Public Document Pack

Agenda for Planning Committee Wednesday, 15th July, 2020, 10.00 am

Members of Planning Committee Councillors: E Wragg (Chairman), S Chamberlain (Vice- East District Council Chairman), M Howe, K McLauchlan, K Bloxham, C Brown, Blackdown House O Davey, S Gazzard, D Key, G Pratt, B De Saram, G Pook, Border Road P Skinner, J Whibley, A Colman and T Woodward Heathpark Industrial Estate EX14 1EJ Venue: Online via the zoom app. All councillors and registered DX 48808 HONITON speakers will have been sent an appointment with the meeting Tel: 01404 515616 link. www.eastdevon.gov.uk

Contact: Wendy Harris; 01395 517542; email: [email protected] (or group number 01395 517546) Tuesday, 7 July 2020

Important – this meeting will be conducted online and recorded by zoom only. Please do not attend Blackdown House. Members are asked to follow the Protocol for Remote Meetings

This meeting is being recorded by EDDC for subsequent publication on the council’s website and will be streamed live to the council’s YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmNHQruge3LVI4hcgRnbwBw

Speaking on planning applications In order to speak on an application being considered by the Planning Committee you must have submitted written comments during the consultation stage of the application. Those that have commented on an application being considered by the Committee will receive a letter or email (approximately 9 working days before the meeting) detailing the date and time of the meeting and instructions on how to register to speak. The letter/email will have a reference number, which you will need to provide in order to register. Speakers will have 3 minutes to make their representation. Please note there is no longer the ability to register to speak on the day of the meeting.

The number of people that can speak on each application is limited to:  Major applications – parish/town council representative, 5 supporters, 5 objectors and the applicant or agent  Minor/Other applications – parish/town council representative, 2 supporters, 2 objectors and the applicant or agent

The day before the meeting a revised running order for the applications being considered by the Committee will posted on the council’s website). Applications with registered speakers will be taken first.

Parish and town council representatives wishing to speak on an application are also required to pre-register in advance of the meeting. One representative can be registered to speak on behalf of the Council.

page 1 Registration to speak starts at 10am on Wednesday 8 July 2020 up until 12 noon on Monday 13 July 2020 by leaving a message on 01395 517525 or emailing [email protected].

Speaking on non-planning application items A maximum of two speakers from the public are allowed to speak on agenda items that are not planning applications on which the Committee is making a decision (items on which you can register to speak will be highlighted on the agenda). Speakers will have 3 minutes to make their representation. You can register to speak on these items up until 12 noon, 3 working days before the meeting by emailing [email protected] or by phoning 01395 517525. A member of the Democratic Services Team will only contact you if your request to speak has been successful.

1 Speakers' list and revised running order for the applications (Pages 5 - 6) 2 Minutes of the previous meeting (Pages 7 - 10) Minutes of the Development Management Committee meeting held on 18 May 2020

3 Apologies 4 Declarations of interest Guidance is available online to Councillors and co-opted members on making declarations of interest

5 Matters of urgency Information on matters of urgency is available online

6 Confidential/exempt item(s) To agree any items to be dealt with after the public (including press) have been excluded. There are no items that officers recommend should be dealt with in this way.

7 Planning appeal statistics (Pages 11 - 29) Update from the Development Manager

8 District Local Development Order (Pages 30 - 49) Applications for Determination

Please note that the following applications are all scheduled to be considered but the order may change. Please see the front of the agenda for when the revised order will be published.

9 19/2246/FUL (Minor) (Pages 50 - 63) HONITON ST MICHAELS Land to the rear of 102 High Street, Honiton, EX14 1JW

page 2 10 19/2799/FUL (Minor) (Pages 64 - 73) Land at Pidgeons Lane, Axminster.

11 19/2762/COU (Other) (Pages 74 - 86) AXMINSTER Unit 4, St Georges, Chard Street, Axminster, EX13 5DL.

12 20/0011/VAR (Major) (Pages 87 - 132) TOWN Royal Avenue Car Park, Camperdown Terrace and the Esplanade, Exmouth.

13 19/2580/FUL (Minor) (Pages 133 - 148) EXMOUTH LITTLEHAM Land Adjacent 1 The Broadway, Exmouth, EX8 2NW.

LUNCH BREAK - The afternoon applications will not be considered before 2pm

14 19/0855/FUL (Minor) (Pages 149 - 168) DUNKESWELL AND OTTERHEAD Building Adjacent Turbury, Dunkeswell

15 19/2445/FUL (Minor) (Pages 169 - 185) SEATON Vintage Court, The Square, Seaton.

16 19/2834/OUT & 20/0482/RES (Minor) (Pages 186 - 202) WEST HILL AND AYLESBEARE Hasta La Vista, Windmill Lane, West Hill, , EX11 1JP.

17 20/0270/MFUL (Major) (Pages 203 - 215) WOODBURY AND Unit 50, Greendale Business Park, Woodbury Salterton.

Please note: Planning application details, including plans and representations received, can be viewed in full on the Council’s website.

This meeting is being audio recorded by EDDC for subsequent publication on the Council’s website.

Under the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, members of the public are now allowed to take photographs, film and audio record the proceedings and report on all public meetings (including on social media). No prior notification is needed but it would be helpful if you could let the democratic services team know you plan to film

page 3 or record so that any necessary arrangements can be made to provide reasonable facilities for you to report on meetings. This permission does not extend to private meetings or parts of meetings which are not open to the public. You should take all recording and photography equipment with you if a public meeting moves into a session which is not open to the public.

If you are recording the meeting, you are asked to act in a reasonable manner and not disrupt the conduct of meetings for example by using intrusive lighting, flash photography or asking people to repeat statements for the benefit of the recording. You may not make an oral commentary during the meeting. The Chairman has the power to control public recording and/or reporting so it does not disrupt the meeting.

Decision making and equalities For a copy of this agenda in large print, please contact the Democratic Services Team on 01395 517546

page 4 Agenda Item 1

[Blank page]

page 5

[Blank page]

page 6 Agenda Item 2 DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of the meeting of Development Management Committee held Online via the Zoom app on 18 May 2020

Attendance list at end of document The meeting started at 10.00 am and ended at 1.17 pm

106 Minutes of the previous meeting

The minutes of the Development Management Committee held on 3 March 2020 were confirmed as a true record.

107 Declarations of interest

Minute 110. 19/1849/MFUL (Major). Councillor Helen Parr, Personal, Received an email from the agent in relation to this application.

Minute 110. 19/1849/MFUL (Major). Councillor Mike Howe, Personal, In accordance with the code of good practice for Councillors and Officers dealing with the planning matters as set out in the Constitution, Councillor Howe as Ward Member stepped down from the Committee and the Vice Chairman chaired the item. He also advised that the applicant was known to him. He had also received an email from the agent in relation to this application and in the interests of openness and transparency he advised the Development Manager had received the same email.

Minute 111. 20/0280/VAR (Other). Councillor Kathy McLauchlan, Personal, Known to applicant.

Minute 111. 20/0280/VAR (Other). Councillor Paul Arnott, Personal, Known to applicant.

Minute 113. 19/2700/FUL (Minor). Councillor Paul Hayward, Personal, Declared that in his role as Clerk to Chardstock Parish Council he had attended meetings when this application was discussed and conveyed said comments to the Local Planning Authority. Declared he had no input into the debate other than an advisory role and was not involved in any voting. Had also worked with the applicant on a project in previous employment.

108 Planning appeal statistics

The Committee noted the Development Manager’s report setting out 7 appeal decisions notified and was pleased to note that 6 had been dismissed with only 1 allowed.

The Development Manager advised Members the appeal allowed for application 19/067LBC - Mead, Fortescue Road, Consent was a listed building application which related to a dismissed planning application appeal. Members noted the Inspector had dismissed the planning application for the construction of a new dwelling in the garden but allowed the associated listed building application as it only related to the extension to the stone boundary wall

page 7 Development Management Committee 18 May 2020

The Development Manager drew attention to an appeal for planning application 19/1351/FUL – Land at Liverton Business Park that Members had previously considered. Members were advised the Inspectorate were in the process of determining whether the appeal should be dealt with by way of written representations or a public inquiry.

Finally the Development Manager updated Members on an appeal allowed for planning application 18/2339/MOUT - Hillpond Caravan Park, that the council had challenged in the High Court. The Development Manager advised Members the Inspectorate had conceded the position and had agreed for the High Court to quash their original decision and allow the Planning Inspectorate to consider the appeal again.

109 19/0995/MFUL (Major)

BROADCLYST

Applicant: Eagle One MMIII.

Location: Land South of Mosshayne Link Road, Redhayes, (Phase 8), Exeter.

Proposal: Erection of 33 dwellings and associated work.

RESOLVED: Approved as per the amended officer recommendation subject to conditions in the Update Report and subject to completion of the required Section 106 Legal Agreement.

110 19/1849/MFUL (Major)

CLYST VALLEY

Applicant: Mr Andrew Langdon (Langdon Properties).

Location: Dart Business Park, Clyst St George.

Proposal: Redevelopment of part of the business park (fuel storage depot and motor sales area) and extension to create 6 additional units to be used for offices and light industry use (Use Class B1), storage and distribution (Use Class B8).

RESOLVED: Approved as per Officer recommendation.

111 20/0280/VAR (Other)

OTTERY ST MARY

Applicant: Mr Stuart Matthews.

page 8 Development Management Committee 18 May 2020

Location: Alfington House, Church Lane, Alfington, Ottery St Mary, EX11 1PE.

Proposal: Application to vary Condition 1 (Use Condition) of planning permission 10/0625/FUL to allow use as a Bed and Breakfast ancillary to the use of Alfington House.

RESOLVED: Approved contrary to officer recommendation with conditions delegated to Officers. Conditions to include ensuring access and parking is via the front of Alfington House only, and to restrict the use to Bed and Breakfast use.

Members considered that the proposal would not generate more traffic than the lawful use and as such would not lead to any increased highway safety concerns.

112 18/1222/MFUL (Major)

WHIMPLE AND

Applicant: MRH (GB) Ltd.

Location: Land South Of Lily Cottage, Exeter Road, .

Proposal: Application for the development of a new roadside service area to include a petrol filling station comprising sales building, canopy over, car and caravan parking, fuel pumps, HGV fuel pumps, 2 underground storages tanks and ancillary arrangements, new A3/A5 use building and drive-thru, HGV and coach parking, new access arrangements and landscaping and drainage.

RESOLVED: Refused contrary to officer recommendation.

Members considered that the proposal would result in a significant harmful visual impact and represented unsustainable development by virtue of encouraging the use of the car. As such the proposal is contrary to Strategies 3, 7 and 46 and Policies D1 and TC11.

113 19/2700/FUL (Minor)

YARTY

Applicant: Mr Michael Summerhayes.

Location: Land Adjacent Sunnyside, Birchall.

Proposal: Construction of building for the storage of forestry equipment and machinery.

page 9 Development Management Committee 18 May 2020

RESOLVED: Approved as per officer recommendation.

Attendance List Councillors present (for some or all the meeting): M Howe (Chairman) K McLauchlan (Vice-Chairman) P Arnott K Bloxham C Brown O Davey S Gazzard P Hayward N Hookway D Key T McCollum H Parr G Pratt E Wragg T Wright

Councillors also present (for some or all the meeting) J Bailey P Faithfull K Blakey S Bond C Gardner G Jung A Dent D Ledger G Pook V Ranger

Officers in attendance: Henry Gordon Lennox, Strategic Lead Governance and Licensing Chris Rose, Development Manager Wendy Harris, Democratic Services Officer Amanda Coombes, Democratic Services Officer Debbie Meakin, Democratic Services Officer

Councillor apologies: J Rowland

Chairman Date:

page 10 Agenda Item 7

East Devon District Council List of Planning Appeals Lodged

Ref: 19/2818/FUL Date Received 30.04.2020 Appellant: Mrs Ruth Jones Appeal Site: 10 Fairfield Close Exmouth EX8 2BN Proposal: Construction of detached dwelling Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3251738 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 20/0312/TRE Date Received 01.05.2020 Appellant: Mrs Kath Pyne Appeal Site: Oasis Toadpit Lane West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1TR Proposal: Fell one Pine tree and one Maple Tree subject of a Tree Preservation Order Planning APP/TPO/U1105/7890 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/1852/FUL Date Received 12.05.2020 Appellant: Mr Hignett Appeal Site: Greystones Sidmouth EX10 0JQ Proposal: Two storey side extension, single storey side extension (wing), new outbuilding, removal of existing garden buildings. Planning APP/U1105/D/20/3252358 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/2188/FUL Date Received 21.05.2020 Appellant: Mr Duncan Rawlings Appeal Site: (Land To The South East) 109 Beer Road Seaton Proposal: Construction of 1no. dwelling utilising existing access and parking area. Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3252871 Inspectorate Ref:

page 11 Ref: 19/2650/PDQ Date Received 01.06.2020 Appellant: Mrs M Hazell Appeal Site: Barn West Of Tale Head Cottage Proposal: Prior approval for proposed change of use of agricultural building to form 5 no. dwellings (Use Class C3) and associated operational development Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3253451 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/2346/FUL Date Received 10.06.2020 Appellant: Mr & Mrs B Moore Appeal Site: Land At The Paddock Estate Rousdon DT7 3XR Proposal: Proposed demolition of 2 existing workshop buildings and erection of a 3-bedroom dwelling. Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3254025 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/2374/FUL Date Received 11.06.2020 Appellant: Mr L White Appeal Site: Land Adjacent Valley View EX24 6EE Proposal: Erection of residential dwelling log cabin. Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3254084 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/2591/VAR Date Received 23.06.2020 Appellant: DS Developments (Exeter) Ltd. Appeal Site: Land at South Whimple Farm, Proposal: Removal of condition no. 16 on planning permission ref. 16/1826/MFUL for the demolition of agricultural buildings and erection of 19 dwellings, new access and estate road and ancillary works. The condition requires that the development shall be connected to the Decentralised Energy Network in the locality. Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3254780 Inspectorate Ref:

page 12 Ref: 19/2336/LBC Date Received 26.06.2020 Appellant: Mr Andy White Appeal Site: Former Lloyds Tsb Bank Plc 6 Silver Street Ottery St Mary EX11 1DD Proposal: Partial removal of ground floor internal party wall to facilitate the extension of the London Inn into the former Lloyds Bank Planning APP/U1105/Y/20/3254977 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/2092/FUL Date Received 27.06.2020 Appellant: Mr Richard Gray Appeal Site: 1 Victoria Road Exmouth EX8 1DL Proposal: Replacement windows (17 No.) Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3254997 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 20/0471/FUL Date Received 03.07.2020 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Kevin & Marianne Howe Appeal Site: Holmleigh Back Lane Sidmouth EX10 0EY Proposal: Raising of roof ridge and insertion of attic windows to south and north elevation. Construction of front and rear dormer windows, single storey side extension and provision of render to existing brickwork. Planning APP/U1105/D/20/3255393 Inspectorate Ref:

page 13

East Devon District Council List of Planning Appeals Decided

Ref: 19/1267/FUL Appeal 19/00076/REF Ref: Appellant: Mr C Olisa Appeal Site: Flat 1 6 Alston Terrace Exmouth EX8 1BH Proposal: Subdivision of flat 1 into two flats (retrospective application) Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 14.05.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Officer recommendation to refuse, Committee refusal. Flood risk reasons upheld (EDLP Policy EN21) BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3243651 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/0821/FUL Appeal 19/00079/REF Ref: Appellant: Mark Thomas Appeal Site: 1 Hardys Court Hawkerland Road Colaton Raleigh Sidmouth EX10 0HL Proposal: Demolition of the old stables and construction of a new bungalow including new vehicular access from Hardys Court Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 15.05.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, countryside protection and sustainability reasons upheld (EDLP Strategies 5B & 7 and Policy TC2) BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3244064 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/0439/FUL Appeal 19/00061/REF Ref: Appellant: Mrs Hatice Oflaz Appeal Site: 20 New Street Honiton EX14 1EY Proposal: Change of use from A2 (professional Services) to (A3)restaurant use, including new rear access to serve residential unit and fenestration changes Decision: Appeal Allowed (with Date: 29.05.2020 conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Officer recommendation to approve, Committee refusal, amenity reasons overruled (EDLP Policies D1, E9, E10 & E14) The Inspector concluded that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents and there would be no conflict with those aspects of Policies D1, E9, E10 or E14 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 that seek to protect the amenity of occupiers of adjoining residential properties and avoid pollution through noise, vibration or odour. BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3237187 Inspectorate Ref:

page 14

Ref: 19/1788/FUL Appeal 20/00003/REF Ref: Appellant: Mr Gordon Britton Appeal Site: Land Rear Of St Johns Close High Street Honiton Proposal: Erection of two bedroom dwelling Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 29.05.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, conservation reasons upheld (EDLP Policy EN10) BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3245326 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/2630/FUL Appeal 20/00007/REF Ref: Appellant: Mr & Mrs Burgess Appeal Site: Building Adjacent Carpenters Cottage Proposal: Alterations to existing building and change of use to form 1 no. residential unit (C3) Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 29.05.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, countryside protection and sustainability reason upheld (EDLP Strategy 7 and Policies D8 & TC2) BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3246701 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/1119/FUL Appeal 20/00005/REF Ref: Appellant: Mr & Mrs Whiting Appeal Site: Monkton Park Farm Payhembury Honiton EX14 3HY Proposal: Removal of two barns, renovation and extension of existing building to create a dwelling and alterations to the access Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 03.06.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, design and amenity reasons upheld (EDLP Policies D1 & D8) BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3246094 Inspectorate Ref:

page 15 Ref: 19/2011/PDQ Appeal 19/00078/REF Ref: Appellant: Mrs S Herrod Appeal Site: Building At Pinneywood Farm Lodge Lane Axminster EX13 5RT Proposal: Prior approval for proposed change of use of agricultural building to a dwelling (use class C3) and associated operational development Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 03.06.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal. The Inspector agreed with the Council that the proposal was not classed as permitted development. BVPI 204: No Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3243386 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/0488/FUL Appeal 20/00002/REF Ref: Appellant: Mr Stuart Phillips Appeal Site: 8 Mill Street Ottery St Mary EX11 1AD Proposal: Conversion of 1st floor and part of ground floor to 4no. apartments; retention of part of ground floor as storage Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 11.06.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, amenity reasons upheld (EDLP Policy D1). Application for a full award of costs against the Council refused. BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3244536 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/1571/FUL Appeal 20/00009/HH Ref: Appellant: Mr Andrew Mann Appeal Site: 62 - 64 New Street Exmouth EX8 1RT Proposal: Conversion of 2nd floor to provide additional living accommodation to include raising of roof, first floor extension and dormer window extension Decision: Appeal Allowed (with Date: 11.06.2020 conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Officer recommendation to approve, Committee refusal, amenity reasons overruled (EDLP Policy D1 & NP Policy EB2)

The Inspector considered that whilst the proposal would result in some degree of change, set against the existing nature of the area and alterations to the property permitted in 2018, the development proposed would not in result in undue effects to the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties in New North Road.

He concluded that there was no conflict with the relevant provisions of EDLP Policy D1, NP Policy EB2 or NPPF paragraph 127. BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/D/20/3247489 Inspectorate Ref:

page 16 Ref: 19/2248/FUL Appeal 20/00008/REF Ref: Appellant: Mr & Mrs White Appeal Site: Autowhites Garage Bluebell Holt Lyme Road Lyme Regis Proposal: New workshop building for new MOT bay plus associated residential accommodation. Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 11.06.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, countryside protection reasons upheld (EDLP Strategy 7 and Policy H4) BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3246861 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/1351/FUL Appeal 20/00010/REF Ref: Appellant: Mr John Wilding (Liverton Business Park 2011 Limited) Appeal Site: Land At Liverton Business Park Salterton Road Exmouth Proposal: Installation of a synchronous gas-powered standby generation facility, plus ancillary infrastructure and equipment and access Decision: Appeal Allowed (with Date: 16.06.2020 conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Officer recommendation to approve, Committee refusal, climate change and greenhouse gas emission reasons overruled (EDLP Strategy3)

The Inspector considered that the planning balance in this case was a straight weighing of the benefits of the proposed development against the harm and that the overall assessment was finely balanced. The benefits of electricity generation at times of high demand should attract considerable weight in favour of the proposal. The harm to climate change objectives due to greenhouse gas emissions from the facility should be given considerable weight against allowing the proposed development.

He considered that the support the proposed development gained from the National Policy Statement for Energy EN-1, was a material consideration, notwithstanding that the scheme was not a nationally significant infrastructure project, and was sufficient to tip the planning balance in favour of the proposal.

The Inspector concluded that there was no conflict with the development plan considered as a whole. The proposed development would not conflict with the NPPF and gained some support from National Policy Statement for Energy EN-1. BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3247638 Inspectorate Ref:

page 17 Ref: 19/1360/FUL Appeal 19/00077/REF Ref: Appellant: Dr Paul Barber Appeal Site: Gardeners Barn Honiton Bottom Higher Brand Lane Honiton Proposal: Change of use and alteration of agricultural building to form dwelling Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 16.06.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, sustainability, landscape and countryside protection reasons upheld (EDLP Policy D8 and Strategies 7 & 46). BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3243366 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/1826/FUL Appeal 19/00081/REF Ref: Appellant: Mr & Mrs Boote Appeal Site: Oaklands Farm Monkton Honiton EX14 9QH Proposal: Change of use and conversion of existing farm shop/cafe and redundant agricultural buildings to create 5 no. dwellings together with extensive landscaping, vehicle parking and access. Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 18.06.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, sustainability reasons upheld (EDLP Policies D8 & TC2 and Strategy 7) Application for a full award of costs against the Council refused. BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/19/3243903 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 19/1999/FUL Appeal 20/00013/REF Ref: Appellant: Mrs N Cochrane Appeal Site: Barn To South Of Grange Farm Newton Poppleford Proposal: Conversion of barn to dwelling including external alterations, change of use of equestrian arena to residential curtilage, formation of access driveway, and installation of package sewage treatment plant. Decision: Appeal Allowed (with Date: 24.06.2020 conditions) Procedure: Written representations

Remarks: Delegated refusal, sustainability reasons overruled (EDLP Policies D8 & TC2 and Strategy 7)

The Inspector considered that the proposal was acceptable with regard to private vehicular use generation, taking account of the location and accessibility of the appeal site, and consequently there was no conflict with EDLP Policies D8 and TC2 or with the relevant provisions of the NPPF.

Notwithstanding the significance of the works proposed, he considered that the proposal was not tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside and that the proposal could therefore reasonably be described as the conversion of a rural building in compliance with EDLP Policy D8 and the aims that policy seeks to achieve.

page 18 He concluded that having regard to the development plan as a whole, the NPPF and all other relevant considerations, the appeal should be allowed. BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3248033 Inspectorate Ref:

Ref: 12/1291/MOUT Appeal 20/00006/COND Ref: Appellant: Eagle Homes Ltd Appeal Site: Tithebarn Green Land At Monkerton, Exeter And Redhayes/North Of Blackhorse Proposal: Appeal against the refusal of the Council to discharge condition 3 relating to the submission of a framework plan / appearance palette for approved phase 13. Development of the site to provide up to 930 dwellings, a new link road, employment area (B1a Use Class), park and ride facility, local centre/square, health and fitness centre, creche, public and private open space and car and cycle parking, together with landscaping and associated servicing (all matters reserved except points of access) Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 02.07.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, design and sustainability reasons upheld (EDLP Policies D1 and D2 and Strategies 3, 5B, 10 & 13). BVPI 204: No Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3246215 Inspectorate Ref:

page 19 East Devon District Council List of Appeals in Progress

App.No: 18/2173/VAR Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3234261 Appellant: Mr David Manley Address: Enfield Farm Biodigester Oil Mill Lane Clyst St Mary EX5 1AF Proposal; Variation of conditions 2,5,7 and 10 of planning permission 17/0650/VAR to allow increase annual tonnage of crop input from 26,537 to 66,000 tonnes and increase annual tonnage of digestate exported from the site from 21,354 to 56,000 tonnes and vary wording of Odour Management Plan Start Date: 20 August 2019 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 27 August 2019 Statement Due Date: 24 September 2019

App.No: 19/F0077 Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/C/19/3234097 Appellant: John Howard Lomax Address: The Workshop, Longmeadow Road, Lympstone EX8 5LF Proposal; Appeal against serving of enforcement notice in respect of the unauthorised installation of a sewage treatment plant Start Date: 23 October 2019 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 6 November 2019 Statement Due Date: 4 December 2019

page 20 App.No: 19/1557/CPL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/X/19/3238290 Appellant: Mr John Lomax Address: The Workshop Longmeadow Road Lympstone EX8 5LF Proposal; Certificate of lawfulness for the provision of a porous hard surface to be used for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of The Workshop, Longmeadow Road, Lympstone EX8 5LF as a dwellinghouse Start Date: 30 October 2019 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 6 November 2019 Statement Due Date: 4 December 2019

App.No: 19/0078/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/19/3242773 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Raggio Address: Lily Cottage Goldsmith Lane All Saints Axminster EX13 7LU Proposal; Demolition of former cottage and construction of new dwelling. Start Date: 8 January 2020 Procedure: Hearing Questionnaire Due Date: 15 January 2020 Statement Due Date: 12 February 2020 Hearing Date: To be arranged

App.No: 18/F0050 Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/C/19/3234227 Appellant: FWSC (Ladram) Ltd. Address: Ladram Bay Holiday Centre, Ladram Bay, Proposal; Appeal against the serving of an enforcement notice in respect of the construction of a raised platform with associated balustrade, storage areas and supporting structures Start Date: 17 January 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 31 January 2020 Statement Due Date: 28 February 2020

page 21 App.No: 19/1962/LBC Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/Y/19/3243521 Appellant: Mrs Carol Gay Address: Fiddles Reach Preston Farm Upottery Honiton EX14 9PF Proposal; Infill of covered patio area to provide ground floor bedroom including insertion of doorway; construction of porch and 2no. dormers; construction of external wall Start Date: 25 February 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 3 March 2020 Statement Due Date: 31 March 2020

App.No: 19/0822/CPL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/X/20/3245342 Appellant: Mrs L Sweetland Address: Land At Rear Of Chestnut House Bunts Lane Seaton Proposal; Certificate of Lawful development for proposed development for the construction of dwelling without complying with condition 3 of approval of reserved matters granted under application 15/1949/RES Start Date: 26 March 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 9 April 2020 Statement Due Date: 7 May 2020

