability of this much provision in a redeveloped site in conjunction with residential use.
We have found that this level of employment floorspace would be viable on the assumption it is for retail, leisure and other local professional and business services. As a result of this report, the applicant agreed to alter the scheme to include an equivalent amount of employment space as would be removed through the demolition of the existing building. The amount of commercial now proposed on the site is: 265.4 m2. Therefore in terms of DP14, the site still provides employment space in a mixed use scheme.
In terms of emerging policies, the relevant policies are: Policy DEV14 A flexible mix of employment sites A flexible supply of employment land and premises will be maintained to support investment and expansion of existing businesses as well as for the inward investment of high-value businesses, particularly but not exclusively those involved in the marine sector, advanced manufacturing and knowledge based industries. The following provisions will apply: 1. Change of use of existing employment sites (including vacant sites whose lawful use is for employment purposes) will only be allowed where the following applies: i. The proposal is specifically provided for by the local plan to deliver wider strategic objectives, or ii. There are overriding and demonstrable economic, regeneration and sustainable neighbourhood / communities benefits from doing so, or iii. There is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for employment use in the future. 2. The following categories of site will be specifically protected: i. Sites that have clear future potential to support the future expansion of existing businesses. ii. Employment sites with access to wharves and/or deep water facilities, quays and pontoons, which will be protected for marine related uses appropriate to the site and location. iii. Site allocated in this plan for employment uses. 3. Employment sites will be protected from inappropriate neighbouring development that will adversely affect the employment operations taking place on the site.
The original proposal would also have been contrary to this emerging policy and would also have been caught on 2 (ii), which seeks the retention of marine related sites in particular.
The proposal now before us in its mixed form would meet the policy requirements in general and in theory the fact that the commercial use at ground floor at the rear of the site, could be used for a marine related use should demand allow.
Design/Landscape:
The site is within the Salcombe Conservation Area and so the demolition of the building needs to be justified. The Conservation officer has stated: The building as it stands makes a positive contribution to the surrounding Conservation Area through its architectural composition, its palette of materials (albeit compromised to a degree through later 20th century intervention) and its historical relevance as a large-scale maritime building associated with maritime activities synonymous with Island Street. Any proposal which sought to demolish the structure in its entirety would be failing to meet the ‘preserve or enhance’ test and as such would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan also identify the importance of Island Street. And its role in the evolution of Salcombe. The building at the front of the site (fronting Island Street is identified in the Conservation Area Appraisal as having townscape value. In planning policy terms design is dealt with by policy CS7 in the Core Strategy and DP1 High Quality Design in the Development policies DPD. In the emerging JLP, policies DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment, design DEV21 Conserving the historic environment.
Policy DP1 seeks proposal which respect and respond to the South Hams character of its settlements. In this case Island Street has a very particular character, which is acknowledged through the Conservation Area Appraisal and Management plan.
“The character and appearance of Island Street is very different from that of the rest of the conservation area. The land was reclaimed in the early 20th century and the oldest buildings date from this period. The most emblematic structures, however, are the 1940’s boat builders’ workshops built along the north side of the street. Here, the traditional boat building activities still thrive and these make a vital contribution to the sense of place of this principal pedestrian approach to the town centre.
The objective of including Island Street in the conservation area is to recognise its historic and architectural interest but it would be counterproductive if stricter controls were to stifle the activities that make it special. Any proposal to replace the single storey workshops on the north side of Island Street should respect the following characteristics: A. The existing ridge height B. The full width glazed timber doors opening on to the street. C. Their long narrow form culminating in a slipway D. The ridge running parallel with the street E. Corrugated sheeting roof.”
There were originally 3 options presented, one of which included a balcony. Which the applicant was asked to remove early on the design evolution. The ridge height of the existing building is respected; the long narrow form has been respected, but in this case the slipway is no longer in existence; The ridge line is maintained as existing at the Island Street end of the proposal. However in the mid- section and at the rear of the site the ridge line has increased slightly in height to accommodate a 2nd floor.
The Appraisal picks out particular design issues which can be problematic – one of which is balconies, which it states “In many cases, balconies can distort the character of buildings and townscape and cannot be supported. In other cases, where they are properly integrated into the architecture, they can be acceptable though great care should always be taken to avoid disruption of a building’s proportions.”
It is considered that the balconies onto Island Street would be out of character with the area and could also lead to a loss of privacy to the residential properties opposite the site.
The Conservation Area Management Plan also makes reference to new build in the Conservation Area and states that design and quality of construction should be of the very highest order.
Discussions have been ongoing with the Conservation Officer over the Island Street Façade, resulting in a set of amended plans which are now considered to be acceptable by the Conservation Officer. The local Ward Members have expressed concerns over the scale and bulk of the proposal. The building at the rear has increased the height of the building by adding a 2nd floor, however it has not been increased by a whole floor height as it is located partly in the roof space. The building as proposed is no higher than the adjacent industrial building to the east. It is not considered that the increase is out of scale with some of the surrounding buildings.
Neighbour Amenity: A number of letters of representation have been received which are summarised above. There are many concerns relating to the loss of commercial use on the site, however the revised scheme provides the same amount of employment space and so as such overcomes this concern.
The other concerns expressed relate to the fact that the proposal does not conform to policy, however the revised scheme does meet the adopted planning policy.
The concern with regard to the scale of the proposed replacement buildings, is of relevance. Island Street does have a particular tight knit dense urban form, however the buildings on the north side of the street are larger in scale than those on the south side which are more domestic in scale. The proposed replacement does involve an increase in height at the rear of the site to incorporate the 2nd floor. On the Island Street there is a small increase in height, but only to be equivalent to the Distillery building adjacent. It is not considered that the scale of the proposal is excessive when considered against other warehouse style buildings in the area.
There are residential occupiers in close proximity to the site, in particular those on the other side of Island Street who could have their residential amenity impacted upon as a result of the proposal. It is therefore proposed as stated above that no balconies will be permitted on the elevation to Island Street to protect these properties from loss of privacy or overlooking. The revised scheme does indicate a covered and glassed in seating area, however a condition will be applied to insert a privacy panel on the lower part of the glazing to prevent direct overlooking onto the properties opposite.
Highways/Access: The Highway Authority have no objections to the proposal as there are likely to be less vehicular movement to and from the site than if it were all in use for commercial purposes. A condition must be attached to any consent for a traffic management plan to be submitted.
Flood Risk: The site lies within a Flood Zone 2 and 3.
The National Planning Policy Framework identifies in paras 100 - 104 the steps Local Planning Authorities should take when development comes forward in areas at risk of Flooding. It states:
“The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding.”
A sequential test has been submitted latterly. Sequential Test The sequential Test for flooding has to demonstrate that there are no other “reasonably available” sites in, firstly Flood Zone 1 and if none are available in Zone 1 in Flood Zone 2, which could accommodate the proposed development. The aim being to steer development towards areas where there is a low probability of flooding. The developer carried out a Sequential Test and used as his area Salcombe. The regulations specify the default area to be the whole Local Planning Authority Area, however it id for the Local Planning Authority to identify an area. The local Planning Authority suggested the area of concern should be Kingsbride and Salcombe. However when the SQ came in other sites within Salcombe only were identified.
The Sequential Test does make an assumption which is incorrect in that it states that the application site lies within the TTV29 Shadycombe, allocation in the emerging Joint Local Plan, but in fact it lies outside of that area. The implication behind the allocation is that when an application is submitted there is no requirement to undertake a further sequential test because the test was carried out in allocating the site (through the Flood risk Sequential and exceptions Test Report 2017).
However the site is not within that allocation and is in effect a windfall site which is subject to the sequential Test. The types of sites identified were: review of the most recently available SHLAA Granted mixed use residential/employment planning permissions Review of land available for sale at local estate agents.
A review was thus undertaken of the alternative sites. The report concludes that there are no reasonable available alternative sites which could accommodate this mixed use proposal. Of the sites examined, the Local Planning Authority concurs that within the small search area there are no alternatively reasonably available sites.
The sequential test is satisfied. However the further requirement of an exceptions test now needed to be passed for the development to be able to be located within Flood Zone 3.
When considering the exceptions test a development must demonstrate that it will be safe for the whole of its life. The exceptions test comprises two elements: •it must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where one has been prepared •a site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall
Both elements of the test will have to be passed for development to be allocated or permitted.
The applicants have not submitted any evidence to support the exceptions test.
In this case, the potential wider sustainability benefits to the community are: bringing the commercial element of the site back into a reasonable and lettable status thereby enhancing the employment facilities on the site. The new build commercial space will also comply with more recent health and safety regulations (EPC) for commercial space.
Does this outweigh flood risk In relation to the site specific flood risk assessment the strategies put forward are: To raise the ground floor level by 300mm, with the result that the ground floor will be at least 3.35m AOD. Flood resistant measures are: Solid concrete floor with waterproof membrane; Waterproof screed used on floors; Closed cell foam in wall cavities; Waterproof ground floor internal render; External walls rendered resistant to flooding to first floor level; Exterior ventilation outlets, utility points and air bricks fitted with removable waterproof covers; Ground floor electrical main ring run from first floor level and on separately switched circuit from first floor; Electrical incorner and meter situated at first floor level or above; Boliers , control and water storage/immersion installed at 1st floor or above Gas metre at 1st floor or above Plumbing insulation of closed cell design; non return valves to all drain and sewer outlets; manhole covers secured; anti-syphon fitted to all toilets;
Safe escape: The NPPF requires a safe escape route for all residents and uses to be provided from new residential development in Flood Zone 3. With a potential depth of flooding on the site of 1.74m (1:200 year event + climate change)it is not possible to provide a safe route of escape during such a flood event. Safe escape is proposed to be provided through a flood warning and evacuation plan. It is proposed by the applicants that such a plan will be composed in consultation with the Council’s emergency planners. Because the residential is at first floor level and above safe refuge is available. An exit route east along Island Street is also provided which lies outside the 1:200 year flood event. The Emergency has indicated that the proposed measures for safe escape from the building are adequate, but a condition needs to be imposed on the planning consent to secure those measures.
