PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Case Officer: David Cooper Ward: Bridestowe Ward Member: Cllr L J G Hockridge Application

Home , Beaworthy, Bratton Clovelly, Clovelly

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

Case Officer: David Cooper Ward: Bridestowe

Ward Member: Cllr L J G Hockridge

Application No: 01172/2013

Agent/Applicant: Applicant: Mr A Weed Miss P Ogborne Woodbury Farm Fursdon Farm Chilla Bratton Clovelly Beaworthy Okehampton Devon EX20 4JG EX21 5XE

Site Address: South Fursdon Farm, Bratton Clovelly, Okehampton, EX20 4JG

Development: Replacement dwelling

Reason item is being put before Committee Called in by Cllr John Hockridge - Member for Bridestowe Ward

“Although the Bungalow is in a bad state of repair. The property does have Mains Electricity and Water. The applicant has paid the Council Tax monthly on the property. I would like this application to go to committee.”

Recommendation: Refusal

Reasons for Refusal 1. National Planning Policy Framework 2012 Paragraph 55 Requires that to promote sustainable development in rural areas ... “Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances” This underscores West Devon Borough Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy DPD (2006 – 2026) Strategic Policy 5 defining that housing in the countryside will be strictly controlled and only be permitted where there is clear essential agricultural, horticultural or forestry need can be demonstrated in addition to West Devon Borough Local Plan Review 2005 saved Policy H31 restricting residential development outside the defined limits of settlements.

While it is noted that the application is for the replacement of a derelict former dwelling, in applying the common law test to establish whether a dwelling has been abandoned, the former dwelling in this case is reasonably considered to be, as a matter of fact and degree, abandoned. The current proposal is therefore considered to represent the creation of a new isolated dwelling in the open countryside and in the absence of any special circumstances is considered contrary to the aforementioned policy.

2. Local Development Framework Core Strategy DPD 2006 – 2026 Strategic Policy 20 Promoting High Quality Design requires proposals to achieve high quality design of both buildings and landscape and discusses in its supporting text that developments must be of an appropriate scale, design and materials for their location. West Devon Borough Local Plan Review 2005 saved Policy H35 [replacement of existing rural dwellings] requires that the size of a replacement dwelling shall not exceed the existing dwelling by more than 10% of the floor area. National Planning Policy Framework 2012 paragraphs 56-57 and 64 requiring good design.

Notwithstanding the assertion that dwelling is abandoned, the proposed development by reason of its circa 70% increase in floor space, its bulk, massing, its disproportionately oversized roof planes in relation to its overall height, its use of materials and clumsy position of its windows would constitute a poor design, a discordant and incongruous form of overdevelopment within the rural landscape failing to harmonise with the exiting patterns of built form near to its location contrary to the aforementioned policies.

3. Local Development Framework Core Strategy DPD 2006 – 2026 Strategic Policy 9 – Meeting Housing Needs – states that “Throughout the area of West Devon covered by this Core Strategy all housing development will be expected to contribute to meeting the targets for affordable housing set out below, subject to viability ...On sites of 1-4 dwellings, excluding wholly flatted developments, a 15% off site financial contribution per dwelling will be required.” This shall be provided “...where this would not compromise the overall viability of the development. The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 states at Paragraph 176, “Where safeguards are necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms (such as environmental mitigation or compensation), the development should not be approved if the measures required cannot be secured through appropriate conditions or agreements”

Notwithstanding the assertion that the alleged dwelling is abandoned in law, and the proposed “new dwelling” is an isolated dwelling within the rural area, the application relates to the erection of a substantially larger dwelling than that it is claiming to replace. The circa 70% increase would incur a liability under Strategic Policy 9, although, the application has failed demonstrate to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that a planning obligation (to meet Strategic Policy 9) would cause the development to be unviable. Furthermore the applicant has failed to demonstrate an intention to meet the Policy requirement, the proposal is therefore considered contrary to the aforementioned policies.