App.No: 19/1525/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3248042 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Eade Address: Pendor Exmouth Road Colaton Raleigh Sidmouth EX10 0HJ Proposal; New dwelling in the rear garden. Start Date: 5 May 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 12 May 2020 Statement Due Date: 9 June 2020

page 22 App.No: 19/2671/LBC Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/Y/20/3247867 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Petersen Address: The Barn Yettington EX9 7BP Proposal; Demolition of existing blockwork timber garage and construction of replacement two storey extension with new windows, doors and 2 no. rooflights; removal of lean-to conservatory and construction of replacement single storey extension; installation of 1 no window at first floor level on east elevation and internal alterations Start Date: 6 May 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 13 May 2020 Statement Due Date: 10 June 2020

App.No: 19/2670/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3247868 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Petersen Address: The Barn Yettington Budleigh Salterton EX9 7BP Proposal; Demolition of existing blockwork timber garage and construction of replacement two storey extension; demolition of lean-to conservatory and construction of replacement single storey extension; insertion of first floor window in the east elevation Start Date: 6 May 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 13 May 2020 Statement Due Date: 10 June 2020

App.No: 19/1787/CPE Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/X/20/3244399 Appellant: Mr Derek Branker Address: Site Of Spillers Cottage Shute Proposal; The excavation, laying out and back filling of an inspection chamber and associated pipework ready to connect to a new septic tank for the foul sewage system of the new house granted permission reference 7/87/91/P0654/00119 on 24 June 1991 and validly implementing that the permission so that it remains extant Start Date: 14 May 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 28 May 2020 Statement Due Date: 25 June 2020

page 23 App.No: 19/F0054 Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/C/20/3249830 Appellant: Maximum Fun Devon Limited Address: Lan west of Crealy Meadows, Clyst St Mary Proposal; Appeal against the serving of an Enforcement Notice in respect of the unauthorised change of use of the land from agricultural use to use for the siting of 12 mobile homes for residential purposes. Start Date: 9 June 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 23 June 2020 Statement Due Date: 21 July 2020

App.No: 19/2818/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3251738 Appellant: Mrs Ruth Jones Address: 10 Fairfield Close Exmouth EX8 2BN Proposal; Construction of detached dwelling Start Date: 10 June 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 17 June 2020 Statement Due Date: 15 July 2020

App.No: 19/1299/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3249070 Appellant: Donna Delamain Address: Hill View Nursery Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4SZ Proposal; Change of use and extension of storage building to form a live-work unit Start Date: 11 June 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 25 June 2020 Statement Due Date: 23 July 2020

page 24 App.No: 16/M0001 Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/C/20/3249072 Appellant: Donna Delamain Address: Hill View Nursery Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4SZ Proposal; Appeal against the serving of an enforcement notice in respect of the siting of a mobile home Start Date: 11 June 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 25 June 2020 Statement Due Date: 23 July 2020

App.No: 18/F0352 Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/C/20/3250290 Appellant: Peter James Tracey Address: Titford Hold, Awliscombe Proposal; Appeal against the serving ofan enforcement notice in respect of engineering works and associated change of use of the land from agricultural to residential curtilage Start Date: 11 June 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 25 June 2020 Statement Due Date: 23 July 2020

App.No: 19/2348/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3248907 Appellant: Mr & Mrs B White Address: 13-15 High Street Honiton EX14 1PR Proposal; Erection of 2 no. dwellings in rear garden. Start Date: 15 June 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 22 June 2020 Statement Due Date: 20 July 2020

page 25 App.No: 19/2233/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3249590 Appellant: Mrs A Broadhurst Address: Coldharbour Farm East Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1QL Proposal; Change of use of barn to dwelling Start Date: 15 June 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 22 June 2020 Statement Due Date: 20 July 2020

App.No: 18/2445/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3248692 Appellant: Mr & Mrs D & A Huish Address: Ellergarth Dalditch Lane Budleigh Salterton EX9 7AH Proposal; Conversion of existing barn with extension, plus associated works for holiday use only Start Date: 16 June 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 23 June 2020 Statement Due Date: 21 July 2020

App.No: 19/2681/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3249380 Appellant: Mr & Mrs Creese Address: Garage At Land West Of 1 Lower Dean Seaton EX12 3BB Proposal; Application to convert an existing garage into a two bedroom dwelling. Start Date: 16 June 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 23 June 2020 Statement Due Date: 21 July 2020

page 26 App.No: 19/0365/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3248708 Appellant: Ms P Boast Address: Land Adjacent 4 Cheese Lane Sidmouth Proposal; Proposed new dwelling Start Date: 17 June 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 24 June 2020 Statement Due Date: 22 July 2020

App.No: 19/2093/OUT Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3249964 Appellant: Mr & Mrs C Mathews Address: Tolcarne Cooks Lane Axminster EX13 5SQ Proposal; Outline planning application for the erection of a dwelling (all matters reserved) Start Date: 17 June 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 24 June 2020 Statement Due Date: 22 July 2020

App.No: 19/2689/VAR Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/D/20/3249068 Appellant: G Russell Address: The Old Post Office Luppitt Honiton EX14 4RT Proposal; Removal of condition 3 of planning permission 19/1406/FUL to allow retention of window within the rear extension facing to the south east. Start Date: 18 June 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 25 June 2020 Statement Due Date: 23 July 2020

page 27 App.No: 19/2730/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/D/20/3250493 Appellant: Mr Malcolm Lee Address: 14 Linhay Close Honiton EX14 2BJ Proposal; Construction of raised roof ridge and dormer window to rear to allow loft conversion. Start Date: 18 June 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 23 June 2020

App.No: 19/1852/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/D/20/3252358 Appellant: Mr Hignett Address: Greystones Salcombe Regis Sidmouth EX10 0JQ Proposal; Two storey side extension, single storey side extension (wing), new outbuilding, removal of existing garden buildings. Start Date: 18 June 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 23 June 2020

App.No: 19/2188/FUL Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/20/3252871 Appellant: Mr Duncan Rawlings Address: (Land To The South East) 109 Beer Road Seaton Proposal; Construction of 1no. dwelling, utilising existing access and parking area. Start Date: 18 June 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 25 June 2020 Statement Due Date: 23 July 2020

page 28 App.No: 20/0015/CPE Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/X/20/3251141 Appellant: Mrs Veronica Strawbridge Address: Rhode Hill Farm Rhode Hill Uplyme Lyme Regis DT7 3UF Proposal; Certificate of Lawfulness to establish substantial completion of a single dwelling without the benefit of planning consent. Start Date: 2 July 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 16 July 2020 Statement Due Date: 13 August 2020

App.No: 20/0321/ADV Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/Z/20/3250237 Appellant: Mr Andrew Kitchener Address: Newcourt Barton Clyst Road Topsham Exeter EX3 0DB Proposal; Display of 2 no. freestanding advertisement signs. Start Date: 6 July 2020 Procedure: Written Reps. Questionnaire Due Date: 13 July 2020

Page 10 of 10 page 29 Agenda Item 8 Report to: Planning Committee Date of Meeting: 15th July 2020 Public Document: Yes Exemption: None

Review date for None release

Subject: District Heating Local Development Order

Purpose of report: The report seeks a resolution for the Council to adopt the Local Development Order (LDO) for District Heating (DH) Networks in East Devon’s West End.

DMC approved the consultation of the LDO on 3rd March 2020. The consultation has been undertaken in accordance with The Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure Order) () 2015. Amendments have been made to the LDO following the consultation. The LDO sets out the permitted development and defines the restrictive terms which limit the scope of the development and the conditions which need to be met. The LDO is attached in Appendix 1.

The purpose of the LDO is to grant permitted development rights for underground pipes and cables and some minor above ground works. The Statement of Reasons accompanies the Order and is attached in Appendix 2.

Recommendation: Members approve the draft District Heating Local Development Order for Adoption.

Reason for Through the adoption of a LDO the Council can encourage the delivery recommendation: of the District Heating Network in East Devon’s West End in accordance with the aims and objectives set out in East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031and East Devon Council Plan 2020 - 2040.

The LDO will reduce the regulatory processes and delays associated with the submission of planning applications and facilitate faster implementation of the District Heating networks.

Officer: Frances Wadsley, Project Manager Simplified Planning [email protected]

Portfolio Holder: Portfolio Holder Strategic Planning Financial There are no financial issues raised within the report. implications:

Legal implications: The power to make an LDO is discretionary and the LDO must be adopted for it to take effect. The power to adopt an LDO has been delegated to the planning committee following amendments to the Council’s constitution at the Council meeting of the 24 June 2020. Once page 30 adopted the LDO will grant deemed planning permission for the specified development or specified classes of development within a defined area. Equalities impact: Low Impact . Climate change: Medium Impact

Decentralised heating systems result in significantly lower carbon emissions than conventional heating systems, helping to achieve sustainable development and resulting in a positive impact on climate change.

Risk: Low Risk The proposed LDO is a low risk proposal. The delivery of the Order will comply with the Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure Order) (England) 2015 Links to background Development Management Committee 3rd March 2020 - minutes information: Cabinet 6th March 2019 East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 East Devon Council Plan 2020-2024 National Planning Policy Framework The Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 The Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017

Link to Council Plan: . Outstanding Place and Environment Outstanding Economic Growth, Productivity, and Prosperity Outstanding Economic Growth, Productivity, and Prosperity .

Report in full

1. Introduction

1.1. The implementation of a simplified planning regime in Exeter and East Devon Enterprise Zone has been included in the Enterprise Zone work programme from the commencement of the designation in April 2017.

1.2. A LDO grants planning consent for specific types or classes of development as listed in the Order. The LDO can provide certainty to developers, reduce the regulatory process and facilitate faster development.

1.3. The heat network is a system of heat distribution which takes heat from energy centres and supplies it to individual buildings. DH networks are an essential part of East Devon’s plan to facilitate more sustainable forms of energy consumption. As well as decreasing carbon emissions they reduce heating bills for both domestic and commercial customers. The benefits of the DH networks grow as the networks increase in size and they provide a unique opportunity for large scale distribution of energy from renewable and recovered heat sources. page 31

2. Background

2.1. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Section 61, permits Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s) to make Local Development Orders granting planning permission for development in their area. The Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure Order) (England) 2015 sets out the procedure that must be undertaken for the preparation and adoption of an LDO.

2.2. LPA’s can make an LDO to extend permitted development rights or grant planning permission, for specific development proposals or classes of development within a particular area.

2.3. Statutory undertakers for gas, electrical or water utilities currently benefit from nationally prescribed permitted development rights. This enables them to install and maintain apparatus necessary for the operation of those utilities without the requirement to obtain planning permission. The providers of district heat networks do not benefit from such permitted development rights.

2.4. LDO’s for Local Energy Networks and DH undertakings have been enacted by a number of Local Planning Authorities. Exeter City Council adopted an LDO for Local Energy Networks in 2019.

2.5. The principal objective of the LDO is to support the increased roll-out of decentralised energy networks in the west end of East Devon by granting certain permitted development rights for the development of district heat networks.

3. District Heating Network

3.1. The Skypark Energy Centre currently provides hot water and heating to housing in Cranbrook and commercial buildings at Skypark as well as a private wire to the Lidl distribution centre.

3.2. The Monkerton Energy Centre is in the process of being commissioned and will provide hot water and heating to housing around Monkerton and Pinhoe and also commercial buildings at the Science Park.

4. Details of the order

4.1. In accordance with the provisions set out in The Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure Order) 2015 the Local Planning prepared a draft Order and a Statement of Reasons. These are attached to the report in Appendix 1 & 2 respectively.

4.2. The LDO removes the need for developers to apply for planning permission for the installation of pipes, cables and wires, heat exchange equipment and ancillary engineering works, provided the development complies with the limitations and conditions set out in the Order.

4.3. The geographical area covered by the Order is defined in Map 1 (Appendix 2).

page 32 4.4. The development rights permitted under the Order would allow any DH provider to undertake the specified works. The Order is not directed to a specific energy supplier.

4.5. To ensure that the development is acceptable in planning terms the LDO defines a set of limitations to restrict the development which is permitted under the order. The order also specifies a list of conditions which must be met. Any development outside of these limitations or which does not comply with the list of conditions would not be deemed as permitted development by the order.

4.6. The LDO as drafted would exclude any development within the curtilage of any Listed Building or Locally Listed Structure or affecting a Scheduled Ancient Monument. It would also exclude any above ground development within 50 metres of a Listed Building or Locally Listed Structure or a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

4.7. Development which constitutes EIA development as defined by Regulation 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (EIA) Regulations 2017 is specifically excluded by the restrictive terms of the Order.

4.8. The restrictive terms of the order would mean that any works to trees or hedgerows would require written approval by the LPA prior to undertaking the works and that any landscaped areas affected by the development are either reinstated to their previous condition or to a specification agreed in writing by the LPA.

4.9. The proposed Order would grant permitted development rights similar to some of the permitted development rights enjoyed by statutory undertakers for other utilities. The Order does not give consent for rights under other legislation to install apparatus or equipment and it remains the responsibility of the developer/landowner to comply with all other legislation.

4.10. In the event that written approval is required from the LPA to comply with a condition the developer will need to submit all the relevant information and appropriate fee. The fee is not set by the Order. The LPA will set the appropriate fee to cover the administration and processing of the condition compliance.

4.11. The duration of the LDO is defined within the draft Order as 15 years from the date of adoption. The Council can revoke, amend or extend the Order at any time.

5. Benefits of implementing an LDO

5.1. The proposed LDO for DH networks will enable further roll out of decentralised heating systems in East Devon’s West End. This assists the delivery of a key aim of East Devon Council Plan 2020 – 2040 to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040. Decentralised heating systems can provide significant carbon emission reduction compared to conventional heating systems and can therefor aid the transition to a low carbon economy.

5.2. The LDO accords with the Council’s Vision set out in the East Devon Local Plan 2013- 2031. The full list of policies which the LDO supports is detailed in the Statement of Reasons (Appendix 2). It will also help delivery on key objectives with the new Council Plan including to;

 Deliver a coherent strategy towards carbon neutral development. page 33  Support infrastructure and commercial projects, preparing Local Development Orders to speed up delivery of projects in the Exeter and East Devon Enterprise Zone.

5.3. The LDO is seen as an effective tool for simplifying and speeding up the planning process. It is a proactive approach to planning which provides certainty and clarity to developers and landowners and supports the objectives of the Enterprise Zone.

6. Consultation

6.1. The consultation on the draft LDO and Statement of Reasons took place from Friday 11th March until Friday 1st May. The statutory requirement is a 28 day consultation period. The consultation initially ran from the 11th March until 13th April. Due to the Covid-19 outbreak it was decided to extend the consultation period until 1st May to ensure there was adequate opportunity for responses to be sent in.

6.2. The consultation received 11 consultee responses and 11 letters of representation. A summary of all comments is attached in Appendix 3, along with a response to the issues raised.

6.3. Concerns were raised by Exeter Airport regarding aerodrome safeguarding and the potential for development to compromise aviation safety. Following negotiations with the airport it was considered appropriate to reduce the maximum height of any development permitted under the LDO to 1 metre above ground level to ensure the development does not conflict with aerodrome safeguarding.

6.4. Areas of high archaeological significance are sited within the LDO boundary. It is considered important to investigate areas which are, as yet, un-developed and mitigate the impacts of any development within these areas. A condition has been added to the LDO ensure appropriate investigation and mitigation is agreed prior to development commencing and works are undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme.

6.5. Concern was raised regarding the protection of veteran trees. A condition on the LDO requires any lopping, topping, root reduction or removal of trees or hedgerows to be previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

6.6. A large number of the representations were concerned about the use of fossil fuels to supply heat through the district heating system and E.ON’s commitment to low carbon heat or carbon neutral forms of heat generation. Currently the Skypark energy Centre is heated by mains gas. The aspiration is that the supply will switch to low carbon or carbon neutral energy supply as soon as a feasible option is available. This LDO will facilitate the provision of infrastructure to enable lower carbon or zero carbon opportunities to be brought forward in the future.

6.7. Despite the system currently being heated by mains gas there are overall energy system efficiencies with associated carbon benefits, for example heat recovery and a reduction in wasted heat. District Heating Networks benefit from economies of scale with one central boiler operating far more efficiently than individual boilers.

page 34 6.8. The DHN enables developers to meet the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes, Level 4. The DHN provided by E.ON should achieve a 25% reduction in emissions over 2010 building regs (based on Standard Assessment Procedure). By connecting to District Heating developers are able to achieve all available credits (3) under the ‘Code for Sustainable Home’s – Energy and Carbon Dioxide Emissions’ (level 4).

6.9. It is far more practical, cost saving and energy saving to install the DHN during the construction phase of development rather than trying to retrofit a system. As the network is enhanced and enlarged it enables greater economies of scale and therefor greater low carbon benefits.

6.10. The LDO eliminates the requirement to obtain planning permission to install certain infrastructure, it is not the mechanism which secures connection to the system nor does it control the source of the heat supply. The LDO cannot implement controls over the supply of energy to the energy centre which heats the network.

6.11. The LDO has been screened in accordance with the Habitats Regulations and development built out under it is not likely to result in a significant effect upon European protected sites. An Appropriate Assessment is therefore not required to be undertaken.

6.12. The LDO has been screened in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Regulations) 2017 and the development is not considered likely to result in significant effects. A limitation on the LDO restricts development which constitutes EIA development as defined by Regulation 2(1) of the EIA Regulations 2017.

7. Alternative options

7.1. The alternative is to not adopt a LDO for DH and require the developers to apply for planning consent for all development. This approach would impact development within existing networks, particularly in respect to extending and enhancing connections within the networks.

8. Conclusion

8.1. A Local Development Order for DH networks will enable simpler and faster implementation of the decentralised heating systems which are currently being delivered within East Devon’s West End. The development of DH networks are encouraged as part of the mitigation measures which seek to address climate change.

8.2. The LDO controls the permitted development though its limitations and conditions to ensure there is no adverse impacts from the development on the amenity of the surrounding area. The regulations allow the LDO to be revoked or amended at any time should the Council change its policies or views on decentralised heating systems.

8.3. If the LDO is Adopted, the Secretary of State will need to be notified in accordance with The Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure Order) (England) 2015.

page 35 Appendix 1 East Devon District Council Draft Local Development Order District Heating

1) Description

This Local Development Order (LDO) grants Permitted Development rights for District Heating transmission and distribution networks for development such as the installation of pipes, cables and wires, heat exchange equipment, street furniture, and ancillary engineering works within defined areas of land in East Devon as shown on the attached Map 1, subject to the limitations and conditions set out in the LDO.

The permitted development rights granted by this LDO are in addition to permitted development rights granted nationally.

2) Permitted development

Development comprising the installation, alteration or replacement of District Heating transmission and distribution networks and ancillary works over, on or under land.

3) Development not permitted

Development is not permitted by this Order where:

a) any above ground cabinets, buildings, structures or enclosures would be greater than 1 metre in height above ground level; or

b) any above ground cabinets, buildings, structures or enclosures would be greater than 2.5 cubic metres in external volume; or

c) any pipework installed above ground and outside any enclosure is greater than 2 metres in length; or

d) the installation would be on a Listed Building or a Locally Listed Structure or within the curtilage thereof; or

e) the installation would be on a site or building designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument: or

f) any above-ground development would be within 50 metres of the curtilage of a Listed Building, Locally Listed Structure or Scheduled Ancient Monument; or

g) the installation would be within 8 metres of a main river as designated on the Environment Agency’s Main River map; or

h) any above-ground development would be sited within Flood zones 2 or 3; or

i) the installation constitutes EIA development as defined by Regulation 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 or as subsequently defined; or page 36

j) the installation comprises development that is restricted by a condition of a planning consent implemented on the land; or

k) the installation would be outside the area identified on the LDO map.

4) Conditions

The above development is permitted subject to all of the following conditions:-

a) The installation should be, so far as practicable, sited and designed to minimise its effect on the appearance of the area;

b) There shall be no lopping, topping, root reduction or removal of trees or hedgerows to accommodate the installation unless previously agreed in writing by the LPA;

c) Areas of trees or landscaping affected by the installation shall be reinstated to their condition prior to commencement of the works or to a specification agreed in writing by the LPA;

d) Any above ground apparatus or enclosures shall be removed as soon as reasonably practicable after they are no longer required for the purpose of the network and the land restored to its condition before the development took place.

e) Within 10 working days of completion of any works data shall be provided to the local planning authority providing the date of completion and a map showing the geographical position of the completed works.

f) No works will be undertaken within the areas of archaeological sensitivity, as identified in Map 2, without consulting with the Devon County Historic Environment Team, as archaeological advisors to the Local Planning Authority, to agree the scope and implementation of any archaeological mitigation that may be required by the proposed works. The programme of archaeological work will be undertaken in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which will need to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing.

5) Expiry

Subject to any subsequent decision by the Local Planning Authority relating to its withdrawal, modification or extension, this Order shall expire after 15 years of the date of its adoption.

6) Other Statutory Requirements

Whilst the LDO grants planning permission for certain types of development as described in this Order, it does not grant consent that may be required under other legislation. It will remain the responsibility of the developers to ensure that all other statutory requirements beyond the scope of the planning system are adhered to.

Failure to comply with relevant statutory requirements could result in any development being unlawful and may result in appropriate enforcement action being taken by the council and/or other agencies. It is the responsibility of the developer/landowner to be in accordance with all relevant legislation. page 37

7) Written Approval

Any application for written approval pursuant to conditions (b), (c) and (f) shall be made in writing to the local planning authority and must be accompanied by;

i) a written description of the proposed development; and

ii) a plan indicating the location of the site in relation to neighbouring properties; and

iii) a plan or plans and any relevant documents showing the existing condition of site and full details of the proposed works; and

iv) the developers contact details; and

v) the appropriate fee.

Where written approval is required the development must not begin before written approval is issued by the Local Planning Authority.

The development must be carried out in complete accordance with the details approved.

page 38

Appendix 2 East Devon District Council District Heating Local Development Order Statement of Reasons

1. Legislation

1.1. This document satisfies the requirements of Article 38(1) and (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 (DMPO).

Article 38(1) states that where a Local Planning Authority proposes to make a Local Development Order (LDO) they shall first prepare: a) a draft order; and b) a statement for their reasons for making the order.

Article 38(2) states that the ‘statement of reasons’ shall contain: a) a description of the development which the order would permit; and b) a plan or statement identifying the land to which the order would relate.

2. Background

2.1. The district heating network is a distribution system of insulated underground pipes carrying hot water that takes heat from an energy centre and delivers it to individual properties and non-domestic buildings to provide heating and hot water. The district heating network removes the need for individual boilers or electric heaters in each building or dwelling.

2.2. East Devon’s West End has district heating networks which are to be served by Skypark Energy Centre and Monkerton Energy Centre.

2.3. The Order sets out a range of limitations to which the LDO applies and identifies the timeframe of the LDO. The development which is permitted under the Order is subject to a list of planning conditions identified in the Order.

3. Description of Development Permitted by this Local Development Order

3.1. The Local Development Order grants planning permission for the development of a District Heating Network (DHN) comprising of pipes, cables and wires, heat exchange equipment, street furniture, informational signage and ancillary engineering works within defined areas of land in East Devon and shown on the attached map 1, subject to the conditions set out.

4. Justification for creating this Local Development Order

4.1. The principal aim for creating the LDO is to encourage and facilitate the implementation of district heating network by providing a simplified approach to planning which reduces the regulatory processes and delays associated with the submission of planning applications.

4.2. The LDO will assist the delivery of a key aim of East Devon Council Plan 2020 – 2040 to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040. Addressing climate change is a key priority for the Council. page 39

4.3. East Devon District Council aims to reduce carbon emissions as part of tackling climate change. In accordance with the Council’s Vision as set out in the Local Plan the LDO will help to facilitate the change to a low carbon economy and support the Council’s desire to become zero carbon.

4.4. Technology permitting, it is hoped that the DHN will also provide an opportunity to explore renewable and recovered heat sources in the future.

4.5. Without the LDO being put in place planning permission would be required for the laying of underground pipes and cables and minor above ground works. These are considered to be uncontroversial developments. The costs of processing such applications is not fully covered by the fees and hence there would be a financial saving to the council. The applications have to be registered, advertised, processed and determined and it is considered that officer time is best directed to other objectives.

5. Statement of policies that the LDO would implement

1.1. The LDO is consistent with the aims and objectives of local and national planning policy.

1.2. Mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy, forms part of one of the three core objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in achieving sustainable development. At paragraph 148, the NPPF establishes that the planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. Paragraph 151 of the NPPF goes on to encourage the identification of opportunities for developments to draw their energy supply from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems to help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy and heat.

1.3. The LDO accords with and assists the implementation of East Devon District Council Local Plan 2013-2031 as follows:

Strategy 3 - Sustainable Development The objective of ensuring sustainable development is central to our thinking. We interpret sustainable development in East Devon to mean that the following issues and their inter- relationships are taken fully into account when considering development: ….. b) Prudent natural resource use - which includes minimising fossil fuel use therefore reducing carbon dioxide emissions. It also includes minimising resource consumption, reusing materials and recycling. Renewable energy development will be encouraged… .

Strategy 5 – Environment All development proposals will contribute to the delivery of sustainable development, ensure conservation and enhancement of natural historic and built environmental assets, promote ecosystem services and green infrastructure and geodiversity

Strategy 11 - Integrated Transport and Infrastructure Provision at East Devon's West End Coordinated infrastructure provision will be required to cover Low carbon heat and power supply.

Strategy 12 - Development at Cranbrook The town will be built to distinctive high quality design standards incorporating the best in environmentally friendly technology. The existing district heating system will provide for the combined heat and power needs of the town (part 6). page 40

Strategy 13 - Development North of Blackhorse/Redhayes The mixed use development will be low or carbon zero development with onsite and/or community power generation. The energy infrastructure will include a heat and energy network to achieve low and zero carbon development (part 4a).

Strategy 14 - Development of an Urban Extension at Pinhoe The proposals will be built to distinctive high quality design standards incorporating the best in environmentally friendly technology including the reduction of carbon emissions through measures such as micro-generated technology and decentralised energy systems.

Strategy 39 – Renewable and low carbon energy projects Renewable or low-carbon energy projects in either domestic or commercial development will in principle be supported and encouraged subject to them following current best practice guidance and the adverse impacts on features of environmental and heritage sensitivity, including any cumulative landscape and visual impacts, being satisfactorily addressed. Applicants will need to demonstrate that they have; 1. taken appropriate steps in considering the options in relation to location, scale and design, for firstly avoiding harm; 2. and then reducing and mitigating any unavoidable harm, to ensure an acceptable balance between harm and benefit. Where schemes are in open countryside there will be a requirement to remove all equipment from the site and restore land to its former, or better, condition if the project ceases in the future.

Strategy 40 – Decentralised energy networks Decentralised Energy Networks will be developed and brought forward. New development (either new build or conversion) with a floor space of at least 1,000m2 or comprising ten or more dwellings should, where viable, connect to any existing, or proposed, Decentralised Energy Network in the locality to bring forward low and zero carbon energy supply and distribution.