The applicant submitted a Flood Risk Assessment in support of his application, which acknowledged that the site lies with Flood Zone 3 (High risk), that it is tidal flood risk originating from Batson Creek; there is allow risk of pluvial, groundwater and sewer surcharge flooding; there is a 1:5 year flood defence in place and that flooding has occurred on this site in 1989, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2012 and 4 times in 2014. The report concluded that flood events in exceedance of the 1:5 year event could flood the site. The modelling that was undertaken indicated that for a 1:200 year flood the potential depth of flooding on the site could be 1.74 metres. If that were to occur a safe route of escape could not be provided. Safe escape would need to be provided through flood warning and evacuation plan.
The Environment Agency have however indicated in their initial comments that the any revised plans need to demonstrate that the flood risks of the development have been addressed. The Environment Agency have been provided additional information in relation to the potential flood events. Their comments will be provided at planning Committee. Other nearby sites The applicant has made reference in his application of other sites nearby which have gained consent. Having reviewed these other applications, it is clear that the gas works site (41/1262/15/F) which was originally submitted for purely residential use and refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal. The application that was approved therefore was a resubmission which, included 300m2 of commercial uses on the ground floor and residential above.
Reference is also made to the Gin Distillery site adjacent to the site. This site has recently been redeveloped and subject to a change of use application which ratified the A1/A2 use in the building and the alterations under planning consent 4/0757/15/F was for mixed B2 and A4 use. The applicant thus suggests that there are other buildings within the vicinity which are not marine related in terms of their use.
Neighbourhood Plan Salcombe’s Neighbourhood Plan has currently reached regulation 14, which is the submission consultation draft stage of the Neighbourhood Plan process. At this stage it is not a made plan and so therefore cannot be accorded full weight in the decision making process, but a limited amount of weight should be given to it. In relation to employment and economy, Objective 3 is of relevance:
The Plan will support developments, of a scale and use that are sensitive to their surroundings, which provide employment space for local people recognizing that priority should be given to businesses on which the local Salcombe economy primarily depends namely; fishing, tourism, marine and associated service industries. The plan supports any increase in all year round local employment opportunities within Salcombe through a combination of rehabilitation, re-use and redevelopment of sites principally focused on the Island Street, Gould Road and Shadycombe area. All employment uses must be sensitive to their location, particularly those sited within the Salcombe Conservation Area. Small scale workshops accommodating arts and crafts will also be supported. The plan supports the promotion of tourism and the tourism related businesses in the town. The delicate balance of uses in the town centre focusing on Fore Street comprising of small scale retail, restaurants, pubs and cafes should be retained. Further residential development in Fore Street and Island Street should be limited and only approved if directly ancillary to the employment uses.
It is clear from this objective that Island street is seen as one of the areas that can and should continue to make an important contribution to the economy and employment uses in the town.
Policy SALC EM2 Retention of exisiting Employment Land in Salcombe states: Within the area of Island Street and Gould Road shown as employment policy area B on figure 17 only employment uses shall be permitted. Development shall include: a) Rehabilitation, re-use or redevelopment of existing premises; b) Marine related uses shall take priority in this area however small scale workshops, accommodating arts and crafts will be supported; c) Retail uses shall only be supported providing they are ancillary to a B1 employment use; d) Residential use will only be permitted if it forms a minor part of the overall development and it is ancillary and subsidiary to the manufacturing, craft and other service enterprise in the area. Where the loss of an employment site is justified as no longer viable the applicant must demonstrate through an independent assessment that the vacant units have been actively marketed and offered at a reasonable rent (comparable with rents achieved elsewhere in the parish) for a minimum period of 1 year, a market review of the sites and details of the marketing. New employment proposed under this policy should conform to General User Class BI with ancillary retail as A1 only.
Again the policy seeks to only allow employment uses in these areas and residential development will only be permitted if it is a minor and subsidiary element of a scheme. There is employment use being proposed for the site and the residential is a component of a mixed use scheme. In this case however the residential is not ancillary or subsidiary to the employment use. So there are elements of the proposal which are at odds with this policy.
Whilst the Neighbourhood Plan must be borne in mind, the weight to be given to this policy is limited at this stage in the Neighbourhood Planning Process.
The Neighbourhood Plan also seeks to ensure that developments in the Conservation Area should enhance the Conservation Area and have regard to the Salcombe Conservation Area Appraisal 2010. As a result of recent amendments the Conservation Officer is satisfied that the proposal does preserve and enhance the Conservation Area.
Planning balance
This case is a finely balanced one, with some elements that are compliant with current development plan policies and other elements that are slightly at odds. The issues to be balanced in this case are whether the replacement of the employment use in combination with the residential use of the site of a larger scale than the employment use provides such community benefits to outweigh the policy concerns with regards to residential use in this area of Salcombe; whether the Flood risk issues with the site have been addressed; whether the proposed demolition and rebuild is of an appropriate quality to ensure there is no detrimental impact on the Conservation Area; and whether the inclusion of a residential use is appropriate in this location.
Employment use The proposal now provides for an equivalent amount of employment space as is currently provided on the site, albeit the current space in some areas is not fit for purpose and is possibly unsafe. The replacement employment is across the whole of the ground floor of the building and will provide modern up to date employment facilities. The viability assessment the Council commissioned indicated that there was demand in Salcombe for: professional services/offices/leisure and retail.
In providing the equivalent amount of employment floor space as the existing site the proposal meets the requirements of policy DP14, albeit the employment types may not necessarily be marine related.
The residential proposed on the site is a large 6 bedroom dwelling with a 2 bedroom guest suite. It is a large dwelling. There are a number of issues to be considered with regard to putting residential in this location. Is the form of the residential proposed appropriate?; Is the introduction of residential compatible with the surrounding uses and is residential appropriate based on flood risk. Is the 6 bedroomed dwelling contributing to wider sustainable benefits for the community? A single large dwelling as opposed to a number of affordable dwellings, which would provide for much needed smaller units of accommodation in a market where local people are priced out of the market by the size and cost of the larger dwellings and second homes in Salcombe. Is the fact that it is a 6 bedroom dwelling providing such wider benefits to the community? This should also be considered in light of the improved employment facilities on the site. It is clear that the viability of the commercial element of this redevelopment is supported by the residential element. Therefore the dwelling aspect of the redevelopment justifies the provision of the commercial
Environmental Health colleagues have raised a question over the appropriateness of introducing a new residential unit into an area where there are a predominance of employment uses, which would not be in compliance with the guidance in the NPPF, paragraph 123. The applicant submitted a use plan to indicate that there are a number of residential units in this locality. It indicates that the area is in fact mixed in nature. At the eastern end of the street where the application site is located, there is a lot of residential accommodation. In fact the cottages on the other side of the street are residential. There are also a few sites which are mixed residential and commercial such as 14 to 20 1,2, and 3a Island Square and some sites at the western end of the street.
Of the commercial uses in the area, a number of properties are for storage uses and industrial units and retail units are also indicated intermittently along the street. So whilst there is an argument that it may not be appropriate to introduce another residential use into the area, there are already a number of residential units and mixed residential schemes along the Street, in particular to the east and opposite the site. The area is thus currently mixed use in nature, rather than predominantly employment uses. The scheme is ensuring that the employment uses on the site are re provided and that reprovision would not be achievable without the residential also being present on the site. If the proposal were to be refused then it is likely that the existing site would remain vacant as in its current form it does not provide EPC acceptable accommodation. By allowing the residential the proposal is able to provide new, modern up to date employment space that could be used for a number of uses – retail, professional services offices and storage ( and potentially marine storage at the Creekside part of the site.
On the planning balance therefore it is accepted that introducing a residential use into this area of Island Street would not impact on the existing commercial/industrial uses in the area.
With regard to flood risk, the proposal is still subject to an objection by the Environment Agency. The sequential test has been met and it is accepted by the LPA that there are no reasonably available sites in lower risk flood zones that could accommodate the development, within Salcombe. With regard to the exceptions test, we need to examine whether the wider sustainability benefits of the development would warrant allowing the development and outweighing the flood risks associated with the site, and whether the applicant has indicated that they will work with our emergency planners to provide an evacuation plan and also the more vulnerable use is on the first floor which ensures safe refuge should the 1:200 year flood event occur. The local flood risk measures have been accepted by the emergency planner as being acceptable provided a condition is attached to the proposal. We are still awaiting further comment from the Environment Agency with regard to the finished floor levels of the proposal. This information will be available at Committee.
In this finely balanced judgement, it is acknowledged that the proposal does include a rather large residential unit, but it also provides new and very lettable commercial/employment space which would benefit the local economy. The Conservation Officer is satisfied that the proposal would not impact on the preservation and enhancement of the Conservation Area. Whilst the bulk of the building has increased at the rear of the site, it is not out of scale with some of the larger buildings along this street.
The Environmental Health Officer has accepted the flood risk measures, but remains concerned about the potential for an impact on existing uses by introducing the residential in this part of Island Street as it might impact other businesses already in existence in the area. It has been demonstrated that the area at the eastern end of Island Street has a number of residential and mixed use premises and the benefit of gaining up to date employment space is important in ensuring the continued focus on employment uses in Island Street.
Subject to the Environment Agency being satisfied in relation the flooding, on balance the recommendation is for approval.
This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and with Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Planning Policy
Section 70 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that regard be had to the development plan, any local finance and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act requires that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The relevant development plan policies are set out below:
South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment
Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP3 Residential Amenity DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking
South Hams Local Plan SHDC 1 Development Boundaries KP 7 Employment Development in Salcombe Emerging Joint Local Plan
The Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (the JLP) will replace the above as the statutory development plan once it is formally adopted.
Annex 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides guidance on determining the weight in relation to existing and emerging development plan policies.