Key issues for consideration: The key issues for consideration are, whether the existing derelict dwelling exists in an abandoned or an un-abandoned state, and consequently whether the application falls to be determined under policy H.31 & NPPF Para 55 as a new isolated dwelling in the countryside or determined under Policy H.35, as a replacement dwelling,

Furthermore the application in either case fails to make adequate provision for the Strategic Policy 9 and fails to propose an acceptable design and the adequacy of the access and bat mitigation measures proposed are at issue.

Site Description Fursdon is a small hamlet to the south west of Bratton Clovelly village. It comprises a few houses and farm buildings in two staggered ‘clusters’, either side of a winding farm track. The northernmost property on the eastern side of the track being a recently erected two-storey replacement farm house with outbuildings to its front yard area, beyond that, an agricultural workers bungalow, to the south-western side of the lane a further dwelling, and Fursdon Farm house and associated farm and livestock and other buildings. The track leading further to the south and to the application site has livestock buildings at its western side and the track meets a fork where a bridleway is signposted to the east and the track off to the west. The application site rests within the apex of that fork among a cluster of trees flanked by Devon Banks to the east and west. The existing building is of a single storey and is of a render clad brick construction with a corrugated iron pitched roof featuring a gable to the right-hand side and a small chimney stack to the left. The main body of the structure described here as the front portion of the structure, is partially intact, although is not wind or water tight with missing fenestration and openings in the roof. The exterior of the front portion is in poor condition with sporadic render cover and brick mortar in poor condition. The facade features an overwhelming covering of mature ivy that partially obscures the front entrance and windows, with mature undergrowth covering the foreground, further preventing access to the front of the structure. It is also clear that the surrounding flora has be untended for a substantial period of time, save for the clearing of the primary field access which is evidently in regular use and flows from the apex of the fork in the track into the field south of the application site.

The rear of the structure originally had a lean-to corrugated iron roof that along with the rear wall is in a state of collapse. The rear portion structure appeared to house two rooms and a kitchen although there is little evidence of the claimed bathroom as the structure was significantly inaccessible in that portion of the structure for a reasonable inspection. Moreover the rear portion is beset with significant overgrowth of mature ivy and has been unattended for a substantial period of time. There is little or no evidence of any works to secure the structure from the elements, flora or fauna with an established bat roost evident in the covered portion of the building. Hence the remains of a single storey four bed bungalow bare little relation to the 156sqm floor area claimed as existing. Description of the Proposal Planning permission is sought to replace a ‘derelict house’ with a ‘chalet style’ dwelling comprising of entrance hall, living room, dining room/kitchen utility room and WC on the ground floor and three bedrooms and two bathrooms, one en-suite on the first floor. The external appearance of the proposed dwelling would be dominated by a very large concrete tile roof containing dormer windows: two on the north-west elevation and single one in the south west elevation. Smooth render walls and white Upvc windows and doors would finish the materials. Part of the reason for proposing such a large roofed dwelling and a large accompanying garage to the south west of the proposed house, is the need to provide extensive bat mitigation measures. Schegler bat tubes and 4 bat slates two in each roof plane of the main house and a bat roost area in the garage. Drainage is shown into a proposed septic tank in a neighbouring field to the south. The location plan, that accompanies the application, shows the field in the same ownership. In the Design and Access Statement that accompanies the application the agent states;- ‘This application seeks to gain consent to replace the existing derelict house with a new dwelling to include a garage with bat mitigation . The existing dwelling is not suitable for habitation, the roof having been demolished by the elements, this necessitating replacement in its entirety The applicant is a carer for her Mother and is currently living in Fursdon farm, Bratton Clovelly. When her Mother finally passes away, the property known as Fursdon Farm will be sold and the proceeds distributed among the siblings. Therefore. Miss P. Ogbourne, although owning the current derelict South Fursdon Farm, will be and homeless. This therefore is the justification.’ The application has been accompanied by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal undertaken by Green Ecology, May 2013 and an Ecological and Dawn Survey Report prepared by David F Wills, 10th August 2013. Consultations: County Highways Authority – Standing highway advice no objections.