Strategy 47 - Nature Conservation and Geology All development proposals will need to: 1. Conserve the biodiversity and geodiversity value of land and buildings and minimise fragmentation of habitats. 2. Maximise opportunities for restoration, enhancement and connection of natural habitats. 3. Incorporate beneficial biodiversity conservation features.

6. Lifetime

6.1. This LDO takes effect on the date it is adopted by the Council.

6.2. Subject to any subsequent decision by the Local Planning Authority relating to its withdrawal, modification or extension, this Order shall expire after 15 years of the date of its adoption.

6.3. Once the LDO expires the local planning authority will have three options available;

 extend the LDO under the same limitations and conditions;  provide the LDO and modified the limitations and conditions; or  revoke the LDO and return to the established planning system.

page 41 6.4. Any development which has commenced (as defined by Section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) under the provision of the LDO will be allowed to be completed within a reasonable time period, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the LDO.

7. Monitoring

7.1. The implementation and uptake LDO will be monitored through the data gathered under condition (e) which requires the date of commencement and the geographical position of the development to be submitted to the local planning authority.

page 42

page 43

page 44 Appendix 3 - Consultation response summary

No Name / Comments received Consideration Organisation 1 Highways England Supports the objectives of the LDO. The LDO itself does not appear to set out who powers conferred If the LDO is adopted planning permission would be given for by the Order are to be given to. certain works and is not in the form of a licence to a specific provider. The placement, maintenance and removal of apparatus in a highway and ‘protected’ highway is covered by the New Roads and Street Works Act (NRSWA) 1991 legislation and any requirements on The LDO would not override the need to comply with other works associated to such are either also covered by NRSWA 1991 or TMA 2004 Permit Schemes. legislation such as the NRSWA and the providers would still Works requiring consent and/or a licence under the NRSWA, will be subject to design checks, need the relevant permission of the landowner to carry out conditions and a fee. Highways England would seek to exhaust all means to ensure that any apparatus development. is placed by a statutory undertaker or authority with powers for the placing of such apparatus as defined by NRSWA 1991. The placement of apparatus or other assets in the highway, or land owned In the event of funding being required by the landowner to install by Highways England that is not highway, may require to the developer to enter into a legal agreement development this would be a private matter to be resolved for provision of items such as design, audits, installation, maintenance, removal and reinstatement of outside of the LDO. the highway.

2 Exeter Airport Any development close to or within the aerodrome boundary or facilities has the potential to conflict The aerodrome safeguarding concerns raised by the airport with aerodrome safeguarding criteria which in turn could compromise aviation safety. Aerodrome need to be addressed. Following discussions with Exeter Airport Safeguarding is a process of checking proposed developments so as to: it is evident that any structures over 1 metre high from ground page 45 page level may result in safeguarding issues identified in the four 1 Protect blocks of air through which aircraft fly, by preventing penetration of surfaces created criteria listed in the process of checking proposed developments. to identify their lower limits. Exeter Airport have confirmed that structures under 1 metre in 2 Protect the integrity of radar and other electronic aids to air navigation, by preventing height from ground level do not raise aerodrome safeguarding reflections and diffraction of the radio signals involved. concerns. 3 Protect visual aids, such as Approach and Runway lighting, by preventing them from being obscured, or preventing the installation of other lights which could be confused for them. In Following consultation with the Airport, they would have no brief lighting for the site should be designed in such a way that it is not confusing or dazzling safeguarding concerns if the LDO was revised by reducing the to pilots or air traffic control. maximum height of above round development from 1.5 metres to 4 Avoid any increase in the risk to aircraft of a birdstrike by preventing an increase in 1 metre. hazardous bird species in the vicinity of the aerodrome and, whenever the opportunity arises, to reduce the level of risk.

Initial response - recommended condition to ensure that Aerodrome Safeguarding criteria is met, and aviation safety is always maintained. Exeter Airport will have no safeguarding objections to this Local Development Order provided the condition is applied and adhered to.

“No development within or in close proximity to the Aerodrome boundary or in close proximity to any off-Aerodrome facilities shall take place until an aerodrome safeguarding assessment has been submitted to and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Exeter Airport Safeguarding Department.”

Following negotiations and proposed amendment to LDO to reduce height of structures to 1m AGL; The revised LDO satisfies our safeguarding concerns and is acceptable. Thank you for addressing this and understanding our safety issues.

Appendix 3 - Consultation response summary

3 Natural England Seeks clarification on how the LDO accords with policies within the adopted East Devon Local Plan for The LDO accords with Strategy 5 in that it makes a positive protection and enhancement of the environment; contribution towards the delivery of sustainable development by - Strategy 5 (Environment) enabling the provision of low carbon energy and facilitate future - Strategy 47 (Nature conservation and Geology). use of renewable energy on a large scale. The conditions set Proposals in the LDO should be screened for any likely significant effects on habitats sites (those of out on the LDO ensure the natural historic and built environment international importance) as part of a Habitats Regulations Assessment process. is protected. For example; restricting development under the LDO from being built close to historic buildings and waterways. The proposals accord with strategy 47 in ensuring that the landscape is fully restored following installation of any pipework and that a prior approval process needs to be undertaken for works affecting any trees or hedges. The development has been screened in accordance with the Habitats Regulations and is not likely to result in a significant effect upon European protected sites. An appropriate Assessment is therefore not required. 4 Environment No objection Agency Section 3 of the draft order makes clear reference to works not being permitted within 8m of a Main River watercourse and on land identified on the Flood Map as Flood Zones 3 or 2 - satisfied that flood risk interests are sufficiently accounted for.

5 Cranbrook Town Support provisions made in the LDO Order and noted that it contained sufficient restrictions placed on page 46 page Council utility companies to seek additional consents if necessary, e.g. listed building consent.

6 Historic England Note the draft LDO excludes development on or within the curtilage of a listed building, on sites or buildings designated as scheduled monuments, and within 50m of the curtilage of a listed building or the protected boundary of a scheduled monument. No comment

7 South West Water No comment.

8 Sport England The proposed development does not fall within either statutory remit (Statutory Instrument 2015/595), or non-statutory remit

9 Mid Devon District No Comment Council 10 The Woodland Ancient and veteran trees should be protected in line with Natural England’s Standing Advice. Any Condition (b) states There shall be no lopping, topping, root Trust works affecting boundary of Percy Wakley Wood should be undertaken in adherence to BS 5837:2012. reduction or removal of trees or hedgerows to accommodate the Recommends condition; installation unless previously agreed in writing by the LPA; this is “A buffer zone around an ancient or veteran tree should be at least 15 times larger than the diameter considered sufficient to protect trees including those that are of the tree. The buffer zone should be 5m from the edge of the tree’s canopy if that area is larger than designated ancient or veteran. 15 times the tree’s diameter.”

11 DCC Historic Areas of archaeological significance are sited within the LDO boundary, including a prehistoric and The importance of the area in respect to its archaeological value Environment Romano-British settlement, prehistoric funerary activity, a WWII aerodrome, a Roman road and the Pinn is acknowledged. Whilst the area of the Pinn Brook enclosure is Team Brook enclosure. While much of the area that has already been developed within the proposed Local of high significance in archaeological terms it is also an area Development Order has been subject to archaeological mitigation in advance of development, there are which is of importance to the development of the district heat still areas that contain regionally important archaeological remains. network. A suitable condition can ensure appropriate investigation and mitigation is agreed prior to development Appendix 3 - Consultation response summary

Recommend the undeveloped part of the Pinn Brook enclosure and the area to the west up to the M5 is commencing within the Pinn Brook area and the other areas of excluded from the proposed LDO. If the exclusion of this area is not possible then any works should be archaeological sensitivity as identified on the map. The revised informed by a programme of archaeological work undertaken in advance of any ground disturbance. draft LDO includes an appropriate condition.

Other areas of archaeological sensitivity (shaded in yellow on map) have been identified which will require archaeological mitigation for ground disturbance. Any works adjacent to or within the B3174 have the potential to expose archaeological deposits associated with the Roman road. The historic WWII aerodrome contains military structures and associated features, as well as previously unrecorded prehistoric or later archaeological deposits, and may require mitigation.

Recommend condition: “No works for District Heating System will be undertaken within the areas of archaeological sensitivity, as identified in Appendix X, without consulting with the Devon County Historic Environment Team, as archaeological advisors to the Local Planning Authority, to agree the scope and implementation of any archaeological mitigation that may be required by the proposed works. The programme of archaeological work will be undertaken in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) which will need to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing.”

12 Rep 1 Objects and urges refusal; Low carbon aims can only be achieved if further carbon reduction strategies District Heating Networks benefit from economies of scale with Mr H Gent are deployed. Reference report by Tony Norton of Exeter University – as renewable energy is one central boiler operating far more efficiently than individual (Parish Councillor) increased the benefits of producing energy from CHP falls correspondingly. CO2 intensity of the grid boilers. For example, there is less wasted heat from flue drafts page 47 page has fallen. Carbon emissions from the gas combustion must be accounted for in generating the heat and around flames. Annual Report 2016 Centre for Energy and and the heat is therefore high carbon compared to other options. Expanding the network is against the Environment Strategies 3, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 39 of the Local Plan; CHP is not low carbon energy, not minimising fossil The Centre for Energy and the Environment Annual Report 2016 fuel use, not reducing carbon dioxide emissions, not renewable energy. Network should not be does affirm that the calculated emissions savings from gas CHP expanded based on gas CHP, there should be a commitment from the developer to further driven networks are reduced as the dependence on coal fired decarbonisation and emissions reduction. power stations are reduced as the CO2 savings on the electricity grid are improved. This however does not mean that the CHP no longer provides and low carbon benefits, just that the benefits are reduced. In Tony Norton’s report the following year (The Centre for Energy and the Environment Annual Report 2017) CHP is still referred to as a low carbon energy system. The aspiration of the Council is for the energy centres to be supplied by renewable energy in the future. This LDO will facilitate the provision of infrastructure to enable development within the LDO boundary to integrate the DHN into development as it is constructed.

It is far more practical, cost saving and energy saving to install the DHN during the construction phase of development rather than trying to retrofit a system. As the network is enhanced and enlarged it enables greater economies of scale and therefor greater low carbon benefits. Once the energy source to the DNC can be decarbonised the network will offer immediate zero carbon heating to all the properties that are connected to it. 13 Rep 2 Objects and urges refusal; completely concur with the objections presented by Henry Gent. The heat As stated above the DHN is considered to a form of low carbon Dr S Vaughan network will not assist; the delivery of carbon neutrality; the change to a low carbon economy; or energy and enable renewable energy (once connecter to the Appendix 3 - Consultation response summary

support the Council's desire to become zero carbon. The developer should re submit with a energy centre) to be supplied to all development connected into commitment to further decarbonisation and emissions reductions. the network.

14 Rep 3 Objects; Eon are in breach of their planning commitment to provide a low carbon heat source. No The LDO does not remove the conditions and requirements set Dr P Vaughan further work should be carried out on the installation of the heating network unless eon can guarantee by the planning consent which the Energy Centre was built to supply low carbon heat. Instead houses should be allowed to install their own low carbon heat under and therefor does not remove the commitment of the sources. To continue to support Eon unless a guarantee can be given to provide a low carbon heat supplier to provide a low carbon heat source. The LDO is not for source is a contradiction to EDDC's commitment to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions in a particular supplier (i.e. Eon) but removes the need for planning East Devon. permission for installation of the specified works, regardless of whom the provider is. If the DHN is prevented from being rolled out there would be adverse impact upon the ability of EDDC to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions in East Devon. 15 Rep 4 Objects; no more fossil fuel infrastructure must be allowed to be built in the UK. This plan will The development is considered to contribute to addressing Ms Whitten contribute to carbon emissions, and is contrary to the climate emergency declaration made by DCC, climate change as it represent a low carbon form of heating and EDDC, and many local councils. Development will contribute to climate change. will enable greater carbon savings in the future.

16 Rep 5 Broadly in support; it simplifies the planning process for the installation of a complex network. The LDO is not granting consent for the energy centre to operate Cllr Olly Davey Development will only make a contribution to EDDCs ambition to lower carbon use if using low carbon and cannot implement controls over the supply of energy to the forms of energy generation; recommends condition, so that this order will only apply to low carbon or energy centre which heats the network. The LDO will only carbon neutral forms of heat generation, and not to further gas installations. enable infrastructure to be laid (without the need of planning permission) which connects into the DHN from the energy page 48 page centres. 17 Rep 6 Whilst it is sensible to have a permission covering lots of ancillary works under one permission (i.e. As stated above the LDO only enables infrastructure to be laid Cllr Tony installation and transmission of distribution networks, furniture etc.) there should be a condition connecting to the energy centre and does not cover the running Woodward imposed by EDDC that any expansion of the network is based on low carbon heat only. There must be of the energy centre and its energy supply. a resubmission based on a commitment to further decarbonisation and emission reductions.

18 Rep 7 Objects; must not use fossil fuels in our environmental crisis. Please see above. Mr P Tuckley 19 Rep 8 Objects; local council have said they accept the need to decarbonise as fast as possible. Development The LDO is not contrary to the Council’s desire to become zero Ms A Bentham is not in accordance with the provisions and objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008 as required by carbon. The LDO will facilitate the roll out of a local heat network the NPPF. Addressing climate change is one of the core land use planning principles which the NPPF which is supplied though the energy centres. A decentralised expects to underpin decision taking, and responding to climate change is central to sustainable heating system such as the local heat network is the only way development. The use of gas without carbon capture and sequestration, is not compatible with a zero there can be local influence on the supply of heating to the area. carbon future and must be eliminated and is intrinsically unsustainable. It allows a District Heat By having a local heat network there is the ability to heat the Network powered by gas to be expanded easily, and in a monopoly situation, to new development in network through various ways. The options for alternative the area. The LDO is a planning consent for the continued use of gas fueled power and will endorse methods of heating supply for the energy centre are being and encourage its use. The effects of the LDO will be to lock new houses into a heat network that is explored by the Council however the supply of energy to the producing carbon dioxide emissions from gas. How is this contributing to sustainability and tackling energy centre does not form part of the LDO. The LDO is climate change? The draft LDO is not in accordance with Strategy 3 of the Local Plan; powering heat considered to accord with Strategy 3 in that the network provides using gas is not minimising use of fossil fuel, when there are alternative low carbon/renewables that low carbon heat with efficiencies in scale and provides the ability can be used to power the DHN now. of renewable heating to the area in the future.

Disagree with Justification Statement points 4.2 & 4.3 - the LDO does not clarify the pathway to these objectives. The LDO does not will not assist the delivery of a key aim of EDDC to achieve carbon neutrality and reduce carbon emissions or support the Council's desire to become zero carbon. Questions raised at the Development Management Committee meeting (3/04/20) regarding the DHN's transfer to low carbon/ renewables need to be answered in respect to the LDO and its effect on climate Appendix 3 - Consultation response summary

change need to be considered. What is the time frame for the DHN to stop being powered from fossil fuels? Recommend condition for infrastructure expansion to only occur if the heat network is low carbon and powered by renewable energy. Need greater clarity and forward thinking on infrastructure decisions that set us on to a properly sustainable future path in response to the climate emergency.

20 Rep 9 Objects; heat network should not be expanded unless it is based on renewable energy sources. EDDC The supply of energy to the energy centre does not form part of Mr F Stiff heating schemes should be based on very low carbon energy. the LDO

21 Rep 10 Objects; natural gas will be used to generate the heat. The network cannot be considered as facilitating As stated above the heat network is considered low carbon Mr D Buller transition to a low-carbon economy. The use of natural gas (fossil gas) is well-established to be despite the supply to the energy centre currently being gas. contributing to the rapidly increasing levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere which are driving global warming. Only by supplying additional heat generation through renewable energy means can an expanded CH&PN be said to be truly in lockstep with the stated key aim of the East Devon Council Plan 2020-2040 to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040.

22 Rep 11 Perturbed to note that despite climate emergency, we are still planning for the use of fossil fuels in new The LDO does not determine which fuel is used to supply the Cllr Eleanor build developments. Hopefully by the end of the life of this district heating burner, plans will be network or tie any development into connecting to the network. Rylance completed on how to remove the need for fossil fuels in domestic heating and hot water for all housing The network operates as a sealed system connecting to the developments and this one in particular. In 2020, it is not in my view appropriate to be signing new energy centres, therefore system could be heated by alternative houses up to heating with gas for the next 30+ years. The only good thing about this plan is that it is means if there is an alternative supply to the energy centres. district heating, therefore much easier to plan to replace the plant with a more environmentally- page 49 page respectful fuelled version, thus changing the heating fuel for the entire development in one go- much easier than replacing individual boilers in privately-owned homes. I would expect the operators to be examining and planning the end of life solutions for this boiler from now.

Agenda Item 9

Ward Honiton St Michaels

Reference 19/2246/FUL

Applicant Mr M Cooper

Location Land To The Rear Of 102 High Street Honiton EX14 1JW

Proposal Construction of 3no. dwellings.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 50

Committee Date: 15th July 2020

Honiton St Michaels Target Date: (Honiton) 19/2246/FUL 05.12.2019

Applicant: Mr M Cooper

Location: Land To The Rear Of 102 High Street Honiton

Proposal: Construction of 3no. dwellings.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application was deferred at the meeting on the 3rd March 2020 for a Site Inspection to assess the impact of the development on the Conservation Area and the Listed Building, its wider context and upon the boundary walls and tree on the site. However due to the Coronavirus preventing a Site Inspection, and in order to make a decision on the application, Members determined that they would rec- consider the application with a greater range and number of site photographs provided.

The application was originally before Members as the officer recommendation differs from the view of one of the Ward Members.

The proposal seeks planning consent for the creation of a terrace of three dwellings to occupy land to the immediate rear of 102 High Street, which is a listed building in Honiton in use as a public house. The proposal also takes place within the Conservation Area.

Objections from the Conservation Officer have been received. In the main these relate to the impact on the setting of the listed building and Conservation Area. The position, design and size of the development negatively impacts the setting of the listed building and in particular the rear of this building. The proposal also occupies a notable burgage plot which is a common feature within the market town of Honiton and the design fails to respect this. The alterations consisting of the position and design of the dwellings themselves, and subsequent alteration to a listed wall, negatively distorts the interpretation of this plot – which in turn harms one of the defining features of the Conservation Area. This interpretation would be harmed when viewed from the rear of the listed building, from the adjoining plots and from the pedestrian access to the site.

Additionally the arboriculture officer has raised concern with regards to the removal of a significant tree. Although off site planting has been offered this

19/2246/FUL page 51

would not prevent harm to the tree on site itself and there is no mechanism or agreement in place to secure the off-site replacement tree planting.

The proposal is therefore considered to result in harm which is considered to form ‘less than substantial harm’. As there are no public benefits of sufficient weight to outweigh the identified harm the proposal conflicts with the requirements of Local Plan policy EN9 and the guidance in the NPPF in relation to listed buildings.

Given the harm identified from the proposal to the setting of the listed building, Conservation Area and the tree, and the need to give ‘special regard’ to any impact upon heritage assets, this weighs heavily against the proposal and as such the application is recommended for refusal.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Honiton St Michaels - Cllr Mike Allen

Please note my concerns that although well designed, this development adds to the number of houses crammed into the historic burgage plots of the historic high street Saxon layout. As such it will need archeological care with excavations.

The overdevelopment of this area with no parking is going to add to the chronic parking problems in Honiton and I would like the Chairman's meeting to take careful note of my opposition to such development.

I would not like the Town Council's views to be missed and if they agree, then this application should go to DMC

Honiton St Michaels - Cllr Phil Twiss

This windfall site application sited in a tucked away, highly sustainable location just behind Honiton High Street High Street seeks to develop a redundant site to three new homes that would compliment existing properties in close proximity and others that have used similar sites in recent years within a short radius of this site, in both design and type of materials proposed. It is in close walking distance to car parks, Doctors surgery, railway station and High Street shops and services

The Homes would be of a reasonable size compared to neighbouring properties, where it would have been tempting to overdevelop the site with an application for four properties of different types and subject to the removal of the common species of Bay Tree (to repair the damage it is doing to an adjoining wall) with an off site scheme to replace it with three other trees, together with agreed on site planting scheme, I am happy to support this application.

20/01/2020 – ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

19/2246/FUL page 52

The Executive summary and a recommendation for refusal of this application for 3 small homes rests largely on comments from the EDDC conservation and tree officers, but do not take in to account the significant benefits offered by this windfall site in a highly sustainable location in the middle of the Honiton, but is inconsistent with previous approvals such as the current adjoining site 17/0809/FUL or 10/1837/FUL (reports attached) granted since 1999 and the formal recognition of the Honiton conservation area and both using redundant burgage plots (there are other sofa similar nature).

Conservation comments about the listed status of the 102 High Street and the curtilage of it are stretching the point as the listing at https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the- list/list-entry/1116632 make no reference to either the burgage plot or boundary walls and are arguable.

The Tree Officer is objecting to removal of a Bay Tree which has grown out of control, damaging the boundary wall. I understand a structural report commissioned by the applicant has determined that even if it were to be repaired it will cause the wall to fail and that it will need to be removed anyway.

Specifically the Bay Laurel or Laurus nobilis is an “aromatic evergreen tree or large shrub with green, glabrous smooth leaves, in the flowering plant family Lauraceae. It is native to the Mediterranean region and is used as bay leaf for seasoning in cooking”. It is neither rare or unusual and from personal experience is also easy to grow and maintain. Recognising that the applicant has made an offer to replace the Bay Tree with others elsewhere in Honiton I would expect that to be an condition of approval for suitable sites, where clearly there are very many that could be used, subject to relevant permission of the landowner/s.

The design and plans for this application are consistent with other similar properties and the stepped nature of the site to the south of the plot are stepped to a very minor degree as the attached photograph indicates.

The plot itself slopes gently towards the High Street and there would be no adverse visual impact on neighbouring properties or the conservation area and any damage to heritage assets is also arguable given the lesser impact than the approved site next door currently under construction (17/0809/FUL) for 5 dwellings on a former burgage plot with similar characteristics i.e.to the rear of High Street buildings, in a similar terraced style to that for this application.

The attached photograph shows the more dominant nature of this development in comparison to this one where it would be virtually enclosed by surrounding developments and with no visible adverse impact on the conservation area.

Comment is also made about a wooden fence, where one already exists for the boundary between the two sites which I find puzzling.

The relevant policies cited, other than D3 regarding trees are very similar between 17/0809/FUL and 19/2346/FUL with one approved and one recommended for refusal which is inconsistent between them and other similar approved applications and I

19/2246/FUL page 53

would imagine EDDC would run a real risk of losing an appeal if the conservation and tree reasons are the main reasons for recommending refusal.

I would like this application to go to the Development Management committee for their decision, based on the key arguments I have presented in this response, not least the public benefit of three new homes in the middle of the town, increased panting of trees and similar design to the immediate surrounding area as outweighing the conservation and tree/shrub protection reasons put forward.

Clerk To Honiton Town Council

Members OBJECT to the proposal for the following reasons:

o The proposal would remove the rear access to 102 High Street. As such 102 High Street would only have access from the High Street. o The proposal was overdevelopment of the site. o The proposal would adversely impact on the Town's weekly market as access for deliveries to 102 High Street would only be possible from the High Street. o The proposal does not provide parking and would exacerbate existing parking issues. o The proposal would result in the loss of a tree in the Conservation Area with no proposal to provide a replacement in the Conservation Area. Members were of the view that the applicant's proposal to plant 3 trees in a location within Honiton to be agreed with EDDC did not sufficiently mitigate the loss of a tree in the Conservation Area. o The proposed removal of a section of the boundary wall would adversely affect the appearance of the area and would result in the loss of historic fabric which should be retained. o The proposal was out of keeping with the character of the Conservation Area.

(5 for; 1 abstention)

Technical Consultations

County Highway Authority Observations: The site is situated on the rear of the High Street (A375), but has a vehicular and pedestrian access from King Street, W1808. The three proposed dwellings are not planned to have dedicated parking, however Honiton makes an ideal non-car development in anycase, due to the regular train service, bus service and the range of facilities and services within the town centre.

I would recommend that each development is equipped with a cycle storage space to further encourage the sustainable travel modes. It is noted the vehicular access is still viable for deliveries ect but a great increase in trip generations to this development is not envisaged on the whole.

Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, MAY

19/2246/FUL page 54

WISH TO RECOMMEND CONDITIONS ON ANY GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION 1. No development shall take place until details of secure cycle/scooter storage facilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To promote sustainable travel in accordance with policy 5B of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.

Conservation

HOW WILL PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AFFECT HISTORIC CHARACTER OF BUILDING AND ITS SETTING:

This site forms part of the former garden space for the grade II listed building. The stone wall that that forms the boundary to the West and East of the site are considered to be curtilage and therefore grade II listed as well.

The submitted structural appraisal makes a thorough analysis of its current condition, which is clearly being damaged by the mature bay tree and the recent presence of ivy. It recommended that this wall is repaired in the first instance (with an appropriate lime mortar base) or re-built using the same stone.

The significance of this site is by its association as a grade II listed site and its setting within a conservation area. Its traditional materials reflect the local vernacular. The architectural form, i.e. the 3 storey, terrace town house with a typical commercial shop unit at ground floor. In general the subsequent additions to the rear elevations of this large group of listed buildings, are modest in their massing, subservient in height and of sympathetic materials. They follow the linear pattern of the boundaries and long burgage plots.

The proposal creates a built form in an area that forms a visual and open break between the listed building, its small outbuildings and a modern housing development at the Southern most end of the plot. The drawings do not illustrate in elevation the comparable ridge heights between the proposal, the heritage asset(s) and the modern Southern development. It is recommended that they should reflect the subservient character of the existing, historic structures in these spaces. There is an existing view into the rear of the listed building from the access route that would be lost with this proposal. This view informs the narrative of the heritage assets.

The design is of a local cottage style. The materials are a little inconsistent in quality, the Upvc windows in particular. The hard landscaping is excessive in this green, urban space of character. The proposed extent of loss of the Western stone wall is not supported as this is listed, however there would be scope for some sympathetic alteration.

In consideration of the existing modern development at the Southern end of the burgage plot and the extent of the (subservient) historic, rear outbuildings to the listed building. The partial loss of the Western curtilage stone wall. The loss of the open,

19/2246/FUL page 55

green setting and also as a historic burgage plot to the listed building, it is also seen as an important group of listed buildings in the historic centre of Honiton Conservation, this is considered to be less that substantial harm to the setting of these significant heritage assets.

PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATION - PROPOSAL UNACCEPTABLE

AMENDED PLANS - 04.02.2020

In addition to the initial comments and recommendations; there is merit in the retention of the stone boundary wall, however drawings No. 0005A and 0004A do not accurately reflect the change to the division of 3 differently sized dwellings. The recommendation stands.

Trees

I object to this application due to the loss of a significant tree, the removal of which has not been justified either within a previous tree works application or this application.

Other Representations

At the time of writing two objections have been received (in summary);

• Noise from occupants post completion. • Design and materials – harm to a listed wall. • Lack of parking proposed. • Overlooking into adjacent land leading to loss of privacy. • Overbearing and over dominant impact. • Harmful change to the character of the area.

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

19/2247/LBC Removal of a section of Refused 03.01.2020 boundary wall and erection of acoustic timber fencing. 03/P1773 Removal Of 3 Metres Of Approved 07.10.2003 Exterior Stone Wall To Afford Vehicular Access To Rear Of Premises

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies EN10 (Conservation Areas)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

19/2246/FUL page 56

D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries)

Strategy 23 (Development at Honiton)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

EN8 (Significance of Heritage Assets and their setting)

EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset)

EN19 (Adequacy of Foul Sewers and Adequacy of Sewage Treatment System)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

Site Location and Description

This site forms part of the former rear garden space for the grade II listed building forming 102 High Street Honiton. The main building being in retail use.

The stone wall that that forms the boundary to the West and East of the site are considered to be part of the curtilage to the building and therefore also grade II listed.

The proposal is situated within the centre of the settlement of Honiton and within the Conservation Area.

Adjoining the site to the south is a development of 3 dwellings.

Proposed Development

The proposal seeks planning consent for the creation of three dwellings on land to the rear of 102 High Street, Honiton. The three dwellings would form a terrace of two storey dwellings with kitchen and dinner on the ground floor with two bedrooms at first floor level each.

The front elevation would face the east and would comprise of canopy porches and stone decoration up to the bottom level of the cill on the ground floor windows. The rear (east) facing elevation would have patio doors on the ground floor facilitating access to a small rear garden area and first floor windows serving the first floor bedrooms.

The dwellings would be originated on a north to south alignment, matching those of a series of dwellings positioned further to the south. Subdividing this development from the listed building to the north would be a new stone wall.

19/2246/FUL page 57

Access would be via an existing vehicle and pedestrian access which joins Kings Street. No vehicular parking is proposed.

Rebuild of one of the boundary walls is also proposed and this requires the removal of an existing tree within the site.

It should be noted that amended plans have been received during the consideration of the proposal which have retained more of a listed wall in front of the properties and altered the proportions of the size of dwellings themselves. The applicant has also confirmed their agreement to the use of timber windows.

ANALYSIS

The main issues concerning this proposal are;

• Principle of the development • Design and impact on the heritage assets (conservation area and listed building) • Impact on Amenity • Access and parking • Impact upon trees • The planning balance

Principle of the development

The application site is located within the Built Up Area Boundary (BUAB) of Honiton and therefore the principle of residential development is established under Strategy 6 of the adopted East Devon Local Plan, subject to site constraints. Therefore the main issues concerning this proposal are the impact on heritage assets (listed building and conservation area), the impact on the amenity of proposed and adjacent properties, the impact on ecology and the impact on highway safety.

Design and impact on the heritage assets (conservation area and listed building)

Policy D1 states that development should respect the local distinctiveness of an area with local plan policy EN10 stating that the historic fabric of the conservation area should be conserved or enhanced. The design has been promoted in that it sits well within the topography of the site and it is claimed it will be relevant when the adjacent building works have been completed (for conversion of the house to the south of the adjoining plot to the east to 4 flats and re-building of barn in the garden to create 3 flats).

The significance of this site is by its association as a grade II listed building, its setting within a conservation area and its form as a burgage plot. The use of traditional materials features random stone, slate and render reflect the local vernacular.

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 states that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects the setting of a listed building special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting. Section 72 of the same Act, also provides a

19/2246/FUL page 58

general duty for proposals to preserve or enhance the appearance and character of conservation areas.

The proposal creates a built form in an area that forms a visual and open break between the listed building, small outbuildings and a modern housing development at the Southernmost end of the strip plot. In light of this and its burgage plot nature the conservation officer has recommended that these dwellings should reflect the subservient character of the existing, historic structures in these spaces. Traditionally burgage plots will have been developed in a way that buildings further down the plot are ancillary and subservient in nature and design. Development of a burgage plots is not unusual or unacceptable in principle, but development should reflect the history of this burgage plot given its location to the rear of a listed building in a Conservation Area.

There is an existing view into the rear of the listed building from the access route that would be lost with this proposal. This view is particularly important as it informs the narrative of the heritage assets, including the evolution of the building over time. The applicant has noted that the principle reason for the listing of the buildings is the contribution that these terraces contribute towards the high street, however, the entirety of the building and its plot is listed and this includes the modified rear façade and rear walls and the history to the plot in terms of its burgage plot that justify the inclusion of the whole site within the conservation area. The scale of the dwellings, and their modern design, means that they would obscure the main views of the rear elevation of the listed building (102 High Street) in a form that would not have been traditional to a burgage plot or to the setting of the original listed building.

The design of the dwellings is of a local cottage style. There is a lack of articulation in the buildings themselves or reference to its surrounds which could have enhanced the design and made this development more compatible or have provided interest. Instead the proposal is arguably more akin to dwellings found on modern estates rather than a dwelling which respect or are informed by the historic context. The design of these dwellings neither conserve nor enhance the wider conservation area and will simply appear as modern houses dropped into the middle of a plot with no reference to the listed building, conservation area or burgage plot history. Whilst the buildings will not be highly visible from surrounding roads, they will be visible from the listed building, adjoining plots and when being accessed via the pedestrian path.

It is evident that there has been previous development in the rear of adjoining burgess plots over the years. For example the three dwellings to the south were approved in 2005 under planning consent 04/3160/FUL. However, the ridge line of the dwellings was stepped to facilitate some subservience and respect for the scale of its setting and it is not unusual in burgage plots to have appropriate/subservient development at the rear of the plots fronting access lanes as demonstrated by the site to the east. That said the plot boundaries have remained legible although large size buildings do now occupy these rear plots within the wider context.

The proposal would result in the loss of the open setting and also as a historic burgage plot to the listed building, it is also seen as an important group of listed buildings in the historic centre of Honiton Conservation Area. This harm is considered to be less than substantial harm to the setting of these significant heritage assets.

19/2246/FUL page 59

The proposal would also result in the partial removal of an existing wall which is a listed structure, in order to allow for the development including its access. The hard landscaping proposed is considered excessive. In light of the design approach adopted, the proposed loss of part of the western stone wall is not supported as this is listed, however there would be scope for some sympathetic alteration as part of a more sympathetic proposal. Alterations to this listed wall and the provision of an acoustic fence (now replaced by a stone wall) were the subject of a separate listed building consent which has been refused for the following reason:

‘The works would result in the unjustified loss to an historic listed wall which contributes to the historic fabric of a listed building and is one of the defining features of burgess plots in which the listed building is situated. Additionally the timber acoustic fencing introduces an incongruous element which would be prominent due to its height and would produce a harsh subdivision of a burgage plot which in turn contributes to the setting of the listed building. The proposal fails to conserve the historic fabric which results in less than substantial harm as the proposal would result in the loss of historic fabric and impact on the wider conservation area. As there are no public benefits to outweigh such harm there is conflict with policies EN8 (Significance of Heritage Assets and their setting), EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) and EN10 (Conservation Areas) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Design Guidance.’

Listed building consent 03/P1773 allowed for 3 metres of the wall to be demolished to make way for the existing gates. It is considered that further demolition of these walls would add to the cumulative effect of incremental change which would be a negative change that would sever an important link to the history of the listed building and wider Honiton Conservation Area.

In summary therefore, it is considered that the form of development proposed, combined with the loss of part of the listed wall is unjustified and harmful to both the setting of the listed building and character and appearance of the Conservation Area contrary to Local Plan policies D1, EN9 and EN10. Where harm such as this is regarded as ‘less than substantial’, there need to be significant public benefits that outweigh the harm in order to justify approval of planning permission. This is addressed below.

Impact on Amenity

On the rear elevation there are first floor windows, serving each of the three units. This is on the east elevation and facing over the strip plots and car parking areas to the east and west. However, it is clear that the windows of the upper floor would not result in harmful levels of overlooking as the positioning is not in close proximity to the private amenity space of surrounding properties. Given the space of the proposal to neighbouring dwellings and their respective windows the proposal would not lead to an oppressive outlook toward neighbouring properties.

19/2246/FUL page 60

It is also noted that an acoustic screen wall is proposed between the development and the rear of number 102. To erect such a structure hints at the close proximity of the proposed dwellings to the rear elevation of the listed building.

Whilst the amenity space proposed to be provided to each of the dwelling is minimal, given the similarities to the existing dwellings to the south, it is difficult to argue that this is unacceptable or out of context.

Access and parking

The submitted layout plans do not illustrate any onsite parking for vehicles. However, given the good level of facilities and services within Honiton itself this would not be insisted upon given these circumstance. Access would be through a narrow access route which joins Kings Street. This already serves other dwellings as well as the rear of 102 high Street. Given that this access route would mostly be used by pedestrians, as there is no allocated parking, the increased use of the access route is unlikely to result in nuisance of highway safety issues.

Whilst number 102 High Street would have to be serviced via its front elevation, this is likely to occur at present and it would be difficult to justify refusal of planning permission on the basis that a retail unit on the high street is required to be serviced via its front elevation. This is not an uncommon arrangement.

Trees

The Councils Tree Officer has objected to the application due to the loss of a tree within the site without adequate mitigation, the site being in a Conservation Area and as such replacement planting is required. A structural survey of the wall which is adjacent to this has been submitted. It would appear that only a basic visual inspection of the tree was carried out. The survey states that the proximity of the tree is definitely having some impact on this wall and likely to make it unstable within 5 years.

Whilst works are required to the wall in the future, the proposal would result in the loss of the tree without any adequate replacement given that the remainder of the site will be developed with no room for replacement planting.

Whilst the proposal suggests the provision of 3 trees elsewhere within Honiton, no sites within the applicant’s control have been identified or agreed at this stage. Whilst the applicant has contacted the Council’s Streetscene department suggesting Apple Trees within the Honiton Bottom Nature revere off Battishorne Way, at the time of writing no mechanism is in place to secure this, or future maintenance or replacement costs, and in any event this does not directly offset the harm to this specific tree within this site in the Conservation Area.

Whilst the tree is not visible from the public domain and is not worthy of a Tree Preservation Order, it does provide a green setting to the rear of the listed building and provide relief to the built development in this area. As such, the loss of the tree in a Conservation Area as not been justified.

19/2246/FUL page 61

Given the loss of the tree in the Conservation Area, this also makes the application unacceptable and contrary to Policy D3 of the Local Plan.

The Planning Balance and Conclusion

From the above the proposal has been found to harm the setting of the listed building and wider Conservation Area. Accordingly, and with special regard paid to the duties enshrined within Section 66 and 72 of the Listed Building and Conservation Area Act, 1990, the proposal harms the setting of the listed building and fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

This harm is considered to be ‘less than substantial’ and in accordance with the NPPF it is necessary to balance this harm against any potential public benefits.

In this case there are no such clear public benefits, and indeed none have been put forward by the applicant. Whilst the construction phase would entail short lived employment benefits and the proposal would make a modest contribution towards the supply of housing in the district these alone, or in combination, would not result in a public benefit which would outweigh the identified harm to an irreplaceable heritage asset.

In addition to the above, harm has been identified to a tree within the site which has drawn an objection from the council’s tree officer. This adds to the harm from the proposal.

In light of the harm to the heritage assets and tree, and given the minimal public benefits from the proposal, the application is considered to be unacceptable and is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reasons:

1. The proposed dwellings, by reason of their large scale, incongruous design and appearance would detract from the surrounding historic character of the area and rear of the listed building. The proposal fails to conserve the historic fabric which results in less than substantial harm. As there are no public benefits to outweigh this identified harm there is conflict with policies EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) and EN10 (Conservation Areas) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Design Guidance.

2. The development would result in the unjustified loss to an historic wall which contributes to the historic setting of a listed building and is one of the defining features of burgess plots within the conservation area. The proposal fails to conserve the historic fabric which results in less than substantial harm as the proposal would result in the loss of historic fabric and impact on the wider

19/2246/FUL page 62

conservation area. As there are no public benefits to outweigh such harm there is conflict with policies EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) and EN10 (Conservation Areas) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Design Guidance.

3. The proposal would result in the loss of a notable tree within the designated conservation area. Although compensatory planting has been offered off site this has not been secured and does not mitigate the direct harm to the tree on site. The proposal therefore conflicts with the requirements of policy D3 (Trees and Development) and EN10 (Conservation Areas) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Informative: In accordance with the aims of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 East Devon District Council seeks to work positively with applicants to try and ensure that all relevant planning concerns have been appropriately resolved; however, in this case the development is considered to be fundamentally unacceptable such that the Council's concerns could not be overcome through negotiation.

Plans relating to this application:

001 Location Plan 10.10.19

002 Existing Site Plan 10.10.19

003C Proposed Site Plan 06.02.20

004A Proposed Floor Plans 14.01.20

005A Proposed Elevation 14.01.20

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

19/2246/FUL page 63 Agenda Item 10

Ward Axminster

Reference 19/2799/FUL

Applicant Mr Jonathan Christopher

Location Land At Pidgeons Lane Axminster

Proposal Erection of multi -purpose building to provide storage for agricultural machinery and haystore, lambing space and stable

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 64

Committee Date: 15th July 2020

Axminster Target Date: (Axminster) 19/2799/FUL 13.02.2020

Applicant: Mr Jonathan Christopher

Location: Land At Pidgeons Lane Axminster

Proposal: Erection of multi-purpose building to provide storage for agricultural machinery and haystore, lambing space and stable

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The planning application is before Members as the officer recommendation is contrary to the view of a Ward Member.

The proposal seeks planning consent for the creation of an agricultural and storage building.

It is a policy requirement of D7 of the local plan that there is a genuine agricultural need for agricultural buildings within the countryside.

Although the applicant owns the land, it is rented out to a tenant who has two horses. The extent of the agricultural holding is the small parcel of land extending to 0.4ha only in which the building would sit. It is recognised that there is some equipment required to tend to the site but that does not justify the size and scale of the building proposed which is linked more with the activities of the tenant.

In addition, the proposed building is centrally placed within the field parcel and could be seen from public vantage points. As there is a lack of genuine agricultural need for the size and scale of the building proposed there would be unnecessary development to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area and existing undeveloped character of the countryside.

As such the application is recommended for refusal.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

19/2799/FUL page 65

Parish/Town Council: 14.01.20 and 10.03.20

AXMINSTER TOWN COUNCIL SUPPORTS THIS APPLICATION

Ward Member - Axminster - Cllr Sarah Jackson

19/2799/FUL - I support this application, perhaps subject to the condition of agricultural use only

18.02.2020 - I am still minded to support the application as an agricultural building within a rural area within the context of promoting the rural economy. I understand that similar applications, supported by officers, have gone to DMC before being ultimately approved. That said, I also recognise the comments made regarding the Local Plan and very valid points made by officers in their recommendation to refuse the application. I, therefore, would welcome this coming before DMC for proper debate and I trust the committee will find the most appropriate decision given all evidence and the wider context.

Technical Consultations

EDDC Trees Although I have no objection in principle to the development and there is an arboricultural survey, there is no TPP or AMS included

Other Representations 2 letters of objection have been received (in summary);

• No further development should be permitted without the provision of a hammer head turning bay. • Precedent for living accommodation • Visual impact • Size of building not justified • Soakaway issues. • Conflict with strategy 7 and policy TC2 • Unsustainable location • Conflicts with Inspector comments with regard to planning app 18/0700/OUT

1 further letter of objection has been received in relation to additional justification submitted by the applicant (in summary);

• Recommended guidelines for the keep of horses is 1 1/2 acres per horse, Currently their are 2 horses on .7 acre and food is having to be brought in on a regular basis. • the positioning of his proposal clearly shows the unsuitability of the land to house such a building, He states that it sits in a natural levelling of the land (This piece of land has no natural levelling). This piece of land is very exposed and any form of shelter for the horses

19/2799/FUL page 66

• .7 of an acre (Greatly reduced if his application was successful) does not require this level of machinery to maintain, 3 sides of this land is fenced using a 3 bar wooden fence and the remaining side is not owned by Mr Christopher

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside)

D7 (Agricultural Buildings and Development)

TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

RC4 (Recreation Facilitates in the Countryside and on the Coast)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

Site Location and Description

The application site lies in open countryside to the southeast of Axminster and southwest of Raymonds Hill. It relates to part of an agriculture field laid to pasture and subdivided with post and rail fencing. The land on site is elevated slightly above the level of Pidgeons Lane and slopes down from south to north. The boundary of the site with Pidgeons Lane is formed by a native hedge with a number of larger hedgerow trees within it.

The site is located at the southwestern end of Pidgeons lane, an un-adopted private lane serving a line of detached properties along its south side. Pidgeons Lane links with Cooks Lane approximately 350 meters from the site access, Cooks Lane then runs west to link with Lyme Road and east to Crewkerne Road. Beyond the adjoining garden land to the south of the site runs the A35 from which pedestrian access is achieved via an existing section of bridleway which links to Pidgeons Lane.

The site falls outside of the AONB.

Proposal

The proposal seeks planning consent for a multi-purpose building to provide storage for agricultural machinery and haystore, including a stable area. The timber building is proposed to measure approximately 12m by 6m at a height of 4m.

19/2799/FUL page 67

Site History

There is one recent application on the site (by the same applicant). 18/0700/OUT was submitted for the ‘Construction of (self build) dwelling and garage, outline application with means of access to be considered’. This application was refused by the Development Management Committee on the 10 August 2018 for the following reasons:

1. The application site lies in open countryside outside of any designated Built up Area Boundary or Strategic allocation within the Adopted East Devon Local Plan or emerging Villages Plan and where there are no other Local or Neighbourhood Plan policies that would support the development. Residential development in this location would be unsustainable due to the distance to essential services and facilities required for daily living and access to transport links to further afield settlements and where, as a result, future occupiers would be heavily reliant on the use of private transport for the majority of journeys. As such, the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of Strategy 5B (Sustainable Transport), Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) and Policy TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and the guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposal would result in the extension of the existing ribbon development along the southeast side of Pidgeons Lane into the open countryside. This would result in visual harm to the open and undeveloped appearance of the site and erosion of its undeveloped and rural character, it would therefore be contrary to Strategies 7 (Development in the Countryside) and 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) and policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and the guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework and accompanying Planning Practice Guidance.

ANALYSIS

The main issues for consideration are the principle of development, visual impact and highway safety.

Principle of Development

The Development Plan for the area consists of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 (EDLP). There is currently no Neighbourhood Plan in place that covers the site although a plan is being prepared for the parish of Axminster within which the site lies. In policy terms the site lies in countryside and therefore falls to be considered under Strategy 7 (Development within the Countryside).

Strategy 7 states:

19/2799/FUL page 68

'Development in the countryside will only be permitted where it is in accordance with a specific Local or Neighbourhood Plan policy that explicitly permits such development'

And goes on to say,

'and where it would not harm the distinctive landscape, amenity and environmental qualities within which it is located'.

Although the local plan does not specifically cater for stables, such structures from a part and parcel of the character of the countryside within East Devon. A large proportion of the building would be dedicated to agricultural uses. In this respect policy D7 would be considered a relevant policy and this states:

‘New agricultural buildings and/or buildings intended for intensive agricultural activities that could give rise to adverse amenity, landscape, environmental or other impacts will be permitted where there is a genuine agricultural need for the development and the following criteria are met:

1. It is well integrated with its surroundings and closely related to existing buildings, being of appropriate location, scale, design and materials so as not to harm the character, biodiversity and landscape of the rural area particularly within the AONB. 2. It will not be detrimental to the amenity of nearby residents on grounds of smell, noise or fly nuisance. 4. It has been established that there are no other suitable buildings on the holding or in the vicinity which could meet the reasonable need. 5. It will not lead to an unacceptable increase in traffic on the local highway network 6. All clean roof and surface waters will be drained separately from foul drainage and foul drainage will not discharge to any watercourse in order to prevent pollution of the water environment.

Proposals for the development of new large scale buildings for livestock or for other use that could have polluting impacts should be accompanied by a Waste Management Plan.’

As demonstrated by the submitted location plan the red edge of the holding is not of a large size and furthermore there is no other land within the applicant’s ownership that would form part of an agricultural enterprise or rented. Indeed it has been clarified that this application site itself would be rented out. The field was let out in September 2019 to the owner of one horse and one pony.

It is a policy requirement that there must be a ‘genuine agricultural’ need to justify development in the countryside.

In terms of storage of equipment the applicant has clarified that a loader tractor and topper would be stored, a ride on tractor for collecting horse droppings (which belongs to current tenant) and hedge cutting tools. The building would provide security against theft of these tools.

19/2799/FUL page 69

Whilst the requirement for small stable facilities for the horses is understood, the building is also proposed to provide shelter for livestock (potentially sheep) but neither the applicant nor current tenant have livestock. The field being rented for the grazing of one horse and one pony. As such an area for livestock is not justified.

Whilst the applicant has advised that a building is required to store the loader tractor and topper, the size of the site is very small and it is not considered that the equipment needs to be stored on site to permanently service such a small area of land. It is therefore questioned whether the equipment is required to be stored on site at all times given its value, limited use on the application site, and given its wider use for grazing. In addition, it is assumed that the tenants ride on tractor would be removed when the tenancy comes to an end.

In the absence of any on-going agricultural enterprise on the land, and given the relatively small size of the plot, it is not considered that a genuine agricultural need for the size of building and proposed uses has been demonstrated. It is also noted that the current income of £20 per week, projected to rise to £40 per week with the building, would not appear to justify or demonstrate the need for the building or cover the costs of the building or equipment and as such this raises questions regarding the need for a building of this scale.

It is not therefore considered that the applicant has demonstrated a genuine agricultural need for a building, and particularly of in relation to the size proposed. A small stable to provide shelter for two horses may be justified, but this could be considerably smaller than the building proposed.

Impact on the character and appearance of the countryside

The site lies at the end of the existing residential development along the south side of Pidgeons Lane, at present the land is open and undeveloped and slopes upwards away from the boundary with Hornbeam House. The adjoining land to the north forms part of the property known as Norwyn, this property sits adjacent to The A35 but is accessed via a long drive from Pidgeons Lane.

The proposed building would be centrally positioned within this field parcel meaning that it is arguably more prominent within this landscape compared to most agricultural buildings/stables which are positioned adjacent to field boundaries to minimise their prominence and visual impact. There is an existing access point with Pidgeon's Lane from which the building would be viewable. There is a difference in ground levels between Pidgeon’s Lane with the lane being lower than that of the ground levels of the field, and more specifically the site upon which the building is proposed thereby adding to its prominence.

The applicant has explained that if the building was located further to the south the visual impact on Norwyn House would be greater and sit more proudly on the ground. Further that if it was closer to the north then this would impact upon Hornbeam House and that if further to east then it would be further away from the access. From a planning perspective a position closer to a field boundary, as is common practice with agricultural and stable buildings, is preferred in order to reduce prominence. The prominence can be further reduce through a smaller scale of building. Given the

19/2799/FUL page 70

distances to neighbouring properties, and single-storey nature of a building, it is likely that this can be achieved without harming amenity of neighbouring occupiers, for example through its re-positioning further to the east nearer the access.

Were the position, size and scale of the building all justified then this would help to justify some visual impact from the development. Whilst it should be noted that the applicant is not against re-positioning of the building, as the need for the building has not been justified, there is no reason to justify the location of the building proposed which would clearly have a visual impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. Therefore as the building is not justified, the visual impact is not justified. Given the size and location of the building, it will result in a harmful visual impact on the countryside.

As noted under the previous planning application in 2018 by the applicant for a dwelling (in a similar location on the site), visual harm and would be clearly visible in the public realm from Pidgeon's Lane and the bridleway linking with this with the A35.

Access and highway issues

Under the previous planning application concern was raised with regards to the feasibility for vehicular turning given the restricted width of the lane.

However, there is no reason why suitable turning for agricultural vehicles could not take place within the field parcel. Presumably these would be agricultural machines and so hardstanding would not be a necessity.

Other matters

It has been suggested by the Ward Member that a condition be imposed to restrict the building to purely an agricultural use. Should planning permission be granted, a condition restricting the use to that being applied for could be added, although as identified above, it is not considered that the size of the field justifies a building for agricultural use.

The comments of the tree officer are noted, however, the distance to this tree would appear reasonable and unlikely to affect its health of longevity.

Parallels of this planning application have been drawn with planning consent granted for a lambing shed/stable at New House, Wambrook under planning reference 19/2443/FUL. However, in that instance that parcel of land was part of a larger agricultural holding which dealt with approximately 900 lambs at peak times. Further, the siting of that building was justified as being suitable close to the main house for supervision of livestock. The two proposals are not therefore comparable.

Third parties have raised concerns regarding this proposal being a step towards a proposed dwelling on the land given the applicant’s recent application for a dwelling on the site was refused. Whilst this application needs to be judged on its merits and is not for a residential use, the granting of a building of a greater size than required, and in a position that could be harmful to the visual amenity of the area, would be a material

19/2799/FUL page 71

consideration in terms of assessing any visual impact from a future application for a dwelling on the site.

With regard to the potential for the building to be converted in the future to residential use under Permitted Development rights, there are no such rights at present and this could in any case be further prevent through the use of conditions removing any future permitted development rights.

CONCLUSION

The proposal seeks planning consent for the creation of an agricultural and storage building and it is a policy requirement of the local plan that there is a genuine agricultural need for agricultural buildings within the countryside. This is to ensure that the need is justified and to ensure that the countryside is not harmed from the introduction of unjustified building that would have a harmful visual impact.

Although the applicant owns the land, it is very small and is currently rented out to a tenant who has two horses.

Whilst it is recognised that there is some equipment required to tend to the site, it is not considered that the size of the building proposed is required or justified. Whilst a small stable may be justified, given the lack of any agricultural business on the site, the scale of building proposed would appear disproportionate.

In addition, the proposed building is centrally placed within the field parcel and could be seen from public vantage points. As there is a lack of genuine agricultural need for the size and scale of the building proposed there would be unnecessary development to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area and existing undeveloped character of the countryside.