For current development plan documents, due weight should be given to relevant policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). For the JLP, which is an emerging development plan, the weight is to be determined by the stage of its preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections, and its degree of consistency with the Framework.
The JLP is at a relatively advanced stage of preparation. The precise weight to be given to policies within the JLP will need to be determined on a case by case basis, having regard to all of the material considerations as set out on the analysis above.
PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017) SPT1 Delivering sustainable development DEV14 Maintaining a flexible mix of employment sites DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment DEV21 Conserving the historic environment
Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report.
Proposed conditions:
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.Time limit
2. The development hereby approved shall in all respects accord strictly with drawing number(s) ...... received by the Local Planning Authority on ......
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which this approval relates.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re enacting this Order) no openings other than those authorised by this permission (if any) shall be at any time be inserted in the Island Street elevation of the development hereby permitted, without the prior permission, in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbours
4. PRE COMMENCEMENT CONDITION No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes, and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out only in accordance with the details so approved.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to consider the details of the materials
5. The parking areas identified on plan No: shall be retained and maintained as parking spaces unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure adequate parking is provided for both the residential and commercial uses on the site.
6. PRE COMMENCEMENT CONDITION The roofs hereby approved shall be clad in natural slates, a sample of which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.
Reason: To perpetuate the use of vernacular materials so as to retain the character of the locality.
7. No work shall commence on site until full details of all new joinery have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall be at full or half scale and shall include cross sections, profiles, reveal, surrounds, materials, finish and colour in respect of new windows, doors and other glazed or timber panels. The work shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be permanently retained in that form unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.
8. Submission of specific details in relation to rainwater goods; joinery; glazing; flues; detailing on balustrating; timber doors onto Island Street for the purposes of conservation and enhancement. 9. Prior to commencement of any part of the site the Planning Authority shall have received and approved a Construction Management Plan (CMP) including: (a) the timetable of the works; (b) daily hours of construction; (c) any road closure; (d) hours during which delivery and construction traffic will travel to and from the site, with such vehicular movements being restricted to between 8:00am and 6pm Mondays to Fridays inc.; 9.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays, and no such vehicular movements taking place on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays unless agreed by the planning Authority in advance; (e) the number and sizes of vehicles visiting the site in connection with the development and the frequency of their visits; (f) the compound/location where all building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste will be stored during the demolition and construction phases; (g) areas on-site where delivery vehicles and construction traffic will load or unload building materials, finished or unfinished products, parts, crates, packing materials and waste with confirmation that no construction traffic or delivery vehicles will park on the County highway for loading or unloading purposes, unless prior written agreement has been given by the Local Planning Authority; (h) hours during which no construction traffic will be present at the site; (i) the means of enclosure of the site during construction works; and (j) details of proposals to promote car sharing amongst construction staff in order to limit construction staff vehicles parking off-site (k) details of wheel washing facilities and obligations (l) The proposed route of all construction traffic exceeding 7.5 tonnes. (m) Details of the amount and location of construction worker parking. (n) Photographic evidence of the condition of adjacent public highway prior to commencement of any work; Reason - In the interests of highway safety.
10. No mud stones, water or debris shall be deposited on the public highway at any time. Reason - In the interests of highway safety.
11.No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of historic building recording and 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 guidance in paragraph 3.69 for South Hams Development Policy DP6 and paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), that an appropriate record is made of the historic building fabric to be lost and any archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development.'
12.Prior to the commencement of development a Flood warning and Evacuation Pan shall be agreed with the Local Councils Emergency Planner and then submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall then be implemented in accordance with that approval prior to the occupation of the residential accommodation.
Reason: In order to ensure there is an appropriate warning system in place for the safety of the occupiers in the event of a flood event.
13.Prior to the commencement of the development, a plan indicating flood resilience measures shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The building will be constructed in accordance with those agreed plans.
Reason: in order to maximise the flood resilience of the building hereby approved. 14.If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an investigation and risk assessment and, where necessary, a remediation strategy and verification plan detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation strategy and verification plan and prior to occupation of any part of the permitted development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority.
Reason: No site investigation can completely characterise a site. This condition is required to ensure that any unexpected contamination that is uncovered during remediation or other site works is dealt with appropriately.
15.Prior to the commencement of development the details of the glazing to be used on the first and second floor of the Island Street elevation shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any work shall subsequently be carried out in accordance with those agreed details Reason: To ensure the neighbours privacy is respected.
16.Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended (or any Order revoking, re enacting or further amending that Order), no development of the types described in Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A-H of the Order, including the erection of extensions, porches, garages or car ports, the stationing of huts, fences or other structures shall be carried out on the site, other than that hereby permitted, unless the permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority is obtained.
Reason: To protect the appearance of the area to ensure adequate space about the buildings hereby approved and in the interests of amenity
Informatives: Archeaology: Please note that this is a variation on the usually recommended archaeological condition. I would envisage a suitable programme of work as taking the form of: i) A photographic and written record of the extant building and ii) 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. The results of the fieldwork and any post-excavation analysis undertaken would need to be presented in an appropriately detailed and illustrated report.
PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT
Case Officer: Clare Stewart Parish: East Allington Ward: Allington and Strete
Application No: 1360/17/VAR
Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Ged King Mr & Mrs Stephen & Heather Bennett 30 Dean Park Road Harleston Farm Plymstock Harleston Plymouth TQ7 2BH PL9 7NZ
Site Address: Harleston Farm, Harleston, TQ7 2BH
Development: Variation of condition number 2 following grant of planning permission 2829/15/FUL to allow changes to approved plans
Reason item is being put before Committee: The DM CoP Lead has referred the application to Committee in view of the issues raised by the proposal. Recommendation: Refusal
On the basis that the proposal does not constitute a minor material amendment within the meaning of Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, refusal is recommended for the following reason:
1. Planning permission 2829/15/FUL was for the conversion of an existing building to holiday use. It is considered that the changes proposed do not constitute a conversion and the current proposal is for a fundamentally different form of development. The proposal cannot therefore be considered as a minor material amendment within the meaning of Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Planning Practice Guidance.
Should Members be minded that that proposal can be considered as a minor material amendment within the meaning of Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, refusal is recommended for the following reason:
1. The approved scheme provided for a conversion that would not present an outward appearance of living accommodation, and would retain the small scale of a minor rural building that would not appear unduly domesticated. The proposed amendments would result in the appearance of the building being overtly domestic and increase its visual prominence not in keeping with rural character of the original building. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (notably but not limited to paragraph 55); Policies CS7 and CS9 of the LDF Core Strategy; Policies DP1 and DP2 of the LDF Development Policies DPD; and Policies DEV20, DEV24 and TTV31 of the emerging Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan.
Key issues for consideration:
Whether the proposed changes would still result in a conversion rather than new build, design, heritage, neighbour impact, highways.
Site Description:
The site is situated to the north of Chillington and west of Slapton, and includes a historic farmhouse with associated outbuildings. A large existing barn sits to the south of the main dwelling, and includes a pitched roof element adjacent to a mono-pitch roof. Some of the external wall sections are clearly historic with later blockwork alterations. The building currently sits within its own yard area. Externally some historic stonework is visible along with modern blockwork.
The Proposal:
Planning permission was granted on appeal in 2016 for the change of use of the existing barn to holiday accommodation (LPA ref. 2829/15/FUL, appeal ref. APP/K1128/W/16/3155501). The current application seeks approval for design changes including rebuilding stone walls (to address structural issues), and providing a new natural slate roof rather than the previously approved corrugated metal). A single storey extension is also proposed on the south elevation, with a porch canopy on the north (front) elevation. Amendments to the fenestration are also proposed.
The design was further amended prior the application being put before the Committee, and the revised plans were advertised for public comment. The changes included reducing the amount of glazing on the north and south elevations and introducing hit/miss cladding to the proposed extension. Consultations:
County Highways Authority – No highway related issues
East Allington Parish Council – No comments received
Representations:
10 letters of objection have been received (with some local respondents residents responding to both rounds of consultation, with concerns raised summarised as follows:
The proposal constitutes a new application, not a variation of existing permission Increase in size of building Inspector’s decision refers to no outward appearance of living accommodation and no enlargement Building would be more domestic in appearance, destroying current barn character Revised plans make cosmetic changes to the current proposal which still fail to comply with Inspector’s decision Existing consent cannot be implemented as building has been demolished Future change of use application for permanent residential use No reasons given within application why one bedroom unit no longer viable Continued objection to introduction of holiday let in this location, two bedroom let will increase disturbance from use and traffic Public right of way does not end at Harleston Farm, continues on towards Start and can be used by any vehicle. It is used by walkers, people on horseback, quad bikes, farm vehicles and local residents Trees which are suggested to provide screening belong to third parties Impact on setting of Harleston Farm and Harleston House, increase status of building not in keeping with the historic relationships No revised site plan showing porch and additional car parking Works to other barns on site being carried out without planning permission Lane already damaged by construction traffic Subversion of planning process Assertions that original proposal is unviable unsupported by any evidence and contradictory to statements made by the applicants and third parties in support of the original application No requirement to include a porch under Building regulations as suggested
Relevant Planning History
2829/15/FUL: Change of use of barn to holiday accommodation. Refurbishment of other barns to provide storage and ancillary music room. Harleston Farm, Harleston Cross To Harleston, Harleston, Devon, TQ7 2BH. Allowed on appeal: 29 Dec 16.
The barns to be refurbished for storage and ancillary music room use were granted consent by virtue of a separate planning consent which was considered whilst the above appeal was ongoing (LPA ref. 2192/16/FUL) with subsequent amendments also approved (LPA ref. 4061/16/HHO, 2271/17/HHO).
ANALYSIS
Principle of Development/Sustainability:
The principle of the change of use of the barn to holiday accommodation has been established by virtue of the previous appeal decision. In terms of policy justification this decision focused on paragraph 55 of the NPPF, which allows for the isolated residential use in the countryside where there are special circumstances (which in this case was the re-use of a redundant building which was considered to lead to the enhancement of the immediate site setting).