Devon County Council – Rights of Way Warden – The application make no reference to the adjacent Public Right of Way, which follows the same line as the access track to the site.

While not directly affecting the PRoW the applicant should be advised that the bridleway must remain free of any obstruction during the construction of this dwelling, and that if any change to the existing surface of the PRoW is planned, DCC must be consulted before work takes place. Natural England – Consultation response has been provided in sections.

 Statutory nature conservation sites:- No objection  Protected Species – Refer to standing advice  Local sites – Local Planning Authority responsibility  Biodiversity Enhancements – This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity ‘. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat.’  Landscape Enhancements – This application may provide opportunities to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding natural and built environment; use natural resources more sustainably; and bring benefits for the local community , for example through green space provision and access to the contact with nature . Landscape characterisation and townscape assessments , and associated sensitivity and capacity assessments provide tools for planners and developers to consider new development and ensure that it makes a positive contribution in terms of design , form and location, to the character r and functions of the landscape and avoids any unacceptable impacts.

Countryside & Community Projects Officer – An initial site appraisal was followed by further Bat Emergence and Re-entry surveys. It was concluded that the building was being used by a single Lesser Horseshoe Bat as an occasional day roost and as a night roost in autumn. It was considered possible that the building might also be use d by crevice dwelling bats due to levels of activity in the vicinity though this wasn’t confirmed. Demolition of the existing building without mitigation would result in a Habitats Regulations offence and requires an EPS Licence; however the ecologist has proposed detailed mitigation to ensure the proposal can proceed legally without a Licence. A Detailed mitigation Method Statement for Bats has been submitted, with provisions properly reflected on the associated plans. The key features of the mitigation are:

 A garage structure containing a new dedicated bat roost will be created prior to demolition of the existing building ensuring continuity of a bat roosting space.

 The new bat roost will be of a dimension and contain the features appropriate to the roosting requirements of the Lesser Horseshoe species as were recorded at the site.  The Statement will inform precautionary working practices during demolition and will be explained to contractors.  Provision for crevice –dwelling bats will be made within the new dwelling which is likely to enhance suitable roosting space fro such species.

The mitigation is suitable for the species recorded on site, and appropriate in scale. It is reasonable to consider that it will maintain the functionality of the site for bats , and subject to adherence to the Statement (notably creation of the garage and associated roost before any demolition of the main dwelling) it is reasonable to conclude that a Habitats Regulations offense is unlikely and no ESP Licence is required. Conditions relating to: ‘Detailed Mitigation Method Statement for Bats’ and works ‘timed outside of bird nesting season’ in the event that the application is recommended for approval. Bratton Clovelly Parish Council – Support the application Representations Site notice posted and neighbours notified of the application. This has not resulted in receipt of any letters of representation (LORs) Relevant Planning History None ANALYSIS The main issues relevant to the determination of this application are:

 Principle of Development / Sustainability  Abandonment  Design & Landscape  Neighbour Amenity  Highways / Access

Principle of Development/Sustainability National Planning Policy Framework 2012 Paragraph 55 states that “To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as:  the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or  where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or  where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or  the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling.

Such a design should:  be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas;  reflect the highest standards in architecture;  significantly enhance its immediate setting; and  be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.

Strategic Policy 5, Spatial Strategy – states that,

“3.37 new developments will be concentrated in the Main towns of Okehampton and Tavistock. Limited development in the local centres and Villages may be permitted where it is demonstrated that it will contribute to wider sustainability benefits for the area. Development in the countryside will be strictly controlled and housing only permitted where there is a clear essential agricultural, horticultural or forestry need”

The application site is located in open countryside where Policy H31 of the West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review, March 2005, as amended by the Adopted Core Strategy states:- ‘Residential development, outside the defined limits of settlements and where policy H29 does not apply will not be permitted unless all the following criteria are met

(i) There is written independent evidence that of a genuine and sustained need for a dwelling. That need being based upon an essential agricultural, forestry or horticultural requirement for a full time worker to be resident on the holding; (ii) The local planning authority has no reason b to believe that the need for an additional dwelling has arisen primarily due to the recent b sub-division of the holding and/or the recent disposal of a dwelling from the holding ; (iii) There is no building on the holding suitable for conversion to a dwelling; (iv) The dwelling is sited close to existing agricultural buildings unless it can be clearly demonstrated that a more isolated location is essential for the operation of the holding ; and (v) The dwelling is in keeping with the character of the area in terms of scale, design and materials.