As such the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reasons:

1. The proposed building, due to its size and scale, is considered to result in a prominent building for which there has not been a genuine agricultural or other justified need demonstrated. The resulting building, by virtue of its size and prominence therefore result in the extension of the existing ribbon development along the southeast side of Pidgeons Lane into the open countryside. This would result in visual harm to the open and undeveloped appearance of the site and erosion of its undeveloped and rural character. The proposal therefore conflicts with the requirements of Strategy 7 (development in the Countryside) and policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and D7 (Agricultural Buildings and Development) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan.

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Informative:

19/2799/FUL page 72

In accordance with the aims of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 East Devon District Council works proactively with applicants to resolve all relevant planning concerns; however, in this case the application was deemed acceptable as submitted.

Plans relating to this application:

R10 : site Combined Plans 10.12.19 projections

Block Plan 10.12.19

R1 Proposed Elevation 10.12.19

R2 Proposed Elevation 10.12.19

R3 Proposed Elevation 10.12.19

R4 Proposed Elevation 10.12.19

R5 Proposed Elevation 10.12.19

R6 Proposed Elevation 10.12.19

R7 Proposed Floor Plans 10.12.19

R8 Proposed roof plans 10.12.19

R9 Sections 10.12.19

R11 Proposed Elevation 10.12.19

Location Plan 19.12.19

Site projections Combined Plans 19.12.19

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

19/2799/FUL page 73 Agenda Item 11

Ward Axminster

Reference 19/2762/COU

Applicant Andrew Swann

Location Unit 4 St Georges Chard Street Axminster EX13 5DL

Proposal Change of use of ground floor of building from shop (A1) to micropub (A4)

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 74

Committee Date: 15th July 2020

Axminster Target Date: (Axminster) 19/2762/COU 04.03.2020

Applicant: Andrew Swann

Location: Unit 4 St Georges

Proposal: Change of use of ground floor of building from shop (A1) to micropub (A4)

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before committee as it represents a departure from the Local Plan and is recommended for approval.

More specifically the proposal is for the change of use of a vacant A1 (retail) unit to a non-retail use within the designated Primary Shopping Frontage of Axminster. Policy E10 (Primary Shopping Frontages) of the Local Plan requires such proposals for change of use to be accompanied by evidence of marketing of the premises for a minimum period of 12 months to demonstrate there is no ongoing demand for retail use. The application is not accompanied by such evidence and as such the proposal does not meet the requirements of policy E10. However, given the nature of the proposed use which has the potential to add to the vitality and viability of the town centre and, the existing market conditions (including evidence of a number of other vacant units within the town centre) the principle of the change of use is, in this instance, is considered to be acceptable without the 12 months marketing.

In other regards concerns have been raised in relation to the size and constrained layout of the unit and its ability to function as a micro-pub without adverse effect on amenity and the safety of both customers and members of the public. These concerns are acknowledged and have been fully considered however in relation to noise and odour concerns these could be addressed by means of appropriate planning conditions. In relation to the other issues raised these are covered by separate legislative regimes and as such should not be sought to be controlled by the planning system.

Taking into account all the relevant considerations the proposal is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

19/2762/COU page 75

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Town Council Axminster Town Council supports this application.

Axminster - Cllr Andrew Moulding I recommend that this application is approved

Axminster – Cllr Sarah Jackson As I sit on the Licencing and Enforcement Committee at EDDC I feel unable to comment on this occasions. However, I have received representations for and against this application, both of which raise very valid points. Might I ask therefore that this application be considered by DMC .

Axminster – Cllr Ian Hall Agree with the officers recommendations.

Environmental Health

Latest Comments 27.02.20 –

I have now had an opportunity to discuss this with my colleagues from the Environmental Health commercial team. It appears that the applicant had not previously been in contact with them for advice at the pre-application stage as some new food premises do. My colleagues had the following observations which we do feel need consideration as they are relevant to the potential for this use to impact on the existing community, particularly with regards to safety.

1. The applicant mentions warming sausage rolls, pasties and the like, and even suggests pop up food nights. There are no indications on the plans of any kind of kitchen, temperature controlled food storage or food preparation area. There appears to be a rear store room which has no natural or artificial ventilation and therefore this will be unsuitable as it is. There is no potential for a system to extract to the external air so as it stands this premises appears to be unsuitable for any food other than pre-packaged snacks. From a planning perspective the already suggested condition should be sufficient to cover this, but the applicant may find that further restrictions are required when he registers the food business. He is advised to take advice from the team at an early stage. 2. Pubs and other indoor places where people gather will need at least two exit doors for evacuation safety reasons. In this premises there is only one exit door and if this becomes compromised people will be trapped inside. The fire officer can advise further on this but this is a serious concern to the EHOs. We are not aware of any other pub or licensed premises that does not have a secondary means of escape. 3. The premises is very small and does not appear to have an air-conditioning system. Therefore it is likely that the door would be kept open, particularly on busy warm evenings. This will cause people and noise to spill outside, possibly

19/2762/COU page 76

with drinks. The pavement is very narrow at this point and on a tight bend. Any pedestrians would therefore be forced to walk in the road, even if only 2 or 3 people were outside. Smokers and people vaping will in any case tend to gather outside the door and this could cause problems for people living above. This pub would have no potential for alternative outside spaces within its curtilage. The agent mentioned The Castle which was the cause of many of these problems, however they do have a secure outside courtyard within their ownership where smokers now go, and installed a double door lobby to discourage customers spilling onto the street. This premises does not have these options available. 4. Due to the small size of the premises, particularly once tables and chairs are in place, and the single entry point we are concerned that the premises might not be fully accessible to people with disabilities.

Whilst considering these concerns we have referred back to the NPPF and feel that the following section at least might apply to this situation because of our concerns about public safety, impact on the existing community and inclusivity:

127. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments:

(f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

Previous comments 19.02.20 -

In Axminster, particularly in this area of it, there have been many problems over the years caused by pubs in very close proximity to residential premises, particularly those with little or no outside space and especially those attached to residences. Were the premises to be detached from residential premises and have its own outside space then some of these issues would not be of such concern. However it is our responsibility to protect the existing amenity of local residents as far as we can. Having been out in Axminster late at night many times on out of hours visits over the years I can confirm that it is very quiet and not at all a town where there is a general hub-hub of a night time economy, although of course it would be a good thing if the town was a bit more active in the evenings. Other towns in East Devon are somewhat different, including Seaton, and we are considering here the residential amenity of residents next to and above this particular premises.

1. The applicant should provide details of how the infrastructure of the building will protect people living above from people noise (this, incidentally, became a serious issue in a similar type of change of use in Budleigh some while ago so the request for this information is justified). The buzz of people gathering perhaps in quite large numbers at night in a building is quite different to the noise of occasional customers to a shop during the day. If works are required these should be specified and conditioned; an alternative perhaps would be a condition requiring this assessment and any identified works to be carried out prior to first use of the premises. 2. The lack of outside space is a concern so the applicant should provide details of how they are going to manage the behaviour of people attending the pub,

19/2762/COU page 77

specifically in controlling drinking outside and smokers gathering in groups (they might need a double door/air lock system for example). This would be a concern at licensing stage but the potential need for the double door should be established by the applicant because it would need to be shown on the plans. I am not sure if the building is air- conditioned but without the double door I can see that there is potential for the single door to be left open which could of course lead to noise issues outside. 3. The proposed opening hours are fine in our view. 4. The applicant has advised that they do not intend to play music therefore a condition to this effect will be necessary. A suitable condition is: No amplified or other music shall be played or any game sounds generated in the premises in such a way that they are audible at any location outside the premises or within any nearby premises. Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents from noise. 5. The applicant has also advised that this pub model does not include food other than bought in snacks. As this is a proposed change of use to A4 and in the future a different A4 occupier could establish, I recommend that a condition prohibiting the sale of hot food is justified, particularly because there is no obvious location for an extraction system and flue. A suitable condition is: The premises shall not be used for the preparation or cooking of hot food. Reason: to protect the amenity of local residents from cooking smells.

If the matters in points 1 and 2 could be addressed by the applicant we would have no outstanding concerns.

Incidentally hopefully the applicant has already taken advice from my colleagues in the Licensing team, the Environmental Health commercial team and the Fire Officer, but I am very concerned that there appears to be no means of escape from this premises. If the only external door becomes compromised it appears that there would be no way for people in the premises to leave. This is an issue of concern for a pub more so than a small shop with only a handful of customers at a time during the day. The applicant would be best advised to address this concern before proceeding in my view.

Original comments 13.02.20 –

I have considered the application and have the following comments to make:

The applicant has briefly mentioned noise in their documents but mentions only traffic noise which is not an issue of concern in this location or for this type of use. The issues of concern would be noise associated with this use impacting on local residents. There are residential premises above and close by this site and we are concerned that these residences will be impacted upon by people noise when the micropub is busy. More information would need to be provided about the ability of the infrastructure to contain this noise, as the necessary works to protect these residences might be substanial, the applicant needs to know this at an early stage and we would need to be satisfied before the application is determined if approval is likely. We can also see that there is no outside space and, even if there were, there is potential for noise from people congretating outside to affect residents living close by. This has been a problem before in several pubs in Axminster and the applicant must indicate how this would be avoided and controlled. Smokers would also tend to congregate outside and this might cause smoke to drift into nearby residences which would be considered to

19/2762/COU page 78

be unreasonable, possibly even an impact on health. Hours of use would need to be restricted, for the pub to close no later than 11pm on any night. Finally there would be definite potential for any music noise to affect residents and we would be recommend that amplified music is not allowed. We recommend that in the absence of a report which satisfies us as to how these matters would be addressed, the lack of information regarding how the various noise impacts would be addressed would contribute to reasons for refusal. Should the applicant submit a noise report which incorporates a noise management plan then we will be pleased to consider it.

Conservation CONSULTATION REPLY TO PLANNING EAST TEAM PLANNING APPLICATION AFFECTING LISTED BUILDING AND CONSERVATION AREA

ADDRESS: Unit 4 St Georges, Chard Street Axminster

GRADE: Local List APPLICATION NO: 19/2762/COU

CONSERVATION AREA: Axminster

PROPOSAL: Change of use of ground floor of building from shop (A1) to micropub (A4)

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC CHARACTER/ ARCHITECTURAL MERIT:

The property is located within the Axminster Conservation Area and is identified within the Axminster Conservation Area as being of local interest on the Local List of buildings of architectural or historic interest. The building is three storey, painted stone with multi-paned sash windows at first and second floor. Those to Unit 4 are upvc. The ground floor is divided into two separate retail units, both with modern shopfronts. The building, in conjunction with the adjacent buildings contributes to the streetscene and the wider Axminster Conservation Area.

The George Hotel, listed Grade II is located opposite St Georges.

HOW WILL PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AFFECT HISTORIC CHARACTER OF BUILDING AND ITS SETTING:

This application relates to the change of use of the ground floor of the building from retail use to a micropub. No changes are envisaged for the shopfront or any alterations to the existing layout. However, it is noted in the Planning Statement that some signage is likely to be required to be fixed to the interior of the existing windows.

It is therefore considered that the proposals will not harm the character and appearance of the Local List building itself nor the setting of The George Hotel, listed Grade II, or the wider Axminster Conservation Area.

PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATION - PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE in terms of heritage issues

19/2762/COU page 79

Other Representations One letter of support and one letter of objection have been received.

The letter in support wants the premises open as soon as possible, points to an identical proposal approved in Seaton and that Environmental Health powers can be used to ensure no nuisance.

The letter of objection raises concerns regarding the impact on nearby neighbours, danger of people congregating on this busy road corner forcing pedestrians into the road and lack of servicing facilities.

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries)

Strategy 20 (Development at Axminster)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

Strategy 32 (Resisting Loss of Employment, Retail and Community Sites and Buildings)

EN10 (Conservation Areas)

EN14 (Control of Pollution)

E9 (Town Centre Vitality and Shopping Areas)

E10 (Primary Shopping Frontages)

Government Planning Documents National Planning Practice Guidance NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

Site Location and Description

Unit 4 St. Georges relates to a small ground floor unit forming one side of the ground floor of a three storey building. The unit is set to the right hand (east) side of the building and has a glazed shop frontage.

The site lies within the designated Built-up area boundary of the town, the defined Town Centre Area and Area of Primary Shopping Frontage and is within the town’s conservation area.

Proposal

The application seeks planning permission for a change of use from an A1 retail unit to a micro-pub. There are no external alterations proposed to the building.

19/2762/COU page 80

ANALYSIS

The principle issues in the determination of the application are considered to be

• The principle of the change of use, having regard to the loss of the retail use • Amenity/Environmental Health Impacts • Economic benefits

Principle

The application site lies within the built-up area boundary of the town where the principle of development is acceptable under Strategy 6 of the East Devon Local Plan (EDLP) and subject to a number of listed criteria being met. In addition, Strategy 20 seeks to give priority to the enhancement and promotion of business opportunities within the town centre

The proposal lies within the town centre area and area defined as primary shopping frontage. Whist policy E9 of the EDLP permits proposals for both retail and non-retail uses ‘which would add variety and increase activity’ within such areas, policy E10 relating to Primary Shopping Frontages is more restrictive. That policy seeks to retain retail uses but does allow alternative uses where these would not undermine the retail function, character, vitality and viability of the area. In addition, it states that permission for change of use will not be permitted unless it has been demonstrated that there is no longer a need for such uses and that the building has been marketed for at least 12 months (and up to two years) at a realistic price without interest. Where this can be demonstrated it will also be necessary for the development to be acceptable in terms of amenity impacts.

At present the unit is one of several vacant units within the town centre where Axminster, no different to many other small market towns and indeed larger town centres, that was facing challenges to its traditional retail function even before the Covid19 lock-down. It is evident that such centres need to be able to adapt and change in order to remain relevant and to be able to compete with both larger retail centres and online platforms. Alternative uses that bring footfall to the town centre and add to their vitality and viability can play an important role in this respect. The proposed use is of a type that could, if successful, add to the vitality of the town centre by bringing an active use designed to attract customers and increase footfall in the vicinity, although potentially more so in the evening than during the day. The ability to bring the unit back into an active use therefore weighs strongly in its favour, particularly given the relatively high number of vacant retail uses that currently exist within the town centre shopping area and primary shopping frontage.

However, such support needs to be balanced against the policy requirements which seek to retain the retail function of the defined primary shopping frontages whilst allowing for a wider variety of uses within the wider town centre area. The preamble to policy E10 advises that grouping of non-retail uses within prime town centre locations can result in such areas becoming less attractive and convenient to shoppers, this could then lead to a spiral of further decline. In this instance, the proposed use could increase interest, particularly in the evening (although it is noted that the applicant intends to open all day), but its ability to increase or maintain footfall

19/2762/COU page 81

during the day and to support the retail function of the town centre is considered to be more limited. Nevertheless, finding an active use for the site would bring more benefits than leaving the unit vacant and where evidence suggests there is limited demand.

Marketing details, submitted with the application consist solely of a copy of the marketing particulars, which indicate an asking rent which is broadly comparable with other vacant units in the town. The planning agent has confirmed that marketing has only taken place since September 2019 with the marketing methods including online advertising on the estate agents website, as well as details displayed in the estate agent’s window. They further advise that other than in relation to the application scheme there has been no interest/offers for the use of the building.

The Council has produced Marketing Strategy Statement Guidance which seeks to provide further advice on the level of information expected in relation to proposals which would result in the loss of commercial (including employment and retail uses) or community facilities. It has been produced in an attempt to ensure that the process of marketing is appropriate and rigorous enough to ensure any potential for continued commercial/community use has been fully explored. The information submitted with the application fails to demonstrate that the site has been appropriately marketed, in line with this guidance for the minimum 12 month period specified by policy E10.

In terms of principle, there are arguments that can be made for and against the proposal. However, on balance, and despite the limited period of marketing that has taken place the re-use of this small unit within the primary shopping frontage for a town centre use, in this instance it is considered to be preferable to bring the building back into use than to refuse planning permission and to potentially allow the building to remain vacant for a longer period. A similar decision was made in relation to a micro- brewery in Seaton which has since been operational and added to footfall within the town centre.

Amenity/Environmental Health Impacts

The proposed use has the potential to give rise to amenity impacts primarily from noise and activity associated, as well as odours related to the preparation or cooking of hot food. Policy EN14 of the EDLP seeks to control pollution including noise impacts and similarly polices E9 and E10 require consideration to be given to amenity impacts of development. In this instance the Environmental Health Team of the Council have also raised specific concerns relating to the size and layout of the unit and the ability for it to safely operate.

Micro-pub uses differ from traditional pubs and do not generally feature amplified music on site or other forms of electronic entertainment which can give rise to harmful noise impacts. Similarly the size of the venue would not be capable of accommodating large numbers and this would therefore act to limit noise associated with the use. In this instance the width of the pavement and proximity to the road would also negate the ability to have outdoor seating forward of the unit and there is no other outdoor space associated with it.

The concerns of the Environmental Health team in relation to the potential for customers to spill out onto the pavement is noted but this lies outside of the application

19/2762/COU page 82

site and areas for consumption of alcohol would be controlled by the licencing application process. Despite the relatively low key nature of the use and lack of amplified music there is the potential for conversation and background noise to cause disturbance to any residents above or adjacent to the site. The agent has advised that that there is a solid concrete ceiling so it is unlikely that general conversation will be heard above proposed micropub. However, In order to protect against such impact a condition could be imposed requiring noise testing to be carried out after the use has commenced with any mitigation measures found to be necessary to be agreed and carried out. Noise associated with customers leaving the premises at night is not considered likely to be a significant issue and it is in the management’s best interests to seek to minimise this. Furthermore, it is noted that there is a much larger hotel/public house immediately opposite the site and as such there is likely to be a level of noise associated with its use.

In relation to odour impacts the agent has advised that no cooking on the premises is proposed but that warming up of pre-prepared/pre-packaged food is intended, the likes of pasties and sausage rolls which might be warmed up or kept warm on a warmer but that no food preparation or cooking is intended. The Environmental Health team has concerns that despite the ‘low level’ food use proposed that the nature of the unit with no food preparation or extraction systems indicated and little ability to provide a system to extract to external air there is the potential for harm to arise through food odours. As a result they have suggested that a condition is imposed preventing the preparation or cooking of hot food. The applicant has indicated they consider such a condition to be onerous and unnecessary given what they intend to provide and have cited a number of other micro-pubs which they suggest are not so restricted, including The Hat in Seaton. In relation to this premises it formerly operated as a butchers shop and has a rear access and therefore the ability to provide any necessary extraction. The circumstances of the other sites referred to are unclear but the unit in question has only one entrance/exit and this restricts ventilation options. In addition, any permission granted would relate to an A4 use and where a different operator may intend to offer a different or wider food offering, it is therefore necessary to ensure potential for future impacts are appropriately controlled and a condition is therefore considered to be necessary to prevent the preparation or cooking of hot food. Should the applicant be able to find a solution to the preparation and cooking of hot food that complied with Environmental Health requirements, the applicant could apply to remove the condition.

In relation to the other concerns raised by the Environmental Health team, the issue of access is addressed under the Building Regulations and in this regard it is advised that there is no reason why the relevant requirements could not be met. Indeed for the purposes of the Building Regulations the proposal would not constitute a change of use. The potential for customers to block the pavement by congregating outside the unit are noted but this lies outside the site area and is public highway over which no control can be exerted through the application and over which permission would be required from others (Licensing and Devon County as the Highway Authority) to allow its use for drinking. The applicant will be required to obtain a licence for the sale of alcohol and this can place restrictions on areas of use for example restricting consumption of alcohol to within the premises.

Economic benefits

19/2762/COU page 83

The proposal would bring a vacant commercial unit back into use and some economic benefits would derive from this, there is also the potential that the use could provide knock-on benefits to other businesses in the town centre. On the other hand, the proposal would also result in the loss of a retail use from the defined primary shopping frontage and where the marketing evidence falls short of that expected to ensure that a reasonable attempt at securing an ongoing retail use has been undertaken. In this instance given that an active town centre use would be retained and there are a number of other vacant units in the town centre /primary shopping frontage the benefits are considered to outweigh any potential harm.

CONCLUSION

The proposal would bring a vacant commercial unit within the town centre back into active use. Whilst the proposed use is not a retail use it is of a nature that has the potential to add to the vitality and viability of the town centre.

Against the background of wider changes in the retail market and its declining role in the town centre it is considered that alternative uses likely to retain activity in the town centre will have benefit in supporting its overall function. As such, whilst the required 12 months of marketing has not taken place to justify that there is no A1 retail interest in the unit, the benefits of the proposal and presence of other vacant retail units in the town centre as considered to outweigh the need for marketing in this instance.

The size and nature of the proposed use is considered unlikely to result in any significant amenity impacts, however there is some potential for noise/odour impacts to affect residential amenity and conditions are proposed to manage these impacts.

Subject to the imposition of the suggested conditions the proposal is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission and shall be carried out as approved. (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 permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

3. The premises shall not be open to the public other than between the hours of: 11.00 hours and 23.30 hours, Mondays - Sundays (Reason - In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and EN14 - Control of Pollution of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031.)

19/2762/COU page 84

4. No amplified or other music shall be played or any game sounds generated in the premises in such a way that they are audible at any location outside the premises or within any nearby premises. (Reason - To protect the amenity of local residents from noise in accordance with policies E9 (Town Centre Vitality and Shopping Areas), E10 Primary Shopping Frontages) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

5. Within one month of the initial use of the premises, for the purpose hereby permitted, noise testing shall be carried out within the first floor unit above the site to determine whether noise related to the permitted use is within acceptable tolerances and as a minimum meets the requirements of Approved Document E of the Building Regulations.

Where testing indicates mitigation measures are required to meet the stated requirements a scheme to provide for the reduction in the transmission of noise between the commercial premises and the first floor of the building shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for agreement within a further month of the date of the testing.

Any mitigation scheme agreed shall be fully implemented within two months of the date of written agreement by the Local Planning Authority and maintained thereafter.

(Reason -To protect the amenity of existing adjoining occupiers of the site in accordance with policies E9 (Town Centre Vitality and Shopping Areas), E10 Primary Shopping Frontages) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

6. The premises shall not be used for the preparation or cooking of hot food. (Reason - To protect the amenity of local residents from cooking smells in accordance with policies E9 (Town Centre Vitality and Shopping Areas), E10 Primary Shopping Frontages) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Informative: In accordance with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 in determining this application, East Devon District Council has worked positively with the applicant to ensure that all relevant planning concerns have been appropriately resolved.

Plans relating to this application:

R1.0: Ground Combined Plans 16.12.19 floor

Location Plan 16.12.19

19/2762/COU page 85

Block Plan 16.12.19

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

19/2762/COU page 86 Agenda Item 12

Ward Exmouth Town

Reference 20/0011/VAR

Applicant Mr David Hancock (Environment Agency)

Location Royal Avenue Car Park Camperdown Terrace And The Esplanade Exmouth

Proposal Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission 18/2174/MOUT (Exmouth Tidal Defence Scheme) to allow changes to design, layout and materials of defences

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to the Committee Report be adopted; and, 2. That the application be APPROVED with conditions.

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 87

Committee Date: 15th July 2020

Exmouth Town Target Date: (Exmouth) 20/0011/VAR 14.04.2020

Applicant: Mr David Hancock (Environment Agency)

Location: Royal Avenue Car Park Camperdown Terrace And The Esplanade

Proposal: Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission 18/2174/MOUT (Exmouth Tidal Defence Scheme) to allow changes to design, layout and materials of defences

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to the Committee Report be adopted; and, 2. That the application be APPROVED with conditions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before Members because some of the land subject of this application is owned by East Devon District Council and an objection from a third party has been received.

The site lies within the built up area boundary of Exmouth and concerns the majority of the coastal fringe from just north of the boatyard at the northern end of Imperial Road Car Park around to the Premier Inn on the Esplanade.

There are 10 changes proposed to the previously consented Hybrid application that require consideration. The foremost noticeable change to the scheme as a result of this application would be the replacement of the sea wall in Area A with an embankment for a length of 40 metres, however, given that the area is a recreational area with a grassed appearance, the replacement of the approved wall with an embankment would be seen as a benefit to the overall character and appearance of the area. The Environment Agency raised no objections to this proposed amendment on flooding grounds.

Secondary in terms of impact would be the removal of the approved embankment near the boatyard in Area B to be replaced with a wall, however, as this would range from one block in height to a maximum of three blocks, the impact on the character and appearance of the area is considered to be minimal, furthermore, cladding the blocks in limestone to match the appearance of the sea wall would help to assimilate the wall into its surroundings.

20/0011/VAR page 88

The remainder of the changes are considered minor in their nature in terms of impacting upon the character and appearance of the locality in which they sit being predominantly minor design or layout changes. As such these other changes are also considered to be acceptable.

The integrity of the scheme is considered to be upheld and the protection of residents from flooding is maintained and therefore the proposed changes are considered acceptable and the application is recommended for approval with conditions.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council Meeting 03.02.20

No objection, subject to concerns raised by the resident of Camperdown Terrace were considered.

Technical Consultations

Devon County Highway Authority The variation from approved planning application 18/2174/MOUT will not adversely effect the users of the County highway network and therefore the County highway Authority has no objection to this planning application.

THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Natural England Our ref: 306503 Your ref: 20/0011/VAR

Thank you for your consultation.

Natural England currently has no comment to make on the variation of condition 2.

Natural England has not assessed this application for impacts on protected species. Natural England has published Standing Advice which you can use to assess impacts on protected species or you may wish to consult your own ecology services for advice.

Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment then, in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England should be consulted again. Before sending us any further consultations regarding this development, please assess whether the changes proposed will materially affect any of the advice we have previously offered. If they are unlikely to do so, please do not re-consult us.

Further comments 22.06.20:

20/0011/VAR page 89

Thank you for your email of 3 June 2020 consulting Natural England on the Appropriate Assessment (AA) for the above development, in accordance with Paragraph 63 (3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

We concur with the conclusion that with the mitigation measures proposed, and these being secured, there will no no adverse effect on the integrity of the European sites.

However, from the information contained in the variation of condition application and the AA, we are unclear how these measures will be secured e.g. through planning condition. If this AA has been based on revised documentation such as a CEMP or a shadow HRA from the applicants, these documents will need to be referenced in the decision notice so that the mitigation measures are enforceable.

Environment Agency We have no objection to the proposed variation of condition 2 (Approved Plans) on application 18/2174/MOUT.

Environmental Health I have considered the application and do not anticipate any new environmental health concerns that have not already been accommodated by the applicant.

Contaminated Land Officer I have considered the variation application and do not anticipate any potentially contaminated land concerns which have not already been considered by the applicant.