The Inspector’s decision on the existing permission was clear that it considered the scheme on the basis the proposal was for the conversion of the existing building. There have been suggestions from third party objectors that the building has in fact been demolished. The most recent site visit by Officers revealed that little of the existing building remains. In a supporting statement provided with the revised plans, the Agent comments:
“The original building was evidently unsuitable in its construction to create habitable accommodation and to achieve compliance with the building regulations. Structurally, it was evidently unstable, evidenced by cracks and leaning external walls. Further, the roof structure was inadequate to support the introduction of insulation and ceilings without considerable amendment and upgrade.”
The submitted Design and Access Statement acknowledges that areas of wall would be rebuilt on the south, east and north elevations, with the existing stone wall on the west elevation being retained. The degree of rebuild shown on the submitted plans goes beyond what was originally approved, and Officers consider the current proposal does not constitute a “conversion” of the original building and is tantamount to the construction of a new building (also noting the amount of demolition works that have already been carried out on site).
The current application has been made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which provides for the variation or removal of conditions attached to an existing planning consent, in this case condition 2 (accordance with plans). In relation to such a “minor material amendment” application, the Planning Practice Guidance states:
“There is no statutory definition of a ‘minor material amendment’ but it is likely to include any amendment where its scale and/or nature results in a development which is not substantially different from the one which has been approved.” (Paragraph 017)
On the basis that the current proposal is not for a conversion, Officers consider it cannot be approved under the Section 73 process as it is fundamentally different to the original permission and does not constitute a minor material amendment. This does not preclude the Applicant from submitting a separate fresh application for new building holiday accommodation, which would be considered on its planning merits and on the basis of adopted planning policy and guidance at the time of application.
Whilst the Agent/Applicant were advised prior to submission of the current application that a Section 73 application would be the appropriate procedure for amendments to planning permission 2829/15/FUL to be considered, no assurance was given that such an application would be successful. Detailed assessment of the proposed amendments and a further site visit have subsequently revealed the above issue. It is acknowledged that urgent works can sometimes be necessary in the interests of health and safety. However, if a building is found to be unstable then any planning consent for a ‘conversion’ scheme is potentially put in jeopardy. There is always an element of risk involved when working with existing built fabric, and the financial and other consequences of this are the responsibility of the person(s) carrying out the development.
There has been some suggestion that Officers should have been aware of the issues with the building subject of this application at an earlier stage, due to the amendments to the approved Music Room (4061/16/HHO and 2271/17/HHO) arising from structural issues. DM Specialists are not qualified structural engineers, and that issues have arisen on one part of site cannot be taken to mean that similar issues will automatically arise elsewhere.
Should Members be minded to disagree with the above assessment regarding the nature of the application (or an Inspector takes an alternative view in considering any subsequent appeal), an analysis of the general planning merits of the current proposal (on the basis that it could still be considered a conversion) is set out below. Design/Landscape:
With reference to the design the Inspector noted: “It would be a contemporary but understated treatment that would not present an outward appearance of living accommodation. There would be no enlargement and the proposal would retain the small scale of a minor rural building. It would not appear unduly domesticated.” Reference is also made to the modest size of the garden area.
The current scheme would change the character of the building to one which was overtly domestic and increase its visual prominence. This is directly at odds with the Inspector’s reasoning for allowing the conversion. Whilst the revised plans are considered to be a marginal improvement to the plans originally submitted with this application, it is considered they have not sufficiently addressed this issue. The proposal is not in keeping with rural character of the original building and would still appear overly- domesticated. It does not accord with the Inspectors’ reasoning for allowing conversion in the first instance (with particular reference to paragraph 55 of the NPPF).
The submitting supporting statement argues that the existing approval would not provide a building that would be attractive to prospective customers, however it was on this basis that consent was originally granted.
There is dispute between the Applicant/Agent and third party objectors regarding the visibility of the site from public vantage points, with specific reference to the access lane serving Harleston Farm and how much this is actually used. The area subject of this application is set back from the lane, which does impact on its visibility. The lane does join a track which provides onward access towards Start for those that choose to use it. The Inspector’s decision noted that the outdoor living spaces would be at the rear of the building, with a garden area that would also remain largely out of view, but also makes specific reference to the elevational treatments. It goes on to state: “I am satisfied that the design and landscape treatment proposed would be sympathetic to the characteristics of the area and result in an enhancement to the immediate setting.” With the current proposal Officers consider this would no longer be the case.
Neighbour Amenity:
The Inspector considered the impact on the amenities of Harleston House in assessing the appeal on the existing consent, noting the large size of the garden and many opportunities for sitting out. It was also noted that outdoor living space for the holiday unit would be sited to the rear (and would therefore be partially screened from Harleston House by the holiday unit itself due to the orientation of the buildings). It is considered that the current proposal would not result in any substantive additional impacts compared with the approved scheme (having regard to the fact that the holiday unit would have only one additional bedroom compared with the previous approval and the outside living area would still be located at the rear). Whilst third parties have raised concern about the additional number of persons that could theoretically be accommodated within the holiday unit, it is not considered refusal could be justified on this basis. It should be noted that amenity impact did not form part of the Council’s reason for refusal of the original application, and it remains the case that noise complaints could be investigated by the Council’s Environmental Health team under separate legislation.
Highways/Access:
Concern has been raised by third parties regarding the impact of increasing the size of the holiday unit to two bedrooms and associated impact on traffic generation. It is considered that this would not result in a substantive increase in vehicle movements compared with the previous approval such that refusal could be substantiated on this basis. Heritage:
There are listed buildings to the west of the application site, the nearest being Harleston House (Grade II). In considering the appeal on the original approval, the Inspector considered that the setting of Harleston House would be preserved notwithstanding that there would be some impact (as both buildings can be seen together). Officers consider the current proposal would not result in substantive additional impact on the setting of Harleston House compared with the approved scheme, and the setting would still be preserved for the purposes of the statutory test and the NPPF.
Other Matters:
Officers are of the view that the works that have already taken place to remove substantial and significant areas of the building go well beyond works to convert an existing building and, as such those works are not authorised by the original planning permission. This means that the original permission is no longer capable of implementation as the original building is no longer in place to be converted. It follows that development on the site contrary to the permission is unlawful development and the Council has a duty to consider possible remedies through enforcement action. Officers will consider appropriate next steps following the determination of this application (and any resultant appeal if the decision is refusal).
The appeal decision on the original permission included a condition regarding bat mitigation which could be re-imposed should the current application be approved. There were no specific conditions in respect of drainage.
Conclusions:
Officers consider the current proposal is not for a conversion, and as such it cannot be approved under the Section 73 process as it is fundamentally different to the original permission and does not constitute a minor material amendment. Even it were considered to constitute a minor material amendment, the proposal is not in keeping with rural character of the original building and would appear overly- domesticated. Having regard to the reasons why the Inspector approved the original application, Officers consider the proposed design cannot be supported. There are therefore two potential routes for refusal as identified in the recommendation at the beginning of this report.
This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and with Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Planning Policy
Section 70 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that regard be had to the development plan, any local finance and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act requires that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The relevant development plan policies are set out below:
South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment
Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP4 Sustainable Construction DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking DP12 Tourism and Leisure DP15 Development in the Countryside DP16 Conversion and Reuse of Existing Buildings in the Countryside
Emerging Joint Local Plan
The Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (the JLP) will replace the above as the statutory development plan once it is formally adopted.
Annex 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides guidance on determining the weight in relation to existing and emerging development plan policies.
For current development plan documents, due weight should be given to relevant policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). For the JLP, which is an emerging development plan, the weight is to be determined by the stage of its preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections, and its degree of consistency with the Framework.
The JLP is at a relatively advanced stage of preparation. The precise weight to be given to policies within the JLP will need to be determined on a case by case basis, having regard to all of the material considerations as set out on the analysis above.
PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017) SPT1 Delivering sustainable development SPT2 Sustainable linked neighbourhoods and sustainable rural communities TTV1 Prioritising growth through a hierarchy of sustainable settlements TTV2 Delivering sustainable development in the Thriving Towns and Villages Policy Area TTV31 Development in the Countryside DEV1 Protecting amenity and the environment DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise and land DEV10 Delivering high quality housing DEV15 Supporting the rural economy DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment DEV21 Conserving the historic environment DEV22 Development affecting the historic environment DEV24 Landscape character DEV28 Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation DEV31 Specific provisions relating to transport DEV37 Managing flood risk and Water Quality Impacts DEV38 Coastal Change Management Areas
National Planning Policy Framework Neighbourhood Plan
N/A
Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report. PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT
Case Officer: Wendy Ormsby Parish: Littlehempston Ward: Marldon and Littlehempston
Application No: 1607/18/AGR
Agent/Applicant: Mr & Mrs R & J Hodgson 9 Argyle Terrace Totnes TQ9 5JJ
Site Address: Ackrells Field, Littlehempston, Devon, TQ9 6LX
Development: Application for prior notification of agricultural building to provide storage of animal feeds, straw, hay and farm equipment (resubmission of 1114/18/AGR)
Reason item is being put before Committee Applicant is a Member of this Council Recommendation: Agricultural determination, Details not required
Conditions:
Accord with plans Not to be used for the accommodation of livestock Agricultural use only Building to be removed when no longer required for purposes of agriculture
Key issues for consideration:
Whether or not the proposal accords with the requirements as set out in Part 6, Class A, of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, and can therefore be constructed without the need for the submission of further details to the Local Planning Authority.
Site Description:
The site is a single field of 5.93 hectares located outside of the village of Littlehempston, north east of Higher Court Farm and opposite a row of dwellings. An unclassified road runs along the north west field boundary which is defined by a Devon Hedgebank. Access is taken from the road into the upper corner of the site via a field gate.
The field slopes quite steeply from north west to south east.
The site is not within a designated landscape
The Proposal:
The application is a prior notification for the erection of an agricultural building to be used for the storage of animal feeds, straw, hay and farm equipment.