The applicant has not sought to make a case for the proposed dwelling on the basis that it satisfies any of these exemption criteria but rather has sought approval on the basis that the proposal represents a replacement dwelling.

Policy H35 relates to replacement dwellings, it states:- ‘Proposals for the replacement of existing rural dwellings in the countryside (outside defined settlement limits) by new dwellings will be permitted where:-

(i) The materials and design of the proposed replacement dwelling shall reflect elements of the traditional design and materials of the rural areas within which it is situated and the scheme will achieve a better design and environmental result than if full “permitted development” rights were exercised; (ii) The size f the replacement dwelling shall not exceed that of the existing dwelling by more than 10% of the floor area; and

(iii) The boundary treatment and landscaping of the dwelling will reflect the rural character of the area.

Where the sitting of the replacement does not preclude the retention of the existing dwelling, conditions will be attached to the permission or a planning obligation sought to ensure the demolition of the existing dwelling prior to the occupation of its replacement.’ Paragraph 4.117 of the supporting text makes clear that the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that the house to be replaced has not been ‘abandoned’. It states:-

‘It will be for the applicant to demonstrate to the Borough Council that the original dwelling has not been abandoned and also to undertake to demolish the original at the latest on completion of the replacement’

NPPF 2012 Paragraph 187: Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

It is not known exactly when the property was last occupied. Attempts to get the agent/applicant to clarify this have not been successful:-

Action Query Responses to Date

25/01/2013 Among 8 other points of 18/02/2013 Agent’s Response; WDDC information sought Q8 Asked, “...If wrote to this property is derelict the use “The property, the subject of this the Agent may have been lost through application, was originally occupied by a ‘abandonment’. Please provide tenant some 20 years ago and photographs and details of how afterwards by the Applicant. The roof of the building has collapsed during its un- long it has been empty, why it has been left in disrepair and if it has occupancy, degenerating it to its been used for any other use and situation now seen, being overgrown its structural state.’ with vegetation. I would also inform you that Council rates have been paid on the property throughout its time and in fact so I am informed are still being paid, so I believe that abandonment is not an issue.”

A further email stated; ”... the property was purchased by his client in 1989.”

11/09/2013 Agent Wrote;

“As you stated, the existing premises are currently uninhabited but Council Tax is still being paid on this property so I am informed. We have spoken to the applicant, who indicated that she would

be visiting yourselves to submit supplementary information regarding it’s occupation, periods of vacancy, stability etc”

09/10/2013 Please be aware that as yet we None Received have not received any additional (WDDC has no record of further WDDC information from your client information regarding occupancy and wrote to regarding occupancy of the periods of vacancy actually being the Agent proposed dwelling.’ provided.)

16/01/2014 Advised the Agent that the Note: Further emails have been WDDC application could not be supported exchanged with the agent seeking to wrote to as the issue of abandonment had establish when the property was last the Agent not been resolved and inviting the occupied. The agent has responded, but applicant to withdraw the not been able to clarify when the application and establish the property was last occupied. existence of the dwelling, prior to seeking its replacement.

Abandonment Abandonment is a legal concept used to describe the circumstances in which the rights to resume a use which has been lawfully carried out in the past may be lost because the use has ceased. The courts have generally determined that abandonment may occur where there has been a deliberate intention to cease a use by reason of the premises having been left vacant for a considerable period or the buildings having deteriorated to the extent that their re-use would involve works that would be tantamount to a re-build or by the introduction of a different use that supersedes that which came before.

Abandonment of use for periods of as little as 4 and 7 years are recorded in common law and as such it is considered that the non-use of the buildings for circa twenty years is a significant period. As a result the Local Planning Authority must consider the status of the derelict dwelling subject of this application so that the appropriate policies may be applied to its determination.