Conservation CONSULTATION REPLY TO PLANNING WEST TEAM PLANNING APPLICATION AFFECTING LISTED BUILDING AND CONSERVATION AREA

ADDRESS: Royal Avenue Car Park, Camperdown Terrace and The Esplanade, Exmouth

GRADE: II APPLICATION NO: 20/0011/VAR

CONSERVATION AREA: Exmouth

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission 18/2174/MOUT (Exmouth Tidal Defence Scheme) to allow changes to design, layout and materials of defences

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC CHARACTER/ ARCHITECTURAL MERIT:

See listing descriptions and information on file

HOW WILL PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AFFECT HISTORIC CHARACTER OF BUILDING AND ITS SETTING:

The flood defence works for Exmouth which have been developed in discussion with Historic England were approved under 18/2174/MOUT. This application seeks to amend

20/0011/VAR page 90 the approved application in relation to Areas A, B & C (Area A, Estuary Side, Area B, Camperdown Terrace and Area C which includes the seafront Esplanade from Mamhead slipway in the west, past Alexandra Terrace junction and the Clock Tower to Premier Inn and the Octagon in the east).

The proposed changes where they may impact on heritage assets within Area C are all relatively minor and it is considered that they will have no further impact on the heritage assets than the approved scheme. No objections.

PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATION - PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE

Historic England Thank you for your letter of 20 January 2020 regarding the above application for planning permission. On the basis of the information available to date, we do not wish to offer any comments. We suggest that you seek the views of your specialist conservation and archaeological advisers, as relevant.

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

DCC Flood Risk Management Team We have no in-principle objections to the above planning application, from a surface water drainage perspective, at this stage.

Observations:

The proposals appear to have negligible impact on surface water.

Other Representations One representation has been received raising the following concerns

1 : The footpath needs to be wide enough for wheelchairs, mobility scooters and wheelbarrows etc. Accordingly, the ramp should not be too steep.

2 : There should be a drop kerb at the Camperdown Terrace end. (this pavement does not have a drop kerb anywhere along its entire length)

3 : The plans do not show a gate across the entrance to the alley behind nos 8 - 18 .. despite verbal agreement. When the slipway gate is in use there will be a powerful surge of water along the alleyway, even on normal spring tides.

4 : How will the gate be operated? Who cleans away the sand and seaweed when it is not being washed by rainwater coming down from the road and which could impede closing the gate.?

In addition how is the area to be finished on the SEAWARD side of the piles across the FORMER sea cadet slipway? Currently it has a deposit of scalpings and earth and no gabions or finishing wall to retain them. Work has stopped and it is an unsatisfactory state to leave it in.

20/0011/VAR page 91

PLANNING HISTORY

18/2174/MOUT - Hybrid application for Exmouth Tidal Defence Scheme to include full permission for a tidal defence scheme comprising flood walls, embankments and gates and outline permission for proposed road alignments and flood defence gate(s)/ wall(s) at Alexandra Terrace Junction with the Esplanade and in front of Moreton Crescent, with application accompanied by an Environmental Statement (all matters reserved) - Approved

18/2175/LBC - Proposed strengthening works, insertion of drainage holes, installation of square plates and works associated with installation of flood gates and posts to Exmouth Sea Wall - Approved

19/0542/MRES - Reserved matters application pursuant to application 18/2174/MOUT seeking access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for construction of a new flood wall (on line of existing wall) and pedestrian flood gates - Approved

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

Strategy 22 (Development at Exmouth)

EN21 (River and Coastal Flooding)

D2 (Landscape Requirements)

D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

EN14 (Control of Pollution)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

National Planning Practice Guidance

Other Plans Exmouth Neighbourhood Plan (Made)

Site Location and Description

The site lies within the built up area boundary of Exmouth and concerns the majority of the coastal fringe from just north of the boatyard at the northern end of Imperial Road Car Park around to the Premier Inn on the Esplanade

Proposed Development

20/0011/VAR page 92

This application seeks planning permission for the variation of condition 2 of planning application 18/2174/MOUT to facilitate some changes in the design, layout and materials of the proposed sea wall. Full planning permission is sought and the changes can be split into 10 distinct areas as follows:

1. The approved defence Area B close to the Boatyard involved a localised raising of the land to form an embankment, following a review of the detailed design it transpires that there is insufficient space to accommodate an embankment especially if it is required to be raised further in the future and would prove unsafe to walk on. It is instead proposed to provide a redi-rock wall which will vary in height from three blocks by the car park to one block after chainage 168. The blocks would be clad in limestone of a similar colour to the flood wall.

2. The approved layout of the sea wall in Area A included a number of awkward angles that are difficult to construct, it is instead proposed to 'smooth' these angles and create a more visually pleasing design that would also be easier to construct.

3. The sea wall in Area A has been found to have been approved close to underground services operated by South West Water and the foundation would be likely to impact on their infrastructure, to enable the wall to be built further from the outfall near the Estuary View Car Park the wall needs to be moved 0.5 metres seawards

4. The pre-cast wall in Area A that extended onto the Imperial Recreational Ground is proposed to be reduced by 40 metres in length and be replaced by an earth bund for ease of construction and to reduce costs, the defence would remain marked by kerb stones

5. The headwall is failing and requires to be repaired by the Environment Agency whilst construction works are progressing, localised repairs where there is structural failure and below ground toe-strengthening with the confines of the existing structure that were not envisaged in the application are required

6. The sheet pile wall in Area B was proposed to terminate adjacent to the Sea Cadets building, it is proposed to reduce the length of the wall by 11 metres to tie into floodgate 1, floodgate 1 would be relocated further down the alleyway between properties towards the estuary and the stone slipway would be re-finished in tarmac to prevent material migration into drainage and reduced risk of settlement landward of the gate.

7. Floodgate 2 in Area B is proposed to be re-aligned to the backline of the adjacent property which would have less impact on resident access and reduce flood loading on the property.

8. Floodgate 5 in Area C is required to be amended due to the recent approval and implementation of planning permission 19/1028/FUL at The Grove Public House to the western side of the alleyway. The flood gate will be re-located to the other side of a boundary wall.

9. Devon County Council has requested that the road table raising around the sliding floodgate 5 be increased in size to enable pedestrians to be able to cross the road in a safer manner.

20/0011/VAR page 93

10. Floodgate 7 in Area C is proposed to be replaced with a wall, in consultation with the landowner it was agreed that the outhouse in the Grove Public House Garden would be bricked up instead of installing a floodgate which would reduce operation and maintenance costs.

ANALYSIS

The applicant originally considered that the 10 changes proposed could be dealt with as a minor amendment. Whilst it is considered that some of the elements are acceptable under that legislation (points 5,7,8, 9 and 10 above), some of the changes are integral to the scheme and require input from consultees which the minor amendment legislation does not allow for. Furthermore, cumulatively the changes are considered to represent more than a minor change to the whole development and as such a further planning application is required.

The main considerations in the determination of this application relate solely to the full element of the hybrid application (18/2174/MOUT) and the impact that the proposed changes would have on the integrity of the scheme, the impact on the character and appearance of the area, impact on flooding and impact on highway safety

Impact on the integrity of the scheme

A number of the proposed changes are justified by the applicant by the fact that they would be more cost effective or reduce costs. The recent revisions to the NPPF (Paragraph 130) have given Local Planning Authorities more powers in refusing applications that significantly dilute the scheme after an initial planning permission has been secured. In this instance whilst the majority of the changes are minor in nature, in combination it needs to be determined whether or not they would significantly dilute what was previously approved.

On balance however, and given the materials being chosen to link in with already approved materials and the alignment of the wall smoothed to create enhanced public realm, it is considered that the proposed amendments are acceptable and do not dilute the already approved scheme maintaining the flood defence benefits of the original proposal.

Impact on the character an appearance of the area

The foremost noticeable change to the scheme as a result of this application would be the replacement of the sea wall in Area A with an embankment for a length of 40 metres, however, given that the area is a recreational area with a grassed appearance, the replacement of the approved wall with an embankment would be seen as a benefit to the overall character and appearance of the area. The Environment Agency raised no objections to this proposed amendment on flooding grounds.

Secondary in terms of impact would be the removal of the approved embankment near the boatyard in Area B to be replaced with a wall, however, as this would range from one block in height to a maximum of three blocks, the impact on the character and appearance of the area is considered to be minimal. Furthermore, cladding the blocks in limestone to match the appearance of the sea wall would help to assimilate the wall into its surroundings.

20/0011/VAR page 94

The remainder of the changes are considered minor in their nature in terms of any impact upon the character and appearance of the locality in which they sit being predominantly minor design or layout changes to positions of gates, walls and road crossing levels.

Accordingly, the proposed amendments to the design, layout and materials are considered acceptable in relation to Policy D1 of the EDDC Local Plan not impacting unreasonably on their surroundings.

Impact on flooding

One of main the concerns with the various amendments proposed relates to whether the scheme would still perform the function it was designed for i.e. protect the residents of Exmouth from tidal flooding.

However, the Environment Agency are behind the proposal with the aim of protecting Exmouth and its residents and on consulting their specialist flood risk team, DCC Flood Risk and the Council’s Engineers, they have all raised no objections to the proposed amendments and the proposal.

It is therefore considered acceptable in relation to Policy EN21 of the EDDC Local Plan.

Impact on highway safety

The majority of the sea wall does not impact on the public highway, however, in Area C there would be a number of sliding and folding gates that cross a highway or pedestrian access. Through detailed design work, and submission of the Section 278 Agreement (works on/to the public highway), the area around the Grove Public House where sliding floodgate 5 would be located is proposed to be amended by increasing the size of the road table top, re-alignment of the floodgate and replacement of gate 7 with a wall. These changes are considered to be appropriate to enable pedestrian safety to be maintained and the free flow of traffic. Devon County Highways have suggested the changes and consider the amendments to be acceptable in relation to Policy TC7 of the EDDC Local Plan.

Third party comments

Whilst the comments of the occupant of Camperdown Terrace are noted, the scheme has been designed with the prevention of flooding of residents foremost in its agenda.

Footpath are wide enough to protect user’s safety whilst providing access for all

There is no requirement for the proposal to provide a dropped kerb to Camperdown Terrace. This is not required as a result of the flood prevention measures.

The plans do not show a gate to the alley behind number 8-18 Camperdown Terrace as one is not considered to be required by the Environment Agency as a flood defence gate is not required in this location and as the alley is already un-gated. These comments have however been forwarded to the Environment for consideration and it is understood that they have verbally agreed to provision of a gate in this location and for which planning permission would not be required.

20/0011/VAR page 95

The operation of the flood gates will be a matter between the Environment Agency and the residents with flood alerts issued by the Environment Agency when the gates need closing.

Whilst the works to the piles across the former sea cadet slipway have not been completed, the sheet piled wall is proposed to be finished with timber cladding.

Impact on sites of special protection and appropriate assessment

A Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) was submitted as part of the original application which outlines how development in each area could impact on the overwintering bird species. Because of the SPA and Ramsar designations the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 must be applied in the determination of this application. Regulation 61 requires East Devon District Council, as the competent authority, to undertake an Appropriate Impact Assessment (AIA) of the implications of this proposal on the site's conservation objectives before granting permission for a proposal which is likely to have a significant effect upon a European site.

East Devon District Council has therefore assessed the impact from this amended development upon the Exe Estuary. Given that the changes proposed through this application do not directly affect the estuary and habitats, the same conclusion can be drawn on this application as with the previous proposal.

A revised Appropriate Assessment has been prepared and is attached to this report but the findings can be summarised as follows:

Revetment repairs in Area A1 are relatively small scale and localised and can be carried out by a small workforce using wheelbarows which could have an impact on the sea grass beds, however, given the limited distance repairs are required over it is considered that these grasses could be avoided and therefore there would be no impact.

More significant works are required in Area A2 as the lower half of the revetment requires repair, it is likely that machinery would be required which would damage the sea grasses. The Environmental Statement on the original submission concludes that any damaged grasses would grow back within 3 years, furthermore, to limit the impact the works could be undertaken early in the growing season or by placing bog mats over the grasses to limit damage by vehicles. The applicants agree that the lifting and placement of bog mats to protect seagrass could result in ground disturbance affecting the rhizomes of the seagrass if it is present within the works area. They are therefore seeking to undertake the majority of these works from the land, reducing the amount of time that the bog mats will be required (if at all) and avoiding the need for lifting and replacing. This will be detailed in the EAP and the method statements once the detailed design is finalised at this location. Given the measures that could be put in place to limit the impact and the relatively short period of time for regrowth it is considered that there would be no impact.

Piling of the sheet pile wall in Area B would need to take place outside of the overwintering period to avoid noise and vibration disturbance.

Construction of two rock groynes in Area C would result in disturbance to gravels from construction machinery on the shore line, this does not support habitat features for the

20/0011/VAR page 96

SPA, however it is important to note that the re-instatement of the groynes may have an impact on the geomorphology and dune systems in the Dawlish Warren SAC. A report was commissioned by the applicants into how the groynes may impact the Dawlish Warren SAC, it concludes the following:

'The review has highlighted the significant links between the behaviour of the wider area and that of the local study area. In particular the frontage is critically influenced by the change in the distal end of Dawlish Warren. Given the developing management strategy for Dawlish Warren, it might be expected that significant change will continue to the distal end. As sediment is added to the Warren, this may encourage the distal end to grow forward, further towards the east, and, in this case, some of the existing pressures on the study frontage might in time reduce. However, should the additional sediment merely extend the present alignment of the distal end, then flows pressure principally during the flood over the upper tide but potentially at the sub-tidal level may increase. This linkage and the behaviour of the distal end, the channel and the response of the Exmouth frontage will require monitoring'.

As such it is considered that the re-instatement of the groynes are not likely to have a significant impact on the tidal processes affecting Dawlish Warren, however, with all modelling there is a risk that unforeseen circumstances could occur and it is recommended that regular monitoring of the tidal processes at Dawlish Warren are undertaken and could be conditioned as part of this application.

It is considered on the basis of the information available that the amended proposed Exmouth TDS will have no adverse effect on the integrity of the Exe Estuary SPA, Dawlish Warren SAC and Ramsar sites alone, or in-combination with other plans or projects. This conclusion and the attached Appropriate Assessment have been agreed with Natural England.

CONCLUSION

A number of changes are proposed to the flood defence scheme, the majority of which are fairly minor in terms of the re-location of gates, provision of walls in place of gates, a raised table-top road, and replacement headwall.

Although the remainder of the changes are more significant in terms of amending the design and route of the flood defence works, overall it is considered that the amendments to the proposed scheme would have a positive benefit.

Whilst this scheme would provide cost savings over the already approved scheme, these would not be to the detriment of the scheme which would maintain the resilience from flooding whilst not detrimentally impacting upon the character and appearance of the area or amenity of nearby residents.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to the Committee Report be adopted; and, 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

Full element of the scheme

20/0011/VAR page 97

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the 17th January 2022 and shall be carried out as approved. (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 permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

3. The development shall not proceed other than in strict accordance with the Exmouth Tidal Defence Scheme Flood Risk Assessment (Revision 01/Final dated 19 September 2018) prepared by Team Van Oord). (Reason -To ensure the development complies with the guidance as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework).

4. Development shall proceed in accordance with the following drawing numbers received on 20the December 2019:

TV-XX-CC-DR-C 8895 Rev C1 TV-XX-CC-DR-C 8896 Rev C1 TV-XX-CC-DR-C 8897 Rev C1

Which identify the location and detailed design of the drainage scuppers and associated baffles. (Reason - To ensure that the location and number of scuppers and baffles are appropriate to provide sufficient drainage of the area whilst respecting the historic integrity if the listed sea wall in accordance with Policy EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) of the East Devon Local Plan and guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework)

5. Development shall proceed in accordance with the Environment Action Plan ref no. 060319 IMSW002047-TVO-XX-MM-RP-Z3051-EAP received on 13th March 2019. Construction working hours shall be 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. There shall be no burning on site. There shall be no high frequency audible reversing alarms used on the site. (Reason - To ameliorate and mitigate against the impact of the development on the local community in accordance with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan.

6. Development of the floodgates that cross any highway or pedestrian access points in Area C shall proceed in accordance with the following drawing numbers received on 18th November 2019:

FC 17036-PLN-01-REV00 PAGE 1 FC 17036-PLN-01-REV00 PAGE 3 FC 17036-LHG-FB05 REV A PAGE 1 FC 17036-LHG-FB05 REV A PAGE 2 FC 17036-LHG-FB06 REV A PAGE 1 FC 17036-LHG-FB06 REV A PAGE 2

20/0011/VAR page 98

FC 17036-LHG-FB08 REV A FC 17036-LHG-FB09 REV A FC 17036-LHG-FB16 REV A FC 17036-LHG-FB25 REV A PAGE 1 FC 17036-LHG-FB25 REV A PAGE 2

And in accordance with the following drawing numbers received on 27th January 2020:

TV-XX-CC-DR-8970 REV P4 TV-XX-CC-DR-8971 REV P4 TV-XX-CC-DR-8972 REV P4 TV-XX-CC-DR-8973 REV P4

(Reason - To ensure that the design of the proposed flood gates are acceptable in their setting in accordance with Policy EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) and EN10 (Conservation Areas) of the East Devon Local Plan and advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework).

7. Development of the flood wall in Area A shall proceed in accordance with Reckli type 2/31 – ILLER sample panel viewed in situ on site on 6th March 2019 and photographs of the sample panel (C) received on 12th April 2019. (Reason - To ensure that the materials to be used in the construction of the wall and its intended finish are appropriate to its estuary side setting in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan).

8. Prior to their installation details of the size and species of replacement trees together with the design of the planting pits and what soil volumes are proposed, and how this will be incorporated into the design proposals of the specimen replacement trees in Area A shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; The tree planting shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To ensure that the details are planned and considered at an early stage in the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D2 - Landscape Requirements of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

9. Development of the flood wall in Area B shall proceed in accordance with the sample of EKKI recycled hardwood viewed on 1st July 2019 as per the submitted photograph agreed on 5th July 2019. (Reason - To ensure that the materials to be used to clad the wall and its intended finish are appropriate to its estuary side setting in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan).

20/0011/VAR page 99

10. Development shall proceed in accordance with the following documents received on 13th March 2019:

Construction Phase Plan ref no. TDSCPP 12032019 Environment Risk Assessment ref no. SHEMS-FOR-GR-039 Health and Safety ref no. SHEMS-FOR-GR-085

(Reason - To ensure that the construction of the proposed development would not detrimentally impact on highway safety in accordance with Policy TC7 (Adequacy of Site Access and Local Highway Network) of the East Devon Local Plan)

11. Development shall proceed in accordance with the Tree Protection Statement received on 11th February 2019 reference A256_Exmouth_TDS_Tree_Project_Statement_V1.1_08022019.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Provision shall be made for the supervision of the tree protection by a suitably qualified and experienced arboriculturalist and details shall be included within the AMS.

The developer shall keep a monitoring log to record site visits and inspections along with: the reasons for such visits; the findings of the inspection and any necessary actions; all variations or departures from the approved details and any resultant remedial action or mitigation measures. On completion of the development, the completed site monitoring log shall be signed off by the supervising arboriculturalist and submitted to the Planning Authority for approval and final discharge of the condition. (Reason - To ensure the continued well being of retained trees in the interests of the amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy D3 (Trees and Development Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan).

12. Should any contamination of concern in soil and/or ground or surface water be discovered during excavation of the site or development, the Local Planning Authority should be contacted immediately. Site activities in the area affected shall be temporarily suspended until such time as a method and procedure for addressing the contamination is agreed upon in writing with the Local Planning Authority and/or other regulating bodies. (Reason - To ensure that any contamination existing and exposed during the development is identified and remediated in accordance with Policy EN16 (Contamination) of the East Devon Local Plan).

13. No construction works to the flood gates in Area C shall commence until a high- level operation procedure has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This will need to address the procedure for implementing the defences and evacuating the area of people and property. It would be appropriate for the submission to include details of the operational agreement, the mechanisms of warning, the order of gate closures, evacuation routes and threshold of gates. (Reason - To ensure that the procedure for operating the gates in times of flood are secured in the interests of public safety in accordance with advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework)

20/0011/VAR page 100

14. Development shall proceed in accordance with the mitigation measures contained in Appendix C: Habitats Regulation Assessment of the Environment Statement dated 16th September 2018. In addition, following the 2 year monitoring period of the sea grasses and Dawlish Warren SAC contained in Appendix C, a report detailing the findings of the monitoring and proposing any necessary further mitigation if the predicted impacts have changed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the agreed mitigation and those measures contained in the Habitat Regulations Assessment within the Environmental Statement. (Reason - To provide ecological enhancement and protection in the interests of ecology and biodiversity in accordance with Policy EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.)

The historical planning application is referenced under (18/2174/MOUT) for which the approved plans were as follows:-

Number Type of plan Dated

TVO-XX-MM- Location Plan 20.09.18 DR-C-1000 REV P2 : AREA A (ESTUARYSIDE) + B (CAMPERDOWN TERRACE)

TVO-XX-MM- Location Plan 20.09.18 DR-C-1001 REV P2 : AREA A(CAMPERDOW N)+C (ESPLANADE)

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Sections 20.09.18 C-1040 REV P2 : AREA A SHEET 1 OF 6

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Sections 20.09.18 C-1043 REV P2 : AREA A SHEET 4 OF 6

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Sections 20.09.18 C-1044 REV P2 :

20/0011/VAR page 101

AREA A SHEET 5 OF 6

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Sections 20.09.18 C-1045 REV P2 : AREA A SHEET 6 OF 6

TVO-XX-BB-DR- Sections 20.09.18 C-1050 REV P2 : AREA B SHEET 1 OF 1

TVO-XX-CC-DR- Sections 20.09.18 C-1055 REV P2 : AREA C SHEET 1 OF 3

TVO-XX-CC-DR- Sections 20.09.18 C-1056 REV P2 : AREA C SHEET 2 OF 3

TVO-XX-CC-DR- Sections 20.09.18 C-1057 REV P2 : AREA C SHEET 3 OF 3

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Other Plans 20.09.18 C-1010 REV P2 : AREA A SHEET 1 OF 10 (EXISTING SITE)

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Other Plans 20.09.18 C-1011 REV P2 : AREA A SHEET 2 OF 10 (EXISTING SITE)

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Other Plans 20.09.18 C-1012 REV P2 : AREA A SHEET 3 OF 10 (EXISTING SITE)

TVO-XX-CC-DR- Other Plans 20.09.18 C-1016 REV P2 :

20/0011/VAR page 102

AREA B SHEET 7 OF 10 (EXISTING SITE)

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Other Plans 20.09.18 C-1013 REV P2 : AREA A SHEET 4 OF 10 (EXISTING SITE)

TVO-XX-BB-DR- Other Plans 20.09.18 C-1014 REV P2 : AREA B SHEET 5 OF 10 (EXISTING SITE)

TVO-XX-BB-DR- Other Plans 20.09.18 C-1015 REV P2 : AREA B SHEET 6 OF 10 (EXISTING SITE)

TVO-XX-CC-DR- Other Plans 20.09.18 C-1017 REV P2 : AREA C SHEET 8 OF 10 (EXISTING SITE)

TVO-XX-CC-DR- Other Plans 20.09.18 C-1018 REV P2 : AREA C SHEET 9 OF 10 (EXISTING SITE)

TVO-XX-CC-DR- Other Plans 20.09.18 C-1019 REV P2 : AREA C SHEET 10 OF 10 (EXISTING SITE)

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Other Plans 20.09.18 C-1025 REV P3 : AREA A SHEET 1 OF 10

20/0011/VAR page 103

(PROPOSED SITE)

TVO-XX-MM-VF- Other Plans 20.09.18 L-7112 REV P2 : AREA B SHEET 2 OF 3 (DESIGN VISUALISATION )

TVO-XX-BB-DR- Other Plans 20.09.18 C-1030 REV P3 : AREA B SHEET 6 OF 10 (PROPOSED SITE)

TVO-XX-CC-DR- Other Plans 20.09.18 C-1033 REV P3 : AREA C SHEET 9 OF 10 (PROPOSED SITE)

TVO-XX-CC-DR- Other Plans 20.09.18 C-1034 REV P3 : AREA INSET 10 SHEET 10 OF 10 (PROPOSED SITE)

TVO-XX-MM-VF- Other Plans 20.09.18 L-7111 REV P2 : AREA A SHEET 1 OF 3 (DESIGN VISUALISATION )

TVO-XX-MM-VF- Other Plans 20.09.18 L-7113 REV P2 : AREA C SHEET 3 OF 3 (DESIGN VISUALISATION )

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Sections 20.09.18 C-1060 REV P2: AREA A SHEET 1 OF 6 (PROPOSED)

20/0011/VAR page 104

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Sections 20.09.18 C-1061 REV P2: AREA A SHEET 2 OF 6 (PROPOSED)

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Sections 20.09.18 C-1062 REV P2: AREA A SHEET 3 OF 6 (PROPOSED)

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Sections 20.09.18 C-1063 REV P2: AREA A SHEET 4 OF 6 (PROPOSED)

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Sections 20.09.18 C-1064 REV P2: AREA A SHEET 5 OF 6 (PROPOSED)

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Sections 20.09.18 C-1065 REV P2: AREA A SHEET 6 OF 6 (PROPOSED)

TVO-XX-BB-DR- Sections 20.09.18 C-1066 REV P2: AREA B SHEET 1 OF 1 (PROPOSED)

TVO-XX-CC-DR- Sections 20.09.18 C-1072 REV P2: AREA C SHEET 3 OF 3 (PROPOSED)

TVO-XX-MM- Landscaping 20.09.18 DR-L-7100 REV P2: SHEET 1 OF 9

TVO-XX-MM- Landscaping 20.09.18 DR-L-7101 REV P2: SHEET 2 OF 9

20/0011/VAR page 105

TVO-XX-MM- Landscaping 20.09.18 DR-L-7102 REV P2: SHEET 3 OF 9

TVO-XX-MM- Landscaping 20.09.18 DR-L-7103 REV P2: SHEET 4 OF 9

TVO-XX-MM- Landscaping 20.09.18 DR-L-7104 REV P2: SHEET 5 OF 9

TVO-XX-MM- Landscaping 20.09.18 DR-L-7105 REV P2: SHEET 6 OF 9

TVO-XX-MM- Landscaping 20.09.18 DR-L-7106 REV P2: SHEET 7 OF 9

TVO-XX-MM- Landscaping 20.09.18 DR-L-7107 REV P2: SHEET 8 OF 9

TVO-XX-MM- Landscaping 20.09.18 DR-L-7108 REV P2: SHEET 9 OF 9

TVO-XX-CC-DR- Other Plans 09.11.18 C-1032 Rev P4 Area C insert 8 - 8 of 10

TVO-XX-CC-DR- Other Plans 09.11.18 C-1070 Rev P3 Area C inset 7 - 1 of 3

TVO-XX-CC-DR- Other Plans 09.11.18 C-1071 Rev P3 Area C inset 8 - 2 of 3

20/0011/VAR page 106

This decision notice for the variation should be read in conjunction with these previously approved plans.