The building will measure 14.4m x 4.2m in floor area, will be 2.3m to the eaves and 3m to the ridge. This will be formed of 2 timber frames and panelled sheds each 5.7m long with doors at one end and on the side. These will be set together lengthways with a single roof over forming a central covered over space of 3m length – giving a total length of 14.4m.
The walls will be natural wood with a corrugated onduline dark green or charcoal roof
Consultations:
No consultations required
Relevant Planning History
None
ANALYSIS
The proposed building has been assessed against the criteria set out in Part 6, Class A of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (Agricultural development on units of 5 hectares or more) which states that works for the erection of a building that is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit are permitted development subject to the following: Development is not permitted by Class A if-
a. The development would be carried out on a separate parcel of land forming part of the unit which is less than 1 hectare in area: The proposed development is not on a separate parcel of land and the unit is 5.9 hectares in size
b. it would consist of, or include, the erection or extension of any agricultural building on an established agricultural unit (as defined in paragraph X of Part 3 of this Schedule) where development under Class Q or S of Part 3 (changes of use) of this Schedule has been carried out within a period of 10 years ending with the date on which development under Class A(a) begins; No development under Class Q or Class S of Part 3 of the GPDO have been carried out
c. it would consist of the erection, extension or alteration of a dwelling; the building would be for agricultural storage and does not proposed a dwellinghouse
d. it would involve the provision of a building, structure or works not designed for agricultural purposes: The design and materials are appropriate for agricultural purposes.
e. the ground area would exceed 465 square metres: the building would have a footprint of 60.5 sqm.
f. the height of any part of any building, structure or works within 3 kilometres of the perimeter of an aerodrome would exceed 3 metres; the proposed development is not within 3 kilometres of an aerodrome and does not exceed 3m.
g. the height of any part of any building, structure or works not within 3 kilometres of the perimeter of an aerodrome would exceed 12 metres; the highest part of the building would be approximately 3m.
h. any part of the development would be within 25 metres of a metalled part of a trunk road or a classified road: the proposed development is at least 25m from the nearest metalled part of a trunk road or classified road. The road running along the site boundary is not a trunk or classified road.
i. it would consist of, or include, the erection or construction of, or the carrying out of any works to, a building, structure or an excavation used or to be used for the accommodation of livestock or for the storage of slurry or sewage sludge where the building, structure or excavation is, or would be, within 400 metres of the curtilage of a protected building; the building would be used for the storage of feed, hay, straw and machinery, and not for livestock, slurry, or sewage sludge.
j. It would involve excavations or engineering operations on or over article 2(4) land which are connected with fish farming: the proposed development is not connected with fish farming.
k. Any building for storing fuel for, or waste from, a biomass boiler or an anaerobic digestion system (i) would be used for storing waste not produced by that boiler or system or for storing fuel not produced on land within the unit; or (ii) would be within 400 metres of the curtilage of a protected building: the proposed development would not be used for the storage of fuel or waste from a biomass boiler or an anaerobic digestion system
There is also a requirement within Class A that the building be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit. The applicant has recently acquired this field (currently pasture) and has expressed an intent to create a form of agricultural small holding on the site which would entail different forms of cultivation and the keeping of some animals such as chickens. A building of the size and scale proposed would be reasonably required to support this. From the assessment above it can be concluded that the proposed building can be erected as Permitted Development.
Development is permitted by Class A of Part 6 of the GPDO, 2015 subject to a number of conditions, in particular that the developer must, before beginning the development, apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required as to the siting, design and external appearance of the building. These are the grounds on which this application must now be assessed
Siting and design
This application is a re-submission, the previous application proposed to site the building in a more visually prominent location. The current application proposes to site the building close to the north west site boundary and towards the southern end of the field. It will be opposite existing dwellings and as such will be seen within an existing cluster of buildings rather than as an isolated structure. The sloping, elevated nature of the site means has the potential to be viewed from a wide area.
The building would be opposite a dwelling which has a blank gable onto the road so would not significantly impact on the outlook/ amenity of the occupiers.
The materials and design are appropriate for an agricultural building.
Siting and design are acceptable.
Conclusion
The proposed development is permitted development and prior approval of siting, design and external appearance are not required as sufficient and satisfactory information has been provided
This application has been considered in accordance with the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015
Planning Policy
Section 70 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that regard be had to the development plan, any local finance and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act requires that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The relevant development plan policies are set out below:
South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment
Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity
Emerging Joint Local Plan
The Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (the JLP) will replace the above as the statutory development plan once it is formally adopted. Annex 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides guidance on determining the weight in relation to existing and emerging development plan policies.
For current development plan documents, due weight should be given to relevant policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). For the JLP, which is an emerging development plan, the weight is to be determined by the stage of its preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections, and its degree of consistency with the Framework.
The JLP is at a relatively advanced stage of preparation. The precise weight to be given to policies within the JLP will need to be determined on a case by case basis, having regard to all of the material considerations as set out on the analysis above.
PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017)
DEV1 Protecting amenity and the environment DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise and land DEV24 Landscape character DEV30 Trees, woodlands and hedgerows
Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report.
Proposed conditions in full
1.The development hereby approved shall in all respects accord strictly with drawing numbers SHDC01 and SHDC02 received by the Local Planning Authority on 11 May 2018 and the details provided in the application form dated 11/05/2018.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which this approval relates.
2. The building hereby permitted shall only be used for agricultural purposes as defined in Section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Reason: To ensure that the site is only used for agricultural purposes, to protect the amenities of the rural area where there is a policy of restraint.
3. The agricultural building hereby permitted shall be removed from the site and the land reinstated to its former condition within three months if, within ten years of substantial completion, the building becomes redundant to agricultural use and the Local Planning Authority has not previously granted planning permission for an alternative use. Within one month of the substantial completion of the building, the applicant shall notify the Local Planning Authority in writing of the date of substantial completion.
Reason: To comply with the conditions of permitted development as set out in Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A.2 of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). 4. The building shall not be used for the accommodation of livestock or for the storage of slurry or sewage sludge.
Reason: To comply with the criteria of permitted development as set out in Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A.1 of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), the building being within 400m of a protected building.
I would draw your attention to the provisions within Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A.2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. Class A.2 (2) (vi) (aa) requires that the development is carried out within a period of five years from the date on which the approval was given. Class A.2 (7) requires that within 7 days of the date on which the development is substantially complete, the developer must notify the Local Planning Authority in writing of that fact. PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT
Case Officer: Matthew Jones Parish: Salcombe Ward: Salcombe and Thurlestone
Application No: 1958/17/FUL
Agent/Applicant: Mr D Roder 19 Fore Street Salcombe TQ8 8BU
Site Address: The Wardroom, Fore Street, Salcombe, Devon, TQ8 8BU
Development: Retrospective application for change of use of land to A3 (Cafe and seating area)
Reason item is being put before Committee: This item is put before committee as South Hams District Council is the landowner Recommendation: Conditional Approval
Conditions:
Accord with Plans No external lighting unless otherwise agreed in writing Tie use to the Wardroom Café
Key issues for consideration:
The main issues are the impact of the proposal upon the Salcombe Conservation Area
Site Description:
The application site is a small area of hardstanding located at the north east corner of Whitestrand, adjacent to the flank wall of the public toilet block. The area has always served to provide pedestrian access to the adjacent Wardroom Café, and has now been physically altered to form a small outdoor café seating area. The café itself is at the rear of the King’s Arms, which is an individually grade II listed building.
The site is within the Salcombe Conservation Area, the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is also adjacent to the SSSI and is within Flood Zone 3.
The Proposal:
This application seeks the Change of Use of the land from a car parking area to A3 serving the Wardroom Café as an outdoor seating area.
Consultations:
County Highways Authority No objection
Marine Management Organisation Undecided – may require MMO licence
Salcombe Town Council No objection
Representations:
None received at the time of writing this report
Relevant Planning History
1527/16/FUL - Construction of a new suspended deck structure over the existing slipway, remedial works to the adjacent quayside frontage and car park and removal of a small section of rear wall located in front of the showers. – Conditional Approval
Analysis
The physical work to facilitate the actual physical use of the area as A3 has already been fully approved and implemented under planning reference 1527/16/FUL. However, that application did not formalise the Change of Use element.
The existing part of Whitestrand forming the application site is an open public amenity space and the incorporation of this small discrete space into the café will have no detrimental impact upon the Conservation Area nor the setting of any other designated heritage asset. Whitestrand is designated as an important public open space in the draft Salcombe Neighbourhood Plan, but this status will not be prejudiced by this small café extension.
There will be no harmful impact upon the scenic beauty nor character of the AONB
The extension and rationalisation of the café’s seating offer will enhance its footfall and viability, providing a small scale economic boost to the community and wider tourist offer within the AONB
Flooding, SSSI and MMO
The MMO have stated that the works may require a licence, but by their own standards, the site is outside of the Marine Area and will not require a licence.
With regard to flooding, the Change of Use does not move the land into a use classified as ‘more vulnerable’, and, as such, there is no need to consult the Environment Agency. There is no operational development associated with the application, and it will simply formalise the existing amenity area, already enjoyed informally by the public, with a table and chairs café arrangement.
A condition will prevent the installation of external lighting which could be harmful to the adjacent SSSI
Neighbour impact
This is a busy and vibrant town centre location, but, in any case, the area is discretely located away from any neighbouring property, ensuring no harmful impact on neighbour amenity. Use of the space will be tied to the use of the Wardroom and any licensing requirements it has.
Conclusion
Overall, the scheme has no negative impacts and is not in conflict with the Development Plan nor the emerging Salcombe Neighbourhood Plan. The retrospective application is recommended for approval.