There is no statutory definition of abandonment; however a four part test has been established in common law. The test relates to, 1. the physical condition of the premises; 2. the period of non-use; 3. whether there had been any intervening use; 4. evidence regarding the owner’s intentions. The earlier interpretation of the test that an owner's intentions were paramount has been refined further and the common law now establishes that the matter of assessing “abandonment” is one of “fact and degree” and that it is the view of a "reasonable man" taking into account all relevant factors that is decisive i.e. no one factor is more determinant than the others.

1. The physical condition of the premises (dwelling) The first consideration relates to the physical condition of the derelict dwelling. Here the application is unhelpful in reaching a structured opinion save the assertions in the application that the exiting dwelling is described as being a ’derelict house’, the Design and Access Statement describes it as not suitable for habitation; and the agent describes it, in a letter to the Council 18th February 2013, as too unsafe for an ecological assessment to be undertaken. The agent has also clarified that the roof of the rear lean-to collapsed 5-6 years ago.

The physical condition hence is a matter of “fact and degree”, while part of the building could be loosely described as intact, the remainder, which includes the two bedrooms, the kitchen and claimed bathroom is in a state of complete collapse. On advice submitted by the District Valuation Office the remaining structure fails to meet the rudimentary basic definition of a dwelling for council tax purposes. There is little evidence to suggest that the property has been in continuous use, and there is no suggestion that the utilities at the site have been in use, in the recent past. The structure as a matter of fact and degree is not wind and weather proof and in the absence of a bathroom, W.C. and kitchen facilities the structure is no more than a set of empty rooms some of which have totally collapsed. In application of the “reasonable man” test it would be reasonable to reach the conclusion that the derelict dwelling is and has been incapable of residential use for a prolonged period of time.

2. The period of non-use (the period the derelict dwelling has not been in use) The second consideration relates to the period of non-use of the derelict dwelling. It is a fact that the property was purchased in 1989 by the applicant, and a mortgage was given to HSBC with a supporting endowment policy in the name of the applicant. The application documents and comments made in communication with the agent suggest that the property has not been used for residential purposes for period of approximately 20 years andthere is no submitted evidence to the contrary.

The dwelling has remained vacant devoid of residential chattels/posessions save the kitchen appliances trapped in the collapsed rear portion of the site. A period of 20 years is considered a substantial period of time. The applicant acknowledges that the building has not been used for any other purposes.

Periods of non-use for as little as 4 and 7 years have been recorded in case law. It is considered that the non-use of this derelict dwelling for circa 20 years is a significant period. As a matter of fact and degree there is little evidence to suggest that the derelict dwelling was anything other than discarded, its use as a dwelling abandoned.

Whilst the factual inaccuracies around occupation may seem confusing, such a period of non-residential use is a significant factor in itself, and is powerful evidence that any residential use has been abandoned although not in itself a determining factor. Nevertheless it is considered in this case that a reasonable interpretation in relation to the degree of non-use, circa 20 years, with no evidence of any residential chattels in the standing structure this criterion counts against the application and strongly points to the conclusion that any and all residential use has been abandoned.

3. Whether there has been any intervening use While an intervening use may serve to indicate that the structure rather than the use had not been abandoned, there is no evidence submitted to suggest that there has been any intervening use of the site, save for the agricultural access to the adjacent field passing directly in front of the derelict dwelling, the site has in fact lain dormant since purchase. Therefore it is considered that no evidence has been provided of any intervening use. In application of this test the residential use has not been extinguished by another. However, it is understood that the roof has collapsed, vegetation has grown around the property and it has been inhabited by bats, suggesting no or very little use. 4. Evidence regarding the owner’s intentions. It is a matter of fact that at one time there was a functioning dwelling and albeit rudimentary and basic in its construction, the property would have clearly met the standards of the day as the property was mortgaged. It is stated by the owner that abandonment was never in her mind and that family circumstances took her to care for her sick mother. During this period the applicant did attempt to mitigate her costs by applying for exemption from council tax payments and it is considered reasonable that the conflicting statements in relation to dereliction and intention in this application should be assessed according to those circumstances and not prejudice the applicant. The application site is without furnishings although the remnants of the kitchen and its appliances are evident in the collapsed section of the building. The site is poorly maintained and the open access appears to serve only the adjacent field. There is little evidence on the site of any real attempt to preserve the integrity of the alleged dwelling. It is noted that the applicant’s agent is reliant on council tax records and assertions of his client’s long term intentions to build a replacement house (assertions of historic -20 years ago - meetings with un-named officers)