Plans relating to this application:

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Other Plans 03.01.20 C-1080 Rev P01: Area A Redi Rock Wall and Embankment Plan

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Proposed Combined 03.01.20 C-1081 Rev P01: Plans Area A Redi Rock Wall and Embankment elevations/sectio ns

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Other Plans 03.01.20 C-8351 Rev C3: Flood Wall Plan Area A sheet 1 of 9

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Other Plans 03.01.20 C-8352 Rev C3: Flood Wall Plan Area A sheet 2 of 9

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Other Plans 03.01.20 C-8353 Rev C3: Flood Wall Plan Area A sheet 3 of 9

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Other Plans 03.01.20 C-8354 Rev C3: Flood Wall Plan Area A sheet 4 of 9

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Other Plans 03.01.20 C-8355 Rev C5: Flood Wall Plan Area A sheet 5 of 9

20/0011/VAR page 107

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Other Plans 03.01.20 C-8357 Rev C3: Flood Wall Plan Area A sheet 7 of 9

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Other Plans 03.01.20 C-8358 Rev C3: Flood Wall Plan Area A sheet 8 of 9

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Other Plans 03.01.20 C-8359 Rev C3: Flood Wall Plan Area A sheet 9 of 9

TVO-XX-BB-DR- Other Plans 03.01.20 C-8600 Rev P4 Area B Flood Gate 01: General Arrangement

TVO-XX-BB-DR- Proposed Combined 03.01.20 C-8640 Rev P1 Plans Area B Flood Gate 02: Plan & Sections

TVO-XX-BB-DR- Other Plans 03.01.20 C-8655 Rev C1 Area B Head Wall Details

TVO-XX-BB-DR- Combined Plans 03.01.20 C-8840 Rev P1.3 Area C Flood Gate 05: Existing and Proposed General Arrangement Plan

TVO-XX-AA-DR- Other Plans 03.01.20 C-8356 rev C3 : flood wall plan area A sheet 6 of 9

Informative:

20/0011/VAR page 108

In accordance with the aims of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 East Devon District Council works proactively with applicants to resolve all relevant planning concerns; however, in this case the application was deemed acceptable as submitted.

Conditions in respect of the OUTLINE element of application no 18/2174/MOUT

1. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters 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. Approval of the details of the layout, scale and external appearance of the buildings and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. (Reason - The application is in outline with one or more matters reserved.)

3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

4. As part of any reserved matters application the design and materials for the proposed flood gates that cross any highway or are required at any pedestrian access point together with any flap valve to allow for drainage shall be submitted. (Reason - To ensure that the design of the proposed flood gates are acceptable in their setting and are considered during the determination of the reserved matters application in accordance with Policy EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) and EN10 (Conservation Areas) of the East Devon Local Plan and advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework).

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Informative: In accordance with the aims of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 East Devon District Council works proactively with applicants to resolve all relevant planning concerns; however, in this case the application was deemed acceptable as submitted.

The historical planning application is referenced under (18/2174/MOUT) for which the approved plans were as follows:-

Number Type of plan Dated

TVO-XX-CC-DR- Other Plans 09.11.18 C-1031 Rev P4 Area C insert 7 - 7 of 10

20/0011/VAR page 109

TVO-XX-CC-DR- Other Plans 09.11.18 C-1032 Rev P4 Area C insert 8 - 8 of 10

TVO-XX-CC-DR- Other Plans 09.11.18 C-1070 Rev P3 Area C inset 7 - 1 of 3

TVO-XX-CC-DR- Other Plans 09.11.18 C-1071 Rev P3 Area C inset 8 - 2 of 3

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

20/0011/VAR page 110

Appropriate Assessment

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, Section (63)

Application 20/0011/VAR Reference

Brief description of Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission 18/2174/MOUT proposal (Exmouth Tidal Defence Scheme) to allow changes to design, layout and materials of defences

Location Royal Avenue Car Park, Camperdown Terrace And The Esplanade, Exmouth

Site is: Within 10km of Dawlish Warren SAC and the Exe Estuary SPA site

Within 10km of the East Devon Heaths SPA (UK9010121)

Within 10km of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC (UK0012602)

Within 10km of the Exe Estuary Ramsar (UK 542)

(See Appendix 1 for list of interest features of the SPA/SAC) Step 1 Screening for Likely Significant Effect on Royal Avenue Car Park, Camperdown Terrace And The Esplanade, Exmouth

Risk Assessment Could the Qualifying Features of the Yes – potential for direct impacts on the SPA/SAC –full Appropriate Assessment European site be will be required – See Step 2 Appropriate Assessment. affected by the proposal?

Consider both construction and operational stages. Conclusion of Screening Is the proposal likely East Devon District Council concludes that there would be Likely Significant to have a significant Effects ‘alone’ and/or ‘in-combination’ on features associated with the proposal at effect, either ‘alone’ Royal Avenue Car Park, Camperdown Terrace And The Esplanade, Exmouth or ‘in combination’ in the absence of mitigation. on a European site? See evidence documents on impact of development on SPA/SAC at: East Devon District Council - http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/369997/exe- overarching-report-9th-june-2014.pdf

20/0011/VAR page 111

An Appropriate Assessment of the plan or proposal is necessary.

Local Authority Date: Officer

Step 2 Appropriate Assessment NB: In undertaking the appropriate assessment, the LPA must ascertain whether the project would adversely affect the integrity of the European site. The Precautionary Principle applies, so to be certain the authority should be convinced that no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects.

As identified by the applicant in their environmental statement the proposed tidal defence scheme is within the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site. These sites are designated for their overwintering wildfowl and waders. In addition the works are within close proximity to the Dawlish Warren Special Area of Conservation (SAC), designated for its coastal geomorphology and dune systems. A Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) has been submitted as part of the application which outlines how development in each area could impact on the overwintering bird species. Because of the SPA and Ramsar designations the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 must be applied in the determination of this application. Regulation 61 requires East Devon District Council, as the competent authority, to undertake an Appropriate Impact Assessment (AIA) of the implications of this proposal on the site's conservation objectives before granting permission for a proposal which is likely to have a significant effect upon a European site.

East Devon District Council has therefore assessed the impact from the development upon the Exe Estuary and Dawlish Warren, building upon the content contained in the HRA (the majority of which has been used in this AIA) and concludes the following:

Construction phase:

Revetment repairs in Area A1 would be relatively small scale and localised and can be carried out by a small workforce using wheelbarrows which could have an impact on the sea grass beds, however, given the limited distance repairs are required over it is considered that these grasses could be avoided and therefore there would be no impact. More significant works are required in Area A2 as the lower half of the revetment requires repair, it is likely that machinery would be required which would damage the sea grasses. The Environmental Statement concludes that damaged grasses would grow back within 3 years, furthermore, to limit the impact the works could be undertaken early in the growing season or by placing bog mats over the grasses to limit damage by vehicles. The applicants agree that the lifting

20/0011/VAR page 112

and placement of bog mats to protect seagrass could result in ground disturbance affecting the rhizomes of the seagrass if it is present within the works area. They are therefore seeking to undertake the majority of these works from the land, reducing the amount of time that the bog mats will be required (if at all) and avoiding the need for lifting and replacing. This will be detailed in the EAP and the method statements once the detailed design is finalised at this location. Given the measures that could be put in place to limit the impact and the relatively short period of time for regrowth it is considered that there would be no impact. Construction of two rock groynes in Area C would result in disturbance to gravels from construction machinery on the shore line, this does not support habitat features for the SPA, however it is important to note that the re- instatement of the groynes may have an impact on the geomorphology and dune systems in the Dawlish Warren SAC. A report was commissioned by the applicants into how the groynes may impact the Dawlish Warren SAC, it concludes the following: 'The review has highlighted the significant links between the behaviour of the wider area and that of the local study area. In particular the frontage is critically influenced by the change in the distal end of Dawlish Warren. Given the developing management strategy for Dawlish Warren, it might be expected that significant change will continue to the distal end. As sediment is added to the Warren, this may encourage the distal end to grow forward, further towards the east, and, in this case, some of the existing pressures on the study frontage might in time reduce. However, should the additional sediment merely extend the present alignment of the distal end, then flows pressure principally during the flood over the upper tide but potentially at the sub-tidal level may increase. This linkage and the behaviour of the distal end, the channel and the response of the Exmouth frontage will require monitoring'. As such it is considered that the re-instatement of the groynes are not likley to have a significant impact on the tidal processes affecting Dawlish Warren, however, with all modelling there is a risk that unforeseen circumstances could occur and it is recommended that regular monitoring of the tidal processes at Dawlish Warren are undertaken and could be conditioned as part of this application. Exe Estuary SPA Coastal Squeeze The need for the Exmouth Flood Defence Scheme was identified in the Exe Estuary Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy which sets out the short, medium and long term aims for the Exe Estuary as a whole. A HRA was undertaken for this Strategy document which identified that there would be loss of internationally designated intertidal habitat in the footprint of new defences and due to coastal squeeze within the Exe Estuary European Marine site as a result of HTL policies, with associated impacts on waterbirds and therefore an effect on the integrity of the site. The scheme proposed in this Planning Application does not deviate from that outlined in the Exe Strategy; therefore, there are no changes to the impacts reported and no alteration to the amount of compensatory habitat required. The Environment Agency has been seeking opportunities for habitat creation to compensate for Coastal Squeeze in the Exe Estuary. A site in the Lower Otter Estuary has been identified and is being progressed by the Environment Agency. This will be functional by the time any significant impacts from coastal squeeze from Exmouth TDS are observed therefore it will offset the loss of intertidal habitats and there will be no impact.

20/0011/VAR page 113

Exe Estuary SPA Indirect Disturbance to Supporting Habitats (and SPA Wintering Bird Species) due to Pollutants The main risk would be from a spillage event during construction; this would affect water quality and therefore the prey species available for foraging All construction activities will adhere to the Contractors Method Statement which will include a protocol for spillages. This will adhere to the guidelines set out in CIRIA`s Environment Good Practice on Site, 3rd Edition; and Construction Industry Publication (CIP) Construction Environmental Manual. The application of the above measures will reduce the risk of a pollution event to zero and therefore there would be no impact. Exe Estuary SPA - Noise and Visual Disturbance to Wintering Bird Species Some of the works in Area C are proposed during the wintering bird period; however this is located 420m from the nearest works. Noise and visual impacts are not predicted over this distance and therefore there will be no impact. The groynes will be constructed in April and May therefore there will be no impact. Table 2.6 identifies that the following species are present within 300m of the proposed works: cormorant, curlew, dark-bellied brent goose, dunlin, grey plover, oystercatcher, red-breasted merganser, Slavonian grebe, redshank and wigeon. All construction activities in Areas A and B that have the potential to disturb birds will be carried out between April and September, with Piling in Area B between June and August. All of these elements will be completed before the wintering bird commences, as such there would be no wintering bird species present (or present in very low numbers and not during any sensitive period and no disturbance is expected. There will therefore be no impact. The construction compound in Area A will be in place for 50 weeks, including during the overwintering period. There would be downward security lighting at the main site compound and this will be reviewed to determine whether the lighting would be motion activated. There is already street lighting along the estuaryside throughout the Royal Avenue Car Park, the presence of lighting at the compound will have no impact. The increase in vehicles to the main construction compound has the potential to disturb birds through noise and increased visual disturbance. Traffic movements are described in the construction methodology section of the ES (Table 4.3). At present there is already disturbance from movement of vehicles to boatyard, HGV and coach parking, and people walking. During the wintering bird period construction there would be 20 each way lorry movements per week and a maximum of 14 personnel car movements which is not a significant increase in traffic volumes from the baseline. Furthermore the compound is set back 20m from the boundary of the estuary therefore any increase in noise impacts would not cause a startle response. The additional vehicles to the compound will not result in a change from the baseline conditions and there will be no impact.

Operation Phase

Exe Estuary SPA Indirect Disturbance to Supporting Habitats (and SPA Wintering Bird Species) due to Pollutants There would be no activity associated with the operational phase of the Exmouth TDS other than routine inspections. Therefore, there would be no potential source of pollutants. There would therefore be no deterioration to the supporting

20/0011/VAR page 114

habitats of the Exe Estuary SPA or Dawlish Warren SAC, and therefore no impact on prey resource availability or density. Exe Estuary SPA - Disturbance to Wintering Bird Species There would be no activity associated with the operational phase of the Exmouth TDS other than routine inspections. These would comprise a maximum of two people walking the scheme, and making observations and would most likely be undertaken outside of the wintering bird period. The inspections would be mainly carried out from the land; however it is likely that the revetments and gabions will need to be inspected from the shore. This would be undertaken as part of the ongoing existing asset checks, and will be carried out during the summer months at low tide when birds will be at a significant distance from the structures. Given that there are already revetment and gabions which are already inspected this would have no noticeable increase against the baseline levels of disturbance from people and therefore there would be no impact. All trees in Area A that require removal for construction will be replaced on completion of the works as shown on the Landscape General Arrangement Plan drawings. During operation, the physical presence of the sea defence and defensive planting will reduce levels of disturbance by reducing ease of access to the foreshore where it is currently an issue in Key bird Areas. All trees that require removal to enable construction along Area A and will be replaced with similar sized trees once construction is complete, however it should be noted that as the trees are tall and spaced out they do not currently provide any screening for birds. All trees that require removal to enable construction along Area A and will be replaced with similar sized trees once construction is complete, however it should be noted that as the trees are tall and spaced out they do not currently provide any screening for birds. Therefore there will be no change to the baseline and no impact from this planting. Where the footpath is to be raised between 60 and 75cm, there is no vegetation present between the path and the estuary therefore there is already disturbance to birds from the presence of people. At present there is vegetation alongside the boatyard which diffuses the views of people. This vegetation will be removed for construction and will be replanted once works are complete. While the vegetation is re-establishing to its pre-construction height there will be no background to reduce the visibility of the path. This could lead to an increased level of disturbance to birds on the estuary and will have a likely significant effect. This impact can be mitigated through the installation of a camouflage material, similar to that used at bird hides. This will provide an artificial backdrop whilst the vegetation establishes, and will ensure that additional visual disturbance does not occur. The works would also not result in any increase in access along the foreshore over and above that which currently exists. Therefore, there would be no increase in disturbance, furthermore the combination of walls and defensive planting will reduce public access in locations that are sensitive to birds. No impact. Effect on Achievement of Conservation Objectives and Site Integrity Table 3.2 considers the impacts assessed above in relation to the achievement of the conservation objectives for the Exe Estuary SPA. Given that no influences or changes arise which could result in the failure to achieve any of the conservation objectives for any of the qualifying habitats or species, it is concluded that no adverse effect on the integrity of the Exe Estuary SPA would occur.

20/0011/VAR page 115

Table 3.1: Consideration of Impacts in Relation to the Conservation Objectives for the Exe Estuary SPA Conservation Feature Construction objective The footprint of the Exmouth TDS Subject to natural lies within the existing or on land change, to maintain outside of the site, and hence does or restore the extent not result in any change to the and distribution of extent and distribution of the the habitats of the habitats of wintering Slavonian qualifying features. grebe. Objective achieved. Subject to natural The footprint of the Exmouth TDS change, to maintain lies within the existing or on land or restore the outside of the site, and hence does structure and not result in any change to the function of the extent and distribution of the habitats of the habitats of wintering Slavonian qualifying features. grebe. Objective achieved. The revetment repairs in Area A2 have the potential to damage Subject to natural seagrass beds which provide prey change, to maintain species for Slavonian Grebe, or restore the mitigation measures including the supporting processes timing of works as early as possible Wintering on which the habitats in the growing season and use of Slavonian of the qualifying bog mats will limit the opportunity grebe features rely for damage. Objective achieved. No change to the supporting habitat would occur (see above). No disturbance to Slavonian grebe has Subject to natural been identified as a result of the change, to maintain noise and visual disturbance or restore the associated with the Exmouth TDS populations of the and therefore there would be no qualifying features. effect on the population of wintering Slavonian grebe. Objective achieved. As there is no change to the extent, Subject to natural distribution, structure, and function change, to maintain of supporting habitats and no or restore the disturbance to Slavonian grebe distribution of the during the Exmouth TDS, there qualifying features would therefore be no change to the within the site. distribution of Slavonian grebe across the site. Objective achieved. Over winter, The footprint of the Exmouth TDS Subject to natural the area lies within the existing or on land change, to maintain regularly outside of the site, and hence does or restore the extent supports not result in any change to the and distribution of 23,513 extent and distribution of the

20/0011/VAR page 116

individual the habitats of the habitats of any species of the waterfowl qualifying features. wintering bird assemblage. including: Objective achieved. black-tailed The footprint of the Exmouth TDS Subject to natural godwit, dunlin, lies within the existing or on land change, to maintain lapwing, grey outside of the site, and hence does or restore the plover, not result in any change to the structure and oystercatcher, extent and distribution of the function of the red-breasted habitats of any species of the habitats of the merganser, wintering bird assemblage. qualifying features. wigeon, dark- Objective achieved. bellied brent No change to the supporting habitat goose, would occur (see above). No Subject to natural cormorant, disturbance to the waterfowl change, to maintain avocet, assemblage has been identified as a or restore the Slavonian result of the noise and visual supporting processes grebe, and disturbance associated with the on which the habitats whimbrel Exmouth TDS and therefore there of the qualifying would be no effect on the features rely. population of wintering Slavonian grebe. Objective achieved. As there is no change to the extent, distribution, structure, and function Subject to natural of supporting habitats and no change, to maintain disturbance to Slavonian grebe or restore the during the Exmouth TDS, there populations of the would therefore be no change to the qualifying features. distribution of Slavonian grebe across the site. Objective achieved. As there is no change to the extent, distribution, structure, and function Subject to natural of supporting habitats and no change, to maintain disturbance to the waterfowl or restore the assemblage during the Exmouth distribution of the TDS, there would therefore be no qualifying features change to the distribution of the within the site. waterfowl assemblage across the site. Objective achieved.

Table 3.2 considers the impacts assessed in Section 3.4 in relation to the achievement of the conservation objectives for the Exe Estuary SPA.

Sensitive Potential Potential exposure to hazard and mechanism of Interest hazard: effect/impact if known: Feature:

• Avo No impact and no likely significant effect. All of the permanent works associated with the sea walls are cet Habitat located within the footprint of the existing. The • loss Bar- groynes will result in additional loss of gravels, which tailed is not a supporting habitat for these species. There will

20/0011/VAR page 117

godwit be no direct loss of supporting habitats as a result of • Blac this project therefore a likely significant effect is not k-tailed expected. godwit No impact and no likely significant effect. All of these • Lap species are located at least 1km upstream, and wing therefore Coastal Squeeze will not affect the habitats • Whi on which these species rely on. There will be no mbrel impact. No impact and no likely significant effect. As described in Section 10.5 of the ES, there will be temporary disturbance to the seagrass beds in Area A from the working area of the revetment repairs. Habitat Avocet rely on prey that use the seagrass as a nursery alteration habitat, however the nearest record of Avocet is over 2km upstream, therefore they are not likely to be utilising the seagrass in the site area. None of the other species rely on this food source and therefore a likely significant effect is not expected. Likely significant effect. Construction activities would Disturba not be visible and no experience of increased noise nce (e.g. would extend to the areas where these species are access, found within the estuary given their distance from the noise) works. As these species and the populations will not be disturbed, a likely significant effect is not expected. • Cor No impact and no likely significant effect. All of the morant permanent works associated with the sea walls are • Curl located within the footprint of the existing. The ew groynes will result in additional loss of gravels, which is not a supporting habitat for these species. There will • Dar Habitat be no direct loss of supporting habitats as a result of k-bellied loss this project therefore a likely significant effect is not brent expected. goose • Dun Potential for a likely significant effect. Coastal lin squeeze as a result of “ • Gre Potential for a likely significant effect. As described in y plover Section 10.5 of the ES, there will be temporary • Red disturbance to the seagrass beds in Area A from the -breasted working area of the revetment repairs. Dark-bellied merganser brent geese and wigeon are known to forage on this Habitat 1 • Slav habitat within and adjacent to the proposed works . alteration onian The disturbance to this habitat could have a Likely grebe Significant Effect on these species. • Wig None of the other species rely on this food source and eon therefore a likely significant effect is not expected. • Red Potential for a likely significant effect. The presence

1 Goss-Custard (2007) National Cycle Network – Exe Estuary Proposals. Assessment of the anticipated Effects on the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area

20/0011/VAR page 118

shank of plant and machinery during reinstatement works could result in the accidental or incidental discharge to an alteration of the supporting habitat for wintering birds. Potential for a likely significant effect. The revetment repairs in Area A, construction of the wall in Area A, and piling and gabion replacement in Area B would potentially be visible. The presence of plant and personnel on the shore or working on top of the defences could potentially result in disturbance to populations of these species. As such a potential likely significant effect could occur. During operation, the physical presence of the sea defence and defensive planting will reduce levels of disturbance by reducing ease of access to the foreshore where it is currently an issue in Key bird Areas. All trees that require removal to enable construction Disturba along Area A and will be replaced with similar sized nce (e.g. trees once construction is complete, however it should access, be noted that as the trees are tall and spaced out they do noise) not currently provide any screening for birds. Therefore there will be no change to the baseline and no impact from this planting. Where the footpath is to be raised between 60 and 75cm, there is no vegetation present between the path and the estuary therefore there is already disturbance to birds from the presence of people. At present there is vegetation alongside the boatyard which diffuses the views of people. This vegetation will be removed for construction and will be replanted once works are complete. While the vegetation is re-establishing to its pre-construction height there will be no background to reduce the visibility of the path. This could lead to an increased level of disturbance to birds on the estuary and will have a likely significant effect. No impact and no likely significant effect. All of the permanent works associated with the sea walls are located within the footprint of the existing. The groynes will result in additional loss of gravels, which Habitat is not a supporting habitat for these species. There will loss be no direct loss of supporting habitats as a result of • Oys this project therefore a likely significant effect is not tercatcher expected. Potential for a likely significant effect. Coastal squeeze as a result of “

Habitat No impact and no likely significant effect. There was alteration one record of oystercatcher on the intertidal at Camperdown Creek where the gabions are to be

20/0011/VAR page 119

replaced. Construction access on the foreshore will not disturb the gravelly sand habitats at this location therefore a likely significant effect is not expected. Potential for a likely significant effect. The presence of plant and machinery during reinstatement works could result in the accidental or incidental discharge to an alteration of the supporting habitat for oystercatcher. Potential for a likely significant effect. The revetment repairs in Area A, construction of the wall in Area A, and piling and gabion replacement in Area B would be visible across intertidal areas. The presence of plant and personnel along the shore or working on top of the revetment could potentially result in disturbance to populations of these species. As such a potential likely significant effect could occur. During operation, the physical presence of the sea defence and defensive planting will reduce levels of disturbance by reducing ease of access to the foreshore where it is currently an issue in Key bird Areas. All trees that require removal to enable construction along Area A and will be replaced with similar sized trees once construction is complete, however it should be noted that as the trees are tall and spaced out they do not currently provide any screening for birds. Disturba nce (e.g. All trees that require removal to enable construction access, along Area A and will be replaced with similar sized noise) trees once construction is complete, however it should be noted that as the trees are tall and spaced out they do not currently provide any screening for birds. Therefore there will be no change to the baseline and no impact from this planting. Where the footpath is to be raised between 60 and 75cm, there is no vegetation present between the path and the estuary therefore there is already disturbance to birds from the presence of people. At present there is vegetation alongside the boatyard which diffuses the views of people. This vegetation will be removed for construction and will be replanted once works are complete. While the vegetation is re-establishing to its pre-construction height there will be no background to reduce the visibility of the path. This could lead to an increased level of disturbance to birds on the estuary and will have a likely significant effecta likely significant effect is not expected. Table 2.2: Exe Estuary Ramsar Screening

20/0011/VAR page 120

Sensitive Potential Potential exposure to hazard and mechanism of Interest hazard: effect/impact if known: Feature: No impact and no likely significant effect. All of the permanent works associated with the sea walls are located within the footprint of the existing. The groynes will result in additional loss of gravels, which is not a supporting Habitat habitat for these species. There will be no direct loss of loss supporting habitats as a result of this project therefore a likely significant effect is not expected. Potential for a likely significant effect. Coastal Squeeze as a result of “ Potential for a likely significant effect. As described in Section 10.5 of the ES, there will be temporary disturbance to the seagrass beds in Area A from the working area of the revetment repairs. Dark-bellied brent geese and wigeon are known to forage on this habitat within and adjacent to the proposed works.2 The disturbance to this habitat could have a Likely Significant Effect on these species. There was one record of oystercatcher on the intertidal at Habitat Camperdown Creek where the gabions are to be replaced. alteration Construction access on the foreshore will not disturb the Bird gravelly sand habitats at this location therefore a likely assembla significant effect is not expected. ge - None of the other species rely on this food source and winter therefore a likely significant effect is not expected. Potential for a likely significant effect. The presence of plant and machinery during reinstatement works could result in the accidental or incidental discharge to an alteration of the supporting habitat for wintering birds. Potential for a likely significant effect. The revetment repairs in Area A, Construction of the wall in Area A and piling and gabion replacement in Area B would potentially be visible. The presence of plant and personnel on the shore or working on top of the defences could potentially result in disturbance to populations of these species. As Disturba such a potential likely significant effect could occur. nce (e.g. access, During operation, the physical presence of the sea defence noise) and defensive planting will reduce levels of disturbance by reducing ease of access to the foreshore where it is currently an issue in Key bird Areas. All trees that require removal to enable construction along Area A and will be replaced with similar sized trees once construction is complete, however it should be noted that as the trees are tall and spaced out they do not currently provide any

2 Goss-Custard (2007) National Cycle Network – Exe Estuary Proposals. Assessment of the anticipated Effects on the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area

20/0011/VAR page 121

screening for birds. All trees that require removal to enable construction along Area A and will be replaced with similar sized trees once construction is complete, however it should be noted that as the trees are tall and spaced out they do not currently provide any screening for birds. Therefore there will be no change to the baseline and no impact from this planting. Where the footpath is to be raised between 60 and 75cm, there is no vegetation present between the path and the estuary therefore there is already disturbance to birds from the presence of people. At present there is vegetation alongside the boatyard which diffuses the views of people. This vegetation will be removed for construction and will be replanted once works are complete. While the vegetation is re-establishing to its pre-construction height there will be no background to reduce the visibility of the path. This could lead to an increased level of disturbance to birds on the estuary and will have a likely significant effect