This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and with Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Planning Policy
Section 70 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that regard be had to the development plan, any local finance and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act requires that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The relevant development plan policies are set out below:
South Hams LDF Core Strategy
CS1 Location of Development CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment CS10 Nature Conservation CS11 Climate Change
Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP6 Historic Environment DP7 Transport, Access & Parking
South Hams Local Plan
SHDC 1 Development Boundaries
Emerging Joint Local Plan
The Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (the JLP) will replace the above as the statutory development plan once it is formally adopted.
Annex 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides guidance on determining the weight in relation to existing and emerging development plan policies.
For current development plan documents, due weight should be given to relevant policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).
For the JLP, which is an emerging development plan, the weight is to be determined by the stage of its preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections, and its degree of consistency with the Framework.
The JLP is at a relatively advanced stage of preparation. The precise weight to be given to policies within the JLP will need to be determined on a case by case basis, having regard to all of the material considerations as set out on the analysis above.
PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017)
SPT1 Delivering sustainable development SPT2 Sustainable linked neighbourhoods and sustainable rural communities DEV1 Protecting amenity and the environment DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise and land DEV15 Supporting the rural economy DEV16 Providing retail and town centre uses in appropriate locations DEV20 Place shaping and the quality of the built environment DEV21 Conserving the historic environment DEV22 Development affecting the historic environment DEV24 Landscape character DEV27 Nationally protected landscapes DEV28 Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation
Salcombe Neighbourhood Plan
SALC Env4 Local Green Spaces
Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010
The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report. Planning Conditions
1. The development hereby approved shall in all respects accord strictly with the following drawing numbers:
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which this approval relates.
2. There shall be no external lighting within the application site unless otherwise agreed in writhing by the Local Planning Authority. Any agreed lighting shall be installed in strict accordance with the details agreed.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the adjacent SSSI
3. The A3 use hereby approved shall be used in conjunction with the adjacent Wardroom Café, including any licensing and opening requirements.
Reason: In the interests of visual and neighbour amenity
PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT
Case Officer: Lucy Hall Parish: Salcombe Ward: Salcombe and Thurlestone
Application No: 1291/18/FUL
Agent: Applicant: Mr Jonathon Dyson South Hams District Council - Mr D Parkes Arcadis Follaton House Rydon House Plymouth Road Pynes Hill Totnes Exeter TQ9 5NE EX25AZ
Site Address: Salcombe Fish Quay, Gould Road, Salcombe, TQ8 8DU
Development: Proposed installation of replacement fenders and pontoon with new pontoon access footbridge
Reason item is being put before Committee: South Hams District Council is the applicant Recommendation: that authority be delegated to the COP Lead (Development Management), in consultation with the Chairman of Development Management, to approve the application, subject to the resolution of the comments received from Natural England.
Conditions: Standard time limit Accord with plans Pontoon lighting details – prior to installation Any conditions requested or relating to issues raised by Natural England/Environment Agency
Key issues for consideration: Landscape/environmental impact- AONB, SSSI, Coastal Preservation Area
Site Description:
The site is located to the north of Salcombe adjacent to Batson Creek. It currently consists of an operational quayside, fishing related commercial buildings, public car parking and a boat maintenance area. Salcombe Fish Quay lies within the Salcombe to Kingsbridge SSSI.
The area lies within the Countryside, outside any settlement development boundary, and is within the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Coastal Preservation Area.
The Proposal:
The application consists of two key elements, the replacement of the existing pontoon and addition of an access bridge, and the replacement of existing fenders:
Pontoon:
The proposal seeks to install a new footbridge from the fish quay to the pontoon, to provide safe, permanent access to the pontoon, which is currently accessed by a ladder from the quayside. The bridge would be supported on a single pile and accessed from the corner of the suspended concrete deck. Due to additional loading on the pontoon from the proposed bridge, the pontoon itself would also be replaced, providing non-slip surfacing, lighting, and improvements to drainage.
Fenders:
It is also proposed to install hardwood timber fenders along any areas of the quay where vessels can more along the existing sheet piling walls, to replace the existing tyres which are fitted to timbers, and float adjacent to the sheet piling. They currently require frequent replacement or repair and risk damage to vessels using them to moor.
Consultations:
County Highways Authority- no objection
Natural England: Further information required to determine impacts on a designated site- detailed method statement which includes measures that avoid or mitigate impacts to sensitive features-We can confirm the application is within Salcombe to Kingsbridge Estuary SSSI. This estuary possess a rich and diverse intertidal and sub tidal flora and fauna, with certain communities being outstanding examples of their type in the North-east Atlantic. These notified features include eel grass (Zostera marina) which colonises the sediment along Salcombe Harbour and is vulnerable to smothering and increased turbidity from released sediments during works and intertidal sediments that are vulnerable to impaction by mechanical vehicles and reduction in extent during coastal development. No details are provided within the application explaining how measures to avoid or mitigate impacts to the sensitive features of the SSSI will be taken, therefore Natural England recommend the planning authority request the submission of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which gives details of how impacts to the environment including vulnerable SSSI interest features will be reduced during the construction process. Natural England request to be consulted upon this document
Environment Agency: No objections in principle, but before the application is determined the applicant should submit further information on the working methods and proposed mitigation measures to demonstrate that any impact on sensitive environmental features are avoided or reduced.
Marine Management Organisation: ‘Please be aware that any works within the Marine area require a licence from the Marine Management Organisation. It is down to the applicant themselves to take the necessary steps to ascertain whether their works will fall below the Mean High Water Line’
South Devon AONB Unit: Overall – the developments are appropriate within the setting - New pile support for the gangway platform – there will be a small loss of foreshore beneath the footprint of the pile but in this instance we would accept that the surface of the pile will effectively compensate for this – the pile surface finish should be inert to wildlife settlement, which should then be left undisturbed - Fenders – these will remove the need for the use of car tyres, minimise the amount of rubbing against the quay wall piles and improve the site environmentally - A Construction Environmental Management Plan should be prepared before any works take place to identify all potential environmental impacts of the developments and how these will be avoided or minimised - Any site lighting should be designed and maintained to ensure that only the working structures are lit and light spill onto the bed of the estuary is minimised - A Marine Management Organisation ‘Marine License’ will also be required for these works
Town Council: no objection
Representations: None
Relevant Planning History
41/0583/81/3- Additional filling to reclaim land creation of quay facilities for unloading fishing boats including access road slipway and cold storage building- conditional approval 41/0048/87/3- Dredging of channel from Whitestrand to Fishermens Spur (Regulation 4 LPA own development)- conditional approval 41/2761/11/DC- Improvements to fish quay to include improvements to quay wall replacement of Southern slipway provision of hard standings installation of containerised freezers renovations to existing timber buildings relocation of fuel tank relocation of water pip (LPA own development)- conditional approval
ANALYSIS
The site is part of a well-established fish quay, with the existing pontoon serving approximately 20 small dinghies. The principle of replacing and improving existing infrastructure relating to this use is therefore considered to be acceptable.
The replacement pontoon would not look significantly different to the existing structure, although the supporting piles would be repositioned slightly (by no more than 1 metre along the quay wall), and the pontoon itself would be a more substantial structure to support the additional loading from the proposed bridge. To improve the general safety of users of the pontoon, non-slip surfacing and lighting would be added to the replacement pontoon. Although there is a clear public benefit to these renovations, no details have been provided as to the position, intensity or number of lights proposed. Given the prominent waterside position of the pontoon within a sensitive landscape setting (AONB, Coastal Preservation Area, countryside), the impact of any new lighting would need to be carefully assessed to ensure that it is appropriate for its setting. Officers therefore recommend a condition be imposed on any approval granted, requiring details of any lighting to be submitted for approval prior to its installation.
The bridge itself would be supported by an additional pile in the water, and would be 16 metres in length with a safety handrail. The design would be functional, and in keeping with the industrial waterfront character of the fish quay, and raises no concerns with regard to the overall appearance of the quay.
The proposed timber fenders would bring major benefits to the quay, as the existing floating tyres which are currently used require regular replacement and repair (once a month, on average), which not only has a financial impact on the quay, but also means that mooring space is lost whilst these repairs are carried out, and can damage vessels. The installation of hardwood timber fenders would prevent these problems from arising, whilst causing no harm to the appearance and character of the quay.
The site is in a sensitive location, and the prominent position within the AONB requires Officers to give ‘great weight’ to the conservation of this landscape (NPPF paragraph 115). The adopted AONB Management Plan is clear that maritime facilities and infrastructure will be retained and encouraged within existing developed areas (policies Est/P1 and Est/P2), whilst ‘Harbour Authorities will be supported in maintaining effective arrangements for managing moorings’ (policy Est/P6). Given the minimal visual impact of the proposed works, Officers are satisfied that AONB and coastal setting would be preserved, and that the proposal complies with paragraph 115 of the NPPF and the AONB Management Plan.
The quay also lies within the Salcombe to Kingsbridge SSSI. Natural England has raised a holding objection to the proposal, requiring further information to be submitted to allow them to assess the impacts on the SSSI:
‘As submitted, the application could have potential significant effects on Salcombe to Kingsbridge Estuary SSSI. Natural England requires further information in order to determine the significance of these impacts and the scope for mitigation.
The Environment Agency raises no objection to the principle of the proposal, but has liaised with Natural England and agrees that additional information is required to assess the environmental impact of the works. The Marine Management Organisation has also been consulted and comments that the works may require a licence. However, this is something which must be obtained by the applicant and does not affect the decision making process.
Whilst additional information is therefore required to address the comments and requirements from both Natural England and the Environment Agency, Officers are confident that this can be resolved through the submission of the requested information, and that this is not a reason to refuse the application. Any conditions requested by these consultees following the submission of additional information, or documents submitted which need to be specifically referred to in the decision notice, would be added to any approval issued.
The nature of the proposal and its position within the existing fish quay sites means that the proposal does not raise any concerns with regard to residential amenity. No third-party representations have been received, and the Town Council raises no objection.
In summary, the proposed development is considered to acceptable in terms of design and scale, in keeping with the landscape of the existing fish quay. The work would have clear safety benefits, the bridge significantly improving the accessibility of the pontoon, and the timber fenders reducing the cost of repairing moorings and the risk of subsequent damage to vessels.