Council tax records go back to 1993. The Government has changed the rules on a number of occasions since then, and the Council has changed its data systems four times. But the following has been established.

 The applicant appears to have lived at Fursdon Farm (the main farmhouse) throughout  South Fursdon – the application property – is recorded as being under ‘structural repair’ between 1st April 1993 (when Council tax records started) and 30th March 2000, with no Council tax paid.  2000 – 2006 – A discounted rate was applied (as a ‘second’ home). Not sure whether this was paid, or when (i.e. retrospectively after planning interest was expressed/ application was made)  Confirmed as being ‘long term empty’ 1st March 2007  March 2012 – Charge on the property – all reduction exemptions applied. Noted as ‘Derelict and has been since she purchased it.’

Submitted Council Tax records show that from the 1st April 1993 until the 31st March 2000 an exemption was applied to the property as it was claimed as being uninhabitable. It is explained that such an exemption is only normally available for a period of 12 months, although records held show that the temporary exemption was applied for a period of seven years, with liability being applied subsequently from the 1st April 2000 until the present day.

On the 29th March 2012 the applicant contacted West Devon to confirm that the property was derelict and has been since she purchased the property. This is confirmed by the Local Authority Revenues and Collections Officer in her communication of the 28th February 2014. Notwithstanding the assertions from the applicant’s agent, the existing property appears as a matter of fact and degree on a balance of probabilities to have been abandoned. The derelict condition of the building, the apparent absence of habitation for at least the last 20 years; the absence of any evidence of an intended intervening use and the scant circumstantial evidence of the owner’s intentions support this assessment.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the derelict dwelling has not been abandoned. The proposal is therefore not considered to satisfy the requirements of Policy H35 as a replacement dwelling.

As it is not considered to be a replacement dwelling then the other above cited policies of H31 and para 55 of the NPPF are a consideration as this essentially constitutes a new dwelling in the countryside, however no justification of need for a rural worker etc has been submitted to justify this and in any case the location is unsustainable. In addition for a new non-replacement dwelling an affordable housing contribution would be required under policy SP9 and as the argument has been made by the agent that this is a replacement dwelling (where no such SP9 requirement exists) then no s106 has been submitted with the proposal.

Design & Landscape Local Development Framework Core Strategy DPD 2006 – 2026 Strategic Policy 17 – Landscape Character, is relevant to the consideration of the building in the landscape. It states:-

a. In designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty their conservation and enhancement will be given great weight. Development will not be proposed in the LDF, or otherwise permitted, which would be detrimental to the natural beauty and quiet enjoyment of the Area of outstanding Natural Beauty, including its landscape , wildlife and geological interest. b. On sites outside Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Dartmoor National Park particularly on the fringe areas of designated landscapes, development will not be permitted which would damage their natural beauty, character and special qualities or prejudice achievement of their designated purposes. c. The quality, character, diversity and local distinctiveness of the natural and historic environment will be conserved and enhanced. Within identified Landscape Character Types development will conserve, enhance and where appropriate, restore landscape character. Specific landscape, wildlife and historic features which contribute j to local character will be preserved.

The existing single storey dwelling is located in the corner of a small filed and is fairly well screened from most directions – except the south, where the land falls away.