Whilst there is still work to be carried out by the applicant to demonstrate that any impact to the environment would be avoided, or could be mitigated, as required by the statutory consultees, Officers are satisfied that these issues can be resolved by the submission of additional information, and controlled by conditions. This is not considered to be a reason to refuse the application, and it is therefore recommended for conditional approval.
This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Planning Policy
Section 70 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that regard be had to the development plan, any local finance and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the 2004 Planning and Compensation Act requires that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The relevant development plan policies are set out below:
National Planning Policy Framework AONB Management Plan 2014- 2019
South Hams LDF Core Strategy CS1 Location of Development CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and Historic Environment
Development Policies DPD DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP4 Sustainable Construction DP5 Conservation and Wildlife DP15 Development in the Countryside
Emerging Joint Local Plan
The Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (the JLP) will replace the above as the statutory development plan once it is formally adopted.
Annex 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides guidance on determining the weight in relation to existing and emerging development plan policies.
For current development plan documents, due weight should be given to relevant policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). For the JLP, which is an emerging development plan, the weight is to be determined by the stage of its preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections, and its degree of consistency with the Framework.
The JLP is at a relatively advanced stage of preparation. The precise weight to be given to policies within the JLP will need to be determined on a case by case basis, having regard to all of the material considerations as set out on the analysis above.
PLYMOUTH AND SOUTH WEST DEVON JOINT LOCAL PLAN -: PUBLICATION (as considered by the Full Councils end Feb/Early March 2017) TTV31 Development in the Countryside DEV1 Protecting amenity and the environment DEV2 Air, water, soil, noise and land DEV24 Landscape character DEV27 Nationally protected landscapes DEV28 Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation DEV38 Coastal Change Management Areas
Neighbourhood Plan
The site is within the area designated under the Salcombe Neighbourhood Plan. This plan is currently at Regulation 14 stage, and so only very limited weight can be given to aspects of the plan which demonstrate clear community support, as it has not yet been examined.
Considerations under Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equalities Act 2010 have been taken into account in reaching the recommendation contained in this report.
Proposed conditions:
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby approved shall in all respects accord strictly with drawing numbers 0200.P1, 0201.P1, 0202.P1, and 0203.P1 received by the Local Planning Authority on 16th April 2018.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the drawings forming part of the application to which this approval relates.
3. Prior to installation, a scheme for external lighting (if any) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the position, type, luminance and cowling of all external lights to the pontoon and any other areas. Upon the commencement of the use the external lighting shall accord strictly with the approved details.
Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the locality.
4. Any conditions required as a result of further comments from Natural England or the Environment Agency following submission of the requested information. Application to work on Trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order Assessment and Recommendation
Tree Preservation Order : 949 Site Address: Within grounds of The Cedars Jubilee Road Totnes TQ9 5YR Application Register No : 0555/18/TPO
Applicant/Agent: Applicant: Mr Giles Shaw Mr Ray Wakelin Bay Tree Services 4 The Cedars 2 Hillfield Jubille Road Stoke Gabriel Totnes TQ96SH TQ9 5YR
Proposed works: T1: Cedrus deodara - Crown thin by 15% to allow light to adjacent apartments Date of Application : 19 February 2018 Target Decision Date : 16th April 2018
Reason item is being put before DM Committee: The applicant is a member of The Cedars management company. This management company also has a Board member who is related to an employee of South Hams District Council. This employee also lives within a flat within The Cedars.
Site assessed by : Appointed Arboricultural consultants and Alex Whish Date : 15th March 2018/11th April 2018
T1 – Cedar
Recommendation: Conditional approval Conditions: 1. Works to be undertaken in accordance with BS 3998: ‘Tree Work: Recommendations’.
Reasons: To ensure that works are undertaken in an appropriate manner.
Key issues for consideration: The impact on the local amenity and character of Bridgetown
The proposal: The Tree Preservation Order application seeks to crown thin by 15% the mature cedar tree within the grounds of The Cedars. This is to improve light levels within the adjacent flats.
Crown thinning is the removal of a portion of smaller/tertiary branches, usually at the outer crown, to produce a uniform density of foliage around an evenly spaced branch structure. It is usually confined to broad-leaved species. Crown thinning does not alter the overall size or shape of the tree. Material should be removed systematically throughout the tree, should not exceed the stated percentage and not more than 30% overall. Common reasons for crown thinning are to allow more light to pass through the tree… (Arboricultural Association – A brief guide to tree work terminology and definitions)
Consultations: Totnes Town Council and Tree Warden – No objection raised with request that the tree is inspected by the Council’s specialist (Tress and Landscape) Representations: None received
Relevant Planning History None identified as relevant
Analysis
The application seeks to crown thin (as defined under proposal) by 15% the mature cedar tree within the grounds of The Cedars. The tree is located relatively close to the western elevation. The tree has high amenity and acts as a natural screen between dwellings. The proposed works will not adversely affect this screen. This part of Bridgetown is well treed.
The tree appears to have been partially reduced in height in the past and the regrowth has grown back more densely. Whilst it is acknowledged that cedars respond poorly to pruning, the limited proposal will not adversely affect the tree’s longer term health or amenity. Following a request from the town council, an officer inspected the tree in addition to the appointed consultant. The considered view is the works are acceptable and accord with best practice guidance.
The tree has recently been protected by a TPO which is due for confirmation shortly.
Conclusion For the reasons outlined above and within the following site assessment, the application to thin the crown is considered acceptable. .
This application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to a condition on standards of work. On Site Assessment 1.
Are the trees covered by a current TPO? Yes
Comments: This Order was served following local interest in preserving the tree and preventing complete removal.
2. Are some, or all, of the works exempt from the need for formal consent? No
3.
Description of the tree(s) and location. The single tree T1 – Cedar is located within the grounds of The Cedars, Bridgetown. It is adjacent to the western elevation. The tree has been reduced in height but is in overall good structural and physiological condition.
4. What is the amenity value of the tree(s)? please circle
None: Can’t be seen Some: i.e. Roadside trees and parks Very Little: Seen with difficulty Considerable: i.e. Town Centre Little: i.e. Enclosed rear garden Great: Significant feature tree
From which public locations can the tree(s) / hedge(s) be viewed? Adjacent public open space Do the trees screen between properties Yes Comments: The tree currently screens between local residential properties; is prominent within the street-scene when viewed from Cross Park partially obscures The Cedars, softening the scene. It contributes to the local amenity and treed character this part of Bridgetown.
5.
What impact will the works have on local amenity? please circle
None: Can’t be seen Medium: Noticeable but limited Low: Very minor in appearance High: Major impact
6.
Do the proposed works accord with good arboricultural or silvicultural practice? yes 7.
Is any damage likely to arise if consent is refused? No Comments: The tree will require regular ongoing assessment and minor works to prevent nuisance branches close to adjacent dwellings and monitoring of historic crown reduction
8.
Assessment. Give a succinct assessment of the application and appraisal of the proposed works.
1. There are no arboricultural defects apart from the reactive growth to the historic crown reduction and has a reasonable life expectancy. 2. The proposed crown thinning will not impact on the tree’s health or longer term retention; its screening affects will remain intact. 3. If carried out correctly the works accord with BS3998:2010
9.
Recommendation (please tick)
Approval
Works: Crown thin by 15%
Conditions: Yes Works to BS 3998 Yes Replacement Planting Yes Implementation of garden scheme with two yew trees.
10.
Has the application been assessed in relation to Article 1, Protocol 1, Article 2 and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. Yes
Tree Condition, assess and number accompanying plan or refer to submitted application report.
Tree Species Height Spread Age Life Condition Assessment of No. (m) (m) Class Expectancy Stated Reasons Average for Works T1 Cedrus 19m 9m M M Good Approve deodara
Age Class Life Expectancy Condition
Young First 1/3 life expectancy S Short (<10 years) Good Fee from significant defects with a healthy crown Middle Age 1/3 to 2/3 life expectancy M Medium (10-40 years) Fair Some defects, generally healthy crown Mature Final 1/3 life expectancy L Long (40 + years) Poor Structural defects, poor general health and vigour Application to work on Trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order Assessment and Recommendation
Tree Preservation Order : 216 (Varied) Site Address: On the boundary with 19 Nether Meadow Marldon TQ3 1NJ Application Register No : 1025/18/TPO
Applicant/Agent: Applicant: Mr D Vickridge Ms Whalley JP Associates 19 Nether Meadow Second Floor Marldon 46 St Peter Street TQ3 1NJ Tiverton EX16 6NR
Proposed works: T1: Field maple - FELL Date of Application : 23rd March 2018 Target Decision Date : 18th May 2018
Reason item is being put before DM Committee: The applicant is an employee of South Hams District Council.
Site assessed by : Appointed Arboricultural consultants (Hi-Line Ltd) Date : 15th March 2018/11th April 2018
T1 – Field Maple
Recommendation: Conditional approval Conditions: 1. Works to be undertaken in accordance with BS 3998: ‘Tree Work: Recommendations’.
Reasons: To ensure that works are undertaken in an appropriate manner.
Key issues for consideration: The impact on the local amenity offered by the trees and character of Marldon
The proposal: The Tree Preservation Order application seeks to fell a single field maple tree that has been implicated as causing subsidence to a small extension to the original property.
Consultations: Marldon Parish Council and tree warden – No comments received Representations: None received
Relevant Planning History None identified as relevant
Analysis
The application seeks to fell a single field maple (Acer campestre) which has been identified as casing subsidence to the adjacent structures. The report appears sound and considered. Tree roots that are very close to a building can cause the soils to shrink or expand beneath the foundations. If the structure does not take these fully into account when constructed or is light weight then movement of the soils can cause failure of the foundations. Also replacement of the structure will often result in damage to trees in order to remedy the failure. Where this is recognised as a nuisance or foreseeable, works to the tree are considered necessary. In considering the effects of the tree removal, the impacts are limited in terms of the local amenity given the presence of an existing strong linear tree line including substantial mature oak. Whilst there is potential for a number of the trees to contribute to the subsidence, this specific tree has been identified as the probable cause given its close proximity and a cautionary approach would be to support its removal.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above and within the following site assessment, the application to fell the field maple is considered acceptable given the identified problems it is causing.