Local Development Framework Core Strategy DPD 2006 – 2026 Strategic Policy 20 – Promoting High Quality Design is relevant to consideration of the application. It states;-

‘The requirement to achieve high quality design of both buildings and landscaping is a priority for all development proposals. Support will be given for proposals which have regard to the following requirements:

a. Provide an attractive, accessible, functional an inclusive development ; b. The distinctive character of the area, including the local context, design , landscape , natural and historic environment and incorporate public art where appropriate ; c. Take account of the need to reduce the opportunities for crime and the fear of crime; d. Promote safe and user friendly environments; e. Encourage access through sustainable forms of transport; f. Provide appropriate public open spaces; g. Make efficient use of resources; h. The retention and enhancement of biodiversity on the site’

This is reinforced by the provisions in Section 7, ‘Requiring Good Design’ of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), in particular paragraphs 56, 57 and 64, which state:-

56. The Government attached great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

57.It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality an inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.

64. Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions

In design terms the proposal fails to harmonise with the open countryside by reason of its bulk and mass, the circa 8 metre depth of the property results in a roof that is over dominant and disproportionately top heavy appearing as a mass of concrete tile out of character with similar dwellings in this part of the rural area. The proposal being a circa 70% increase in the derelict dwelling it claims to replace would constitute a gross overdevelopment within the rural landscape frustrating access to the agricultural field to the south and overextending the original curtilage of the derelict dwelling into the rural landscape.

Neighbour Amenity The property occupies a fairly isolated position in open countryside. It has no immediate neighbours.

Highways/Access: Access is off an un-adopted road of poor surface quality.

Other The ecological surveys that accompany the application have demonstrated that it is possible to satisfactorily mitigate the impact of the development upon protected bat habitats. But this is at the expense of distorting the design

Conclusion: Overall then this proposal is considered unacceptable. It is not considered to be a replacement dwelling as it has failed against the 4 tests for abandonment. In addition no additional justification for the unit as a non-replacement dwelling has been provided nor a s106 for affordable housing monies. In addition the design is considered unsympathetic and neither in-keeping or contemporary and the inclusion of proposed mitigation for the loss of the significant bat roost in the collapsed unit has dictated the proportions of the new unit.

Planning Policy This application has been considered in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and, where relevant, with Sections 66 and 72 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas). Local Development Framework Core Strategy DPD 2006 – 2026 SP1 – Sustainable Development SP9 – Meeting Housing Needs SP17 – Landscape Character SP19 – Biodiversity SP20 – Promoting High Quality Design

West Devon Borough Council Local Plan Review 2005 (as amended 2011) H31 – Residential Development in the Countryside H35 – Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside T8 – Car Parking PS2 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PS3 – Sewage Disposal National Planning Policy Framework 2012 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. ______

Notes of a Meeting of the SITE INSPECTION PANEL held on THURSDAY 20th MARCH 2014 at 1.00 pm. Present: Cllr M J R Benson – Vice-Chairman Cllr R E Baldwin Cllr W G Cann OBE Cllr L J G Hockridge Cllr T G Pearce Cllr J Sheldon Cllr D Whitcomb Senior Planning Officer Committee & Ombudsman Link Officer

In attendance: Mr T Brookes – Chairman, Bratton Clovelly Parish Council 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from the Chairman, Cllr C M Marsh, and from Cllrs C Hall and D Wilde.

2. APPLICATION 01172/2013 – SOUTH FURSDON FARM, BRATTON CLOVELLY, OKEHAMPTON, DEVON EX20 4LL The Senior Planning Officer outlined the application which was to replace an existing derelict bungalow with a two storey property on a re-aligned site with a floor area increased by 70%. The curtilage of the property was discernible and the proposed new property would be re-aligned within this area. The property had been unoccupied for at least 20 years and much of the damage to the building had been caused through overgrown plants and trees. The Panel walked around the property and were advised that the living accoutrements viewed within had been placed there very recently. Also mains electricity wire and water hose were visible but not tested for connectivity. The property also contained evidence that it was or had been used as a bat roost. The Parish Council fully supported the proposal, firstly citing a number of other similar properties within the Parish that had been brought back into use over the years providing much needed accommodation and, secondly, that it would provide additional accommodation and the Parish needed to increase its overall population. The site meeting closed at 1.20 pm. ______