This application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to a condition on standards of work. On Site Assessment 1.
Are the trees covered by a current TPO? Yes
Comments: This Order was served following local interest in preserving the tree and preventing complete removal. TPO 216 (Varied)
2. Are some, or all, of the works exempt from the need for formal consent? No
3. Description of the tree(s) and location. The tree has a single stem measuring 40cm at 1.3n; domed crown in good overall health and condition. It is located to the rear of the property within 2 m of structure and incorporated into a timber deck. Locally well treed and wooded. Limited amenity with upper crown viewed within context of linear mature treeline
4. What is the amenity value of the tree(s)? please circle
None: Can’t be seen Some: i.e. Roadside trees and parks Very Little: Seen with difficulty Considerable: i.e. Town Centre Little: i.e. Enclosed rear garden Great: Significant feature tree
From which public locations can the tree(s) / hedge(s) be viewed? Limited from adjacent public highways Do the trees screen between properties No
5.
What impact will the works have on local amenity? please circle
None: Can’t be seen Medium: Noticeable but limited Low: Very minor in appearance High: Major impact
6.
Do the proposed works accord with good arboricultural or silvicultural practice? yes 7.
Is any damage likely to arise if consent is refused? Yes Comments: An accompanying structural engineers identify the tree and is cited as causing subsidence to adjacent structures
8.
Assessment. Give a succinct assessment of the application and appraisal of the proposed works.
1. The tree is part of a treed line along a stream and whilst contributing to overall amenity its loss would be limited. 2. Clearly close to structures and cited by report as causing subsidence 3. There are no arboricultural defects 4. Little room for replacement planting.
9.
Recommendation (please tick)
Approval
Works: Field maple - FELL
Conditions: Yes Works to BS 3998 Yes Replacement Planting Yes Implementation of garden scheme with two yew trees.
10.
Has the application been assessed in relation to Article 1, Protocol 1, Article 2 and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. Yes
Tree Condition, assess and number accompanying plan or refer to submitted application report.
Tree Species Height Spread Age Life Condition Assessment of No. (m) (m) Class Expectancy Stated Reasons Average for Works T1 Field 10m 8m M M Good Approve Maple
Age Class Life Expectancy Condition
Young First 1/3 life expectancy S Short (<10 years) Good Fee from significant defects with a healthy crown Middle Age 1/3 to 2/3 life expectancy M Medium (10-40 years) Fair Some defects, generally healthy crown Mature Final 1/3 life expectancy L Long (40 + years) Poor Structural defects, poor general health and vigour South Hams District Council DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 6-Jun-18 Appeals Update from 21-Apr-18 to 29-May-18
Ward Bickleigh and Cornwood APPLICATION NUMBER : 1743/17/FUL APP/K1128/W/18/3199405 APPELLANT NAME: Mr & Mrs F & T Turner PROPOSAL : New dwelling LOCATION : 1 Old School House Cottage, Bickleigh, PL6 7AG APPEAL STATUS : Appeal Lodged APPEAL START DATE: 21-May-2018 APPEAL DECISION: APPEAL DECISION DATE:
APPLICATION NUMBER : 2716/16/FUL APP/K1128/C/17/3184427 APPELLANT NAME: Airband Community Internet Ltd PROPOSAL : Retrospective application for installation of mobile telecommunications and ancillary equipment. Erected 24m high lattice mast, supporting radio equipment, housing power supply. 8no. consumer antennas attached at approximately 20m height and 4no. backhaul radio antennas at approximately 18m LOCATION : Goodamoor Farm, Sparkwell, PL7 5DG APPEAL STATUS : Appeal Decided APPEAL START DATE: 13-October-2017 APPEAL DECISION: Dismissed (Refusal) APPEAL DECISION DATE: 18-May-2018 Ward Dartington and Staverton APPLICATION NUMBER : 3137/17/PAT APP/K1128/W/17/3191716 APPELLANT NAME: Vodafone Ltd PROPOSAL : Prior notification for proposed development by telecommunications code system operator for 15m replica telegraph pole, 2no microwave dishes and 2no equipment cabinets LOCATION : Highways land adjacent Car Park Shinners Bridge, Dartington, Totnes, TQ9 6JD APPEAL STATUS : Appeal Lodged APPEAL START DATE: 24-May-2018 APPEAL DECISION: APPEAL DECISION DATE: Ward Dartmouth and East Dart APPLICATION NUMBER : 2029/17/FUL APP/K1128/D/17/3188017 APPELLANT NAME: Dr D Burston PROPOSAL : Replacement existing garden ancillary unit LOCATION : Coombe Cottage (In The Grounds Of), Bridge Road, Kingswear, TQ6 0DZ APPEAL STATUS : Appeal Lodged APPEAL START DATE: 10-May-2018 APPEAL DECISION: APPEAL DECISION DATE: Ward Kingsbridge APPLICATION NUMBER : 3847/17/FUL APP/K1128/W/18/3196255 APPELLANT NAME: Mr D Lilburn PROPOSAL : New dwelling and off road parking and extension to existing dwelling and new off road parking LOCATION : 55 Henacre Road, Kingsbridge, TQ7 1DP APPEAL STATUS : Appeal Withdrawn APPEAL START DATE: 08-May-2018 APPEAL DECISION: Withdrawn APPEAL DECISION DATE: 14-May-2018
1 Ward Salcombe and Thurlestone APPLICATION NUMBER : 0326/18/LBC APP/K1128/Y/18/3199347 APPELLANT NAME: Mr L Grove PROPOSAL : Listed building consent for internal alterations and refurbishment works to dwelling, including alterations to rear fenestration. LOCATION : 6 Victoria Quay Salcombe Devon TQ8 8DA APPEAL STATUS : Appeal Lodged APPEAL START DATE: 04-May-2018 APPEAL DECISION: APPEAL DECISION DATE: APPLICATION NUMBER : 2452/17/LBC APP/K1128/Y/18/3198511 APPELLANT NAME: Mr A Nicholls PROPOSAL : Listed building consent for external store beside garage screened by stone wall and landscape LOCATION : The Grange, Cliff Road, Salcombe, TQ8 8JQ APPEAL STATUS : Appeal Lodged APPEAL START DATE: 04-May-2018 APPEAL DECISION: APPEAL DECISION DATE: Ward South Brent APPLICATION NUMBER : 1529/17/OPA APP/K1128/W/18/3199191 APPELLANT NAME: Ms D Spencer PROPOSAL : Outline planning application with all matters reserved for the construction of a log cabin for the purpose of holiday let accommodation LOCATION : Land Adjacent To 1 Hothole Cottages, Totnes, TQ9 7JT APPEAL STATUS : Appeal Lodged APPEAL START DATE: 21-May-2018 APPEAL DECISION: APPEAL DECISION DATE: Ward Wembury and Brixton APPLICATION NUMBER : 1812/17/OPA APP/K1128/W/17/3187008 APPELLANT NAME: Grevan Ashmont Retirement PROPOSAL : APPLICATION INVALID: Outline application with all matters reserved for erection of circa 25no. age restricted (55+) bungalow/chalet bungalow dwellings, allotments, public open space and visitor car park LOCATION : Proposed development site at SX 550 523 Land at Venn Farm Brixton APPEAL STATUS : Appeal Decided APPEAL START DATE: 01-November-2017 APPEAL DECISION: Declined to determine APPEAL DECISION DATE: 04-May-2018
APPLICATION NUMBER : 3884/16/FUL APP/K1128/W/18/3196171 APPELLANT NAME: Wainhomes (South West) Holdings Ltd PROPOSAL : Erection of 64no. residential dwellings, associated roads, drainage, landscape, garages and parking LOCATION : Land At Sx 553 524, West of Stamps Hill, Brixton APPEAL STATUS : Appeal Withdrawn APPEAL START DATE: 13-March-2018 APPEAL DECISION: Withdrawn APPEAL DECISION DATE: 11-May-2018
1 South Hams Enforcement Cases South Hams Enforcement Cases South Hams Enforcement Cases Received Closed Open 135 140 140 410 116 120 120 108 400 90 94 94 97 400 394 100 100 84 80 80 390 60 60 378 380 40 40 370 20 20 364 0 0 360 Apr - June 17Jul-Sep 17Oct - DecJan 17 - MarJan 18 - Mar 18 Apr - June Jul-Sep17 17Oct - DecJan 17 - MarJan 18 - Mar 18 End Jun 17End Sep 17End Dec Jan17 - MarJan 18 - Mar 18
ENFORCEMENT PLAN TARGETS FROM JANUARY 2018
Action Priority Emergency High Lower Register and allocate to case Immediate Within 4 working Within 7 officer background/history check days working days
Within 5 working 80% Within 20 Site Visit (where applicable) As soon as possible, and days working days certainly within 24 hours (excluding weekend and Bank/Public Holidays)
Contact complainant with case As soon as possible, and Within 10 Within 30 assessment, proposed course of working days working days certainly within 72 hours action and likely timescale. (excluding weekend and Bank/Public Holidays)
LOWER PRIORITY HIGHER OR Cases Received in Jan – March EXTREMELY HIGH 2018 PRIORITY Number of cases received 89 5 Register and allocate to case officer 94.32% 100% Targets: Extremely High or Higher 100%; Lower 100% Site Visit (where applicable) 61.36% 100% Targets: Extremely High or Higher 100%; Lower 80% Total number of cases where site visit has been 76 5 undertaken Contact complainant with case assessment, proposed 48.86% 20% course of action and likely timescale. Targets: Extremely High or Higher 100%; Lower 80% Total number of cases where complainant has been 74 3 updated