Table 2.3: Dawlish Warren SAC Screening Sensitive Potential Potential exposure to hazard and mechanism of Interest hazard: effect/impact if known: Feature: No impact and no likely significant effect. The project site and works are located 440m away from the site boundary and no works will occur within the SAC. Given that no works are occurring in or close to this habitat and no habitat loss will occur a likely significant Habitat effect is not expected. loss No impact and no likely significant effect. There would be no indirect changes to geomorphology and coastal Dunes processes and no subsequent habitat loss within the along the Dawlish Warren site; a likely significant effect is not shoreline expected. with Ammophil No impact and no likely significant effect. The project a arenaria site and works are located 440m away from the site (“white boundary and no works will occur within the SAC. dunes”) Given that no works are occurring in or close to this habitat and no habitat alteration will occur a likely Habitat significant effect is not expected. alteration No impact and no likely significant effect. There would be no indirect changes to geomorphology and coastal processes and no subsequent habitat alteration within the Dawlish Warren site; a likely significant effect is not expected. Disturba No impact and no likely significant effect. The proposed

20/0011/VAR page 122

nce (e.g. works do not impact (through noise, vibration, or visual) access, on vegetation or the associated communities supported by noise) this habitat, and there is no change to the activities or access in the area of this habitat as a result of the Exmouth TDS. As this habitat and its community will not be disturbed, a likely significant effect is not expected. No impact and no likely significant effect. The project site and works are located 440m away from the site boundary and no works will occur within the SAC. Given that no works are occurring in or close to this habitat and no habitat loss will occur a likely significant Habitat effect is not expected. loss No impact and no likely significant effect. There would be no indirect changes to geomorphology and coastal processes and no subsequent habitat loss within the Dawlish Warren site; a likely significant effect is not expected. Fixed No impact and no likely significant effect. The project dunes site and works are located 440m away from the site with boundary and no works will occur within the SAC. herbaceou Given that no works are occurring in or close to this s habitat and no habitat alteration will occur a likely vegetation Habitat significant effect is not expected. (“grey alteration No impact and no likely significant effect. There would dunes”) be no indirect changes to geomorphology and coastal processes and no subsequent habitat alteration within the Dawlish Warren site; a likely significant effect is not expected. No impact and no likely significant effect. The proposed works do not impact (through noise, vibration, or visual) Disturba on vegetation or the associated communities supported by nce (e.g. this habitat, and there is no change to the activities or access, access in the area of this habitat as a result of the noise) Exmouth TDS. As this habitat and its community will not be disturbed, a likely significant effect is not expected. No impact and no likely significant effect. The project site and works are located 440m away from the site boundary and no works will occur within the SAC. Given that no works are occurring in or close to this Humid Habitat habitat and no habitat loss will occur a likely significant dune loss effect is not expected. slacks No impact and no likely significant effect. There would be no indirect changes to geomorphology and coastal processes and no subsequent habitat loss within the Dawlish Warren site; a likely significant effect is not

20/0011/VAR page 123

expected. No impact and no likely significant effect. The project site and works are located 440m away from the site boundary and no works will occur within the SAC. Given that no works are occurring in or close to this habitat and no habitat alteration will occur a likely Habitat significant effect is not expected. alteration No impact and no likely significant effect. There would be no indirect changes to geomorphology and coastal processes and no subsequent habitat alteration within the Dawlish Warren site; a likely significant effect is not expected. No impact and no likely significant effect. The proposed works do not impact (through noise, vibration, or visual) Disturba on vegetation or the associated communities supported by nce (e.g. this habitat, and there is no change to the activities or access, access in the area of this habitat as a result of the noise) Exmouth TDS. As this habitat and its community will not be disturbed, a likely significant effect is not expected. No impact and no likely significant effect. The project site and works are located 440m away from the site boundary and no works will occur within the SAC. Given that no works are occurring in or close to this habitat and no habitat loss will occur a likely significant Habitat effect is not expected. loss No impact and no likely significant effect. There would be no indirect changes to geomorphology and coastal processes and no subsequent habitat loss within the Dawlish Warren site; a likely significant effect is not expected. No impact and no likely significant effect. The project site and works are located 440m away from the site Petalwort boundary and no works will occur within the SAC. Given that no works are occurring in or close to this habitat and no habitat alteration will occur a likely Habitat significant effect is not expected. alteration No impact and no likely significant effect. There would be no indirect changes to geomorphology and coastal processes and no subsequent habitat alteration within the Dawlish Warren site; a likely significant effect is not expected.

Disturba No impact and no likely significant effect. The proposed nce (e.g. works do not impact (through noise, vibration, or visual) access, on vegetation or the associated communities supported by noise) this habitat, and there is no change to the activities or access in the area of this habitat as a result of the

20/0011/VAR page 124

Exmouth TDS. As this habitat and its community will not be disturbed, a likely significant effect is not expected. Table 2.4: East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC Screening Sensitive Potential Potential exposure to hazard and mechanism of Interest hazard: effect/impact if known: Feature: No impact and no likely significant effect. The project site and works are located 4.8km away from the site Habitat boundary and no works will occur within the SAC. loss Given that no works are occurring in or close to this habitat and no habitat loss will occur a likely significant effect is not expected. No impact and no likely significant effect. The project site and works are located 4.8km away from the site Northern Habitat boundary and no works will occur within the SAC. Atlantic wet alteration Given that no works are occurring in or close to this heaths with habitat and no habitat alteration will occur a likely Erica significant effect is not expected. tetralix No impact and no likely significant effect. The proposed works do not impact (through noise, vibration, or visual) on vegetation or the associated communities Disturba supported by this habitat (in particular as no disturbance nce (e.g. effects would extend over 4.8km), and there is no access, change to the activities or access in the area of this noise) habitat as a result of Exmouth TDS. As this habitat and its community will not be disturbed, a likely significant effect is not expected. No impact and no likely significant effect. The project site and works are located 4.8km away from the site Habitat boundary and no works will occur within the SAC. loss Given that no works are occurring in or close to this habitat and no habitat loss will occur a likely significant effect is not expected. No impact and no likely significant effect. The project site and works are located 4.8km away from the site European Habitat boundary and no works will occur within the SAC. dry heaths alteration Given that no works are occurring in or close to this habitat and no habitat alteration will occur a likely significant effect is not expected. No impact and no likely significant effect. The Disturba proposed works do not impact (through noise, vibration, nce (e.g. or visual) on vegetation or the associated communities access, supported by this habitat (in particular as no disturbance noise) effects would extend over 4.8km), and there is no change to the activities or access in the area of this habitat as a result of Exmouth TDS. As this habitat and

20/0011/VAR page 125

its community will not be disturbed, a likely significant effect is not expected. No impact and no likely significant effect. The project site and works are located 4.8km away from the site boundary and no works will occur within the SAC. Habitat Given that no works are occurring in or close to this loss species where it is present within the site and no habitat loss will occur to its supporting habitat a likely significant effect is not expected. No impact and no likely significant effect. The project site and works are located 4.8km away from the site boundary and no works will occur within the SAC. Habitat Given that no works are occurring in or close to this Southern alteration species where it is present within the site and no habitat damselfly alteration will occur to its supporting habitat a likely significant effect is not expected. No impact and no likely significant effect. The proposed works do not impact (through noise, vibration, or visual) on vegetation or the associated communities Disturba supported by this habitat (in particular as no disturbance nce (e.g. effects would extend over 4.8km), and there is no access, change to the activities or access in the area of this noise) habitat as a result of Exmouth TDS. As this habitat and its community will not be disturbed, a likely significant effect is not expected. Table 2.5: East Devon Heaths SPA Screening Sensitive Potential Potential exposure to hazard and mechanism of Interest hazard: effect/impact if known: Feature: No impact and no likely significant effect. This species has not been recorded in the site area or the surrounding area, and the designated site and any Habitat suitable nesting and foraging habitat is located in loss excess of 4km from the site and proposed reinstatement works. Therefore, no habitat loss would occur that could affect this species and a likely significant effect on these species is not expected. Dartford No impact and no likely significant effect. This warbler species has not been recorded in the site area or the surrounding area, and the designated site and any Habitat suitable nesting and foraging habitat is located in alteration excess of 4km from the site and proposed reinstatement works. Therefore, no habitat alteration would occur that could affect this species and a likely significant effect on these species is not expected. Disturba No impact and no likely significant effect. The nce (e.g. proposed works would be in excess of 4.8km away and

20/0011/VAR page 126

access, would not be discernible at any level, particularly noise) given the intervening settlement of Exmouth. There is also no change to the activities or access in the site that could impact on this species as a result of the Exmouth TDS. As this species and its population will not be disturbed, a likely significant effect is not expected. No impact and no likely significant effect. This species has not been recorded in the site area or the surrounding area, and the designated site and any Habitat suitable nesting and foraging habitat is located in loss excess of 4km from the site and proposed reinstatement works. Therefore, no habitat loss would occur that could affect this species and a likely significant effect on these species is not expected. No impact and no likely significant effect. This species has not been recorded in the site area or the surrounding area, and the designated site and any Habitat suitable nesting and foraging habitat is located in Nightjar alteration excess of 4km from the site and proposed reinstatement works. Therefore, no habitat alteration would occur that could affect this species and a likely significant effect on these species is not expected. No impact and no likely significant effect. The proposed works do not impact (through noise, vibration, or visual) on vegetation or the associated Disturba communities supported by this habitat (in particular as nce (e.g. no disturbance effects would extend over 4.8km), and access, there is no change to the activities or access in the area noise) of this habitat as a result of Exmouth TDS. As this habitat and its community will not be disturbed, a likely significant effect is not expected.

When considered against the criterion for the Exe Estuary Ramsar site (see Table 2.8), and taking into consideration the assessment of the effects on the achievement of favourable condition of the sites, it is concluded that no adverse effect on the integrity of the Exe Estuary Ramsar site would occur.

In-combination Assessment

Based on the nature of impacts of the proposed development, the potential cumulative impacts associated with the development have been considered with reference to other proposed developments in the surrounding area. All key developments that are currently within the planning system have been screened to determine whether they are likely to result in cumulative effects • Exmouth Regeneration • Mamhead slipway rock installation • Exe Estuary Flood and Coastal Risk Management Strategy Other flood defence proposals around the estuary, such as at Starcross and Cockwood

20/0011/VAR page 127

• Exmouth Beach Management Plan • A search for projects within the planning register of EDDC was made on 4th July 2018. • Coastal and marine habitat loss or alteration; • Disturbance to birds. It is considered on the basis of the information available that the proposed Exmouth TDS will have no adverse effect on the integrity of the Exe Estuary SPA, Dawlish Warren SAC and Ramsar sites alone, or in-combination with other plans or projects.

Conclusion List of mitigation • Use of bog matting to reduce impact on se grasses measures and • Timing of works at start of se grass growing season safeguards • Monitoring for at least 2 years of sea grasses to ensure re-growth and a feedback mechanism for works to take place should the sea grasses not re-grow as necessary • Monitoring of Dawlish Warren SAC and the distal end together with build up of sediment to ascertain whether coastal processes have been effected by the re-instatement of the two groynes and a feedback mechanism for work to take place should the impacts be different than anticipated • Provision of temporary camouflage netting to mimic bird habitat adjacent to boatyard until habitat re-establishes itself • Piling in Area B to take place in July and August (outside overwintering period) • Any activities that cause noise/vibration to be undertaken outside overwintering period • Groynes constructed in April/May outside overwintering period

The Integrity Test Adverse impacts on features necessary to maintain the integrity of the Royal Avenue Car Park, Camperdown Terrace And The Esplanade, Exmouth can be ruled out.

Conclusion of East Devon District Council that there would be NO adverse effect on integrity of Appropriate the Dawlish Warren SAC, Exe Estuary SPA or Pebblebed Heaths SPA/SAC or Assessment Exe Estuary Ramsar sites provided the mitigation measures are secured as above.

Local Authority Date: Officer

21 day consultation to be sent to Natural England Hub on completion of this form.

Appendix 1. List of interest features:

Exe Estuary SPA Annex 1 Species that are a primary reason for selection of this site (under the Birds Directive): Aggregation of non-breeding birds: Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta Aggregation of non-breeding birds: Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola Migratory species that are a primary reason for selection of this site

20/0011/VAR page 128

Aggregation of non-breeding birds: Dunlin Calidris alpina alpine Aggregation of non-breeding birds: Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica Aggregation of non-breeding birds: Brent Goose (dark-bellied) Branta bernicla bernicla Wintering populations of Slavonian Grebe Podiceps auritus Wintering populations of Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus Waterfowl Assemblage >20,000 waterfowl over winter

Habitats which are not notified for their specific habitat interest (under the relevant designation), but because they support notified species. Sheltered muddy shores (including estuarine muds; intertidal boulder and cobble scars; and seagrass beds) Saltmarsh NVC communities: SM6 Spartina anglica saltmarsh

SPA Conservation Objectives With regard to the SPA and the individual species and/or assemblage of species for which the site has been classified (the ‘Qualifying Features’ listed below), and subject to natural change; Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring; The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely The population of each of the qualifying features, and, The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

Dawlish Warren SAC Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site (under the Habitats Directive): Annex I habitat: Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (‘white dunes’). (Strandline, embryo and mobile dunes.) SD1 Rumex crispus-Glaucium flavum shingle community SD2 Cakile maritima-Honkenya peploides strandline community SD6 Ammophila arenaria mobile dune community SD7 Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune community Annex I habitat: Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (‘grey dunes’). SD8 Festuca rubra-Galium verum fixed dune grassland SD12 Carex arenaria-Festuca ovina-Agrostis capillaris dune grassland SD19 Phleum arenarium-Arenaria serpyllifolia dune annual community Annex I habitat: Humid dune slacks. SD15 Salix repens-Calliergon cuspidatum dune-slack community SD16 Salix repens-Holcus lanatus dune slack community SD17 Potentilla anserina-Carex nigra dune-slack community

Habitats Directive Annex II species that are a primary reason for selection of this site: Petalwort (Petalophyllum ralfsii )

SAC Conservation Objectives With regard to the SAC and the natural habitats and/or species for which the site has been designated (the ‘Qualifying Features’ listed below), and subject to natural change; Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the Favourable Conservation Status of its Qualifying Features, by maintaining or restoring;

20/0011/VAR page 129

• The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species • The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats • The structure and function of the habitats of qualifying species • The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying • species rely • The populations of qualifying species, and, • The distribution of qualifying species within the site. List of interest features:

East Devon Heaths SPA:

A224 Caprimulgus europaeus; European nightjar (Breeding) 83 pairs (2.4% of GB population 1992) A302 Sylvia undata; Dartford warbler (Breeding) 128 pairs (6.8% of GB Population in 1994)

Objectives:

Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring;  The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features  The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features  The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely  The population of each of the qualifying features, and,  The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SAC:

This is the largest block of lowland heathland in Devon. The site includes extensive areas of dry heath and wet heath associated with various other mire communities. The wet element occupies the lower-lying areas and includes good examples of cross-leaved heath – bog-moss (Erica tetralix – Sphagnum compactum) wet heath. The dry heaths are characterised by the presence of heather Calluna vulgaris, bell heather Erica cinerea, western gorse Ulex gallii, bristle bent Agrostis curtisii, purple moor-grass Molinia caerulea, cross-leaved heath E. tetralix and tormentil Potentilla erecta. The presence of plants such as cross-leaved heath illustrates the more oceanic nature of these heathlands, as this species is typical of wet heath in the more continental parts of the UK. Populations of southern damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale occur in wet flushes within the site.

Qualifying habitats: The site is designated under article 4(4) of the Directive (92/43/EEC) as it hosts the following habitats listed in Annex I:

H4010. Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix; Wet heathland with cross-leaved heath H4030. European dry heaths

Qualifying species: The site is designated under article 4(4) of the Directive (92/43/EEC) as it hosts the following species listed in Annex II:

S1044. Coenagrion mercuriale; Southern damselfly

Objectives:

20/0011/VAR page 130

Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the Favourable Conservation Status of its Qualifying Features, by maintaining or restoring;  The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species  The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats  The structure and function of the habitats of qualifying species  The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species rely  The populations of qualifying species, and,  The distribution of qualifying species within the site.

Exe Estuary SPA

Qualifying Features: A007 Podiceps auritus; Slavonian grebe (Non-breeding) A046a Branta bernicla bernicla; Dark-bellied brent goose (Non-breeding) A130 Haematopus ostralegus; Eurasian oystercatcher (Non-breeding) A132 Recurvirostra avosetta; Pied avocet (Non-breeding) A141 Pluvialis squatarola; Grey plover (Non-breeding) A149 Calidris alpina alpina; Dunlin (Non-breeding) A156 Limosa limosa islandica; Black-tailed godwit (Non-breeding) Waterbird assemblage

Objectives:

Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring;  The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features  The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features  The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely  The population of each of the qualifying features, and,  The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

Exe Estuary Ramsar

Principal Features (updated 1999)

The estuary includes shallow offshore waters, extensive mud and sand flats, and limited areas of saltmarsh. The site boundary also embraces part of Exeter Canal; Exminster Marshes – a complex of marshes and damp pasture towards the head of the estuary; and Dawlish Warren - an extensive recurved sand-dune system which has developed across the mouth of the estuary.

Average peak counts of wintering water birds regularly exceed 20,000 individuals (23,268*), including internationally important numbers* of Branta bernicla bernicla (2,343). Species wintering in nationally important numbers* include Podiceps auritus, Haematopus ostralegus, Recurvirostra avosetta (311), Pluvialis squatarola, Calidris alpina and Limosa limosa (594).

20/0011/VAR page 131

Because of its relatively mild climate and sheltered location, the site assumes even greater importance as a refuge during spells of severe weather. Nationally important numbers of Charadrius hiaticula and Tringa nebularia occur on passage. Parts of the site are managed as nature reserves by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and by the local authority. (1a,3a,3b,3c)

20/0011/VAR page 132 Agenda Item 13

Ward Exmouth Littleham

Reference 19/2580/FUL

Applicant Mr Andrew Taylor

Location Land Adjacent 1 The Broadway Exmouth EX8 2NW

Proposal Proposed new dwelling, new access onto highway, cycle storage and 2.1m high boundary fence

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment forming part of the Committee Report be adopted; and, 2. That the application be APPROVED with conditions.

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 133

Committee Date: 15th July 2020

Exmouth Littleham Target Date: (Exmouth) 19/2580/FUL 23.01.2020

Applicant: Mr Andrew Taylor

Location: Land Adjacent 1 The Broadway Exmouth

Proposal: Proposed new dwelling, new access onto highway, cycle storage and 2.1m high boundary fence

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment forming part of the Committee Report be adopted; and, 2. That the application be APPROVED with conditions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before Members because the officer recommendation is contrary to the view of a Ward Member.

Planning permission has been granted, and remains extant for a new dwelling occupying the same footprint and of a similar design to that currently being proposed. The main differences relate to the natural ground levels of the site being maintained and not being reduced as previously proposed, the result of which is that the height of the dwelling has been increased by approximately 500mm. The need for retaining the existing ground level stems from providing an adequate drainage connection to the existing sewer.

The concerns raised in respect of the differences between the previously approved planning applications and the current proposal are noted, however this is an independent and unrelated application which must be considered on its individual merits.

Whilst any increase in height of the building will have some impact on the character of the area and potential to affect the amenity of neighbouring residents, in this instance it is not considered that the additional impact arising from the proposals over that previously granted permission would be unreasonable within the streetscene, or that the proposed alterations would be unacceptable in terms of impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of adjacent properties.

As such the application is supported.

19/2580/FUL page 134

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Exmouth Littleham - Cllr Nick Hookway

27.01.20

I am objecting to this application as I am concerned over the impact upon neighbouring properties. Having visited both numbers 1 and 3 The Broadway in recent months, I observed that the entire site of No 1 is naturally higher than that of No 3, so that the issues of Overlooking and loss of privacy were already in existence and have now become paramount when considering this application.

I question why the proposed dwelling has to be raised by 470mm just to create a shared drive that is level. The impact upon neighbouring properties by raising the proposed building by 470 mm would be substantial and would therefore impose an unacceptable level of intrusion in terms of being overlooked and loss of privacy, particularly upon No. 3 The Broadway.

Planning officers have raised similar concerns, see email sent 09/01/2020 Have these concerns being fully answered?

I am of the opinion that this application and the issues that it raises should be discussed fully at DMC

I reserve the right to amend my opinion should I be made aware of other facts relating to this application.

Further comments:

12.06.20

Further to my earlier comments I feel that I must continue to object to this proposal. The main concerns here this application are to do with overlooking and loss of privacy. Although the latest amendments to this application have gone some way to address these concerns, I find that the raising of the roofline by nearly 500mm will only make matters worse.

I reserve the right to alter my views when I have the full facts of this application placed before me.

Parish/Town Council

Meeting 09.12.19

Objection, this revised application was significant departure from the previous approved application. This revised scheme included additional roof windows and a higher ridge height to the detriment of the neighbouring property which the previous

19/2580/FUL page 135

approved application was conditioned to protect. Members questioned the labelling on the plans ' the NE & SW elevation appeared to be incorrectly labelled.

Further comments:

Meeting 20.01.20

Objection sustained, the amended plans still did not mitigate concerns raised over the higher ridge height.

Further comments:

08.06.20

Objection sustained; the amended plans did not mitigate concerns regarding the raise height from the previously approved proposal. Additionally, it was noted that the original application stipulated restricted opening widths of the windows between 100 and 200mm and this was not noted on the amended plans.

Due to the restrictions placed on the council as a result of the pandemic Coronavirus, this response represents the opinion of members of Exmouth Town Council Planning Committee agreed via co-ordinated telephone and email consultation process and will be ratified at the next appropriate meeting of the council.

Technical Consultations

Devon County Highway Authority

This site has been the subject of a handful of applications within the last few years.

This application involves only the new access.

The access has satisfactory visibility in the Northern direction of Salterton Road, though the re-aligned 2m high stone wall will further assist with this and I note the refuse and cycle storage will be kept behind this wall.

The apron of the access and the set-back delineation with the neighbours helps the visibility looking in the southern direction and so the visibility in the southern direction is also acceptable.

Off-carriageway parking and a turning head is also provided for on the internal site plot. Therefore the County Highway Authority has no objection to this planning application.

Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Other Representations

19/2580/FUL page 136

7 representations have been received, 5 raising objections and 2 supporting the proposal. These are summarised below

Objections • Lack of parking and turning for second vehicle • Difference in ground levels between the 2 sites • Not lowering the ground level will result in an increase in overbearing impact upon neighbours • Increase in windows on the south east elevation resulting in loss of privacy and overlooking • No plans showing details of gates and pillars • Application should be considered in conjunction with adjacent site • Proposal not in accordance with previous consents and conditions • The alterations to previous approvals will impact on property, privacy and amenity • The fence between the driveway serving 1 The Broadway and application site is too high • The existing site plan identifies an office on the plot which is not there • The site office has an unacceptable impact • The flat roof will attract seaguls

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

19/1447/FUL Erection of dwelling in garden, Approved 20.09.2019 creation of new accesses onto Salterton Road, closure of access onto The Broadway and erection of extension to existing dwelling 18/1582/FUL Construction of 1 no. dwelling, Approved 28.09.2018 alterations and extensions to existing dwelling (including raising the ridge height and the installation of dormer windows) to create 3 no. dwellings, creation of vehicular access onto Salterton Road

19/2580/FUL page 137

17/3051/FUL Construction of 1 no. dwelling, Withdrawn 27.06.2018 alterations and extensions to existing dwelling (including raising the ridge height and the installation of dormer windows) to create 3 no. dwellings, creation of vehicular access onto Salterton Road

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies

Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

EN14 (Control of Pollution)

Exmouth Neighbourhood Plan

Policy EN1

Government Planning Documents

NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019) National Planning Practice Guidance

Site Location and Description

The application site consists of part of the rear garden formerly associated with 1 The Broadway, a large detached dwelling occupying a corner plot at the junction of Salterton Road and The Broadway. It is a relatively level site, extending to an area of 308 square metres, and having a stone boundary wall to the frontage of Salterton Road into which a new vehicular entrance has been recently created.

The site is within the built-up area boundary of Exmouth, with existing dwellings to the north, south and eastern boundaries, and a further dwelling on the opposite side of Salterton Road.

Proposed Development

This application seeks full planning permission for the construction of a new dwelling, with access onto Salterton Road, and the construction of a cycle store to the rear. The application is submitted as an alternative to that previously approved on the site, on

19/2580/FUL page 138

the same footprint, and with the same overall massing but with the dwelling sited on the existing ground level, rather than the site level being reduced as was previously proposed.

This will result in the ridge height of the proposed dwelling being 0.49m higher, with the ground floor of the building being raised by 0.47m over the previous consent. It is understood that the reduction in ground levels previously proposed would not allow connection into the existing sewer due to the invert levels without being pumped at extra cost.

The proposed dwelling would occupy the position, and have the same footprint as that of a previously approved dwelling, although the design and layout has been amended.

The accommodation is arranged over three floors, with the second storey being contained within the roofspace. Living accommodation is on the ground floor, 3 bedrooms, an en-suite and bathroom on the first floor, and a further 2 bedrooms and shower room on the second floor.

The design is relatively traditional, constructed in facing brick work with tile hanging to the gable above the full height bay to the front, and a triangular dormer window, again tile hung, within the tiled roof to the front of the house. Three high level rooflights are proposed within the rear roof plane.

Access is to be taken from Salterton Road, with a parking and turning area to the front of the property.

Since the submission of the application it has become clear that construction on site has commenced and that it is this proposal that is being implemented.

Planning History

The site has a complex history with the following applications having been recently submitted. These application were for the application site and number 1 The Broadway. In effect, the consents below have permitted works to number 1 itself, including extensions and conversion to 3 flats, as well as a detached dwelling in the garden. It is this dwelling in the garden that the current application seeks to vary.

Reference Description Decision Date

19/1447/FUL Erection of dwelling in garden, Approved 20.09.2019 creation of new accesses onto Salterton Road, closure of access onto The Broadway and erection of extension to existing dwelling

19/2580/FUL page 139

18/1582/FUL Construction of 1 no. dwelling, Approved 28.09.2018 alterations and extensions to existing dwelling (including raising the ridge height and the installation of dormer windows) to create 3 no. dwellings, creation of vehicular access onto Salterton Road 17/3051/FUL Construction of 1 no. dwelling, Withdrawn 27.06.2018 alterations and extensions to existing dwelling (including raising the ridge height and the installation of dormer windows) to create 3 no. dwellings, creation of vehicular access onto Salterton Road

CONSIDERATION AND ASSESSMENT

The main issues to be considered in the determination of this application relate to the principle of the development and any impact on the character and appearance of the area, on residential amenity, or on highway safety.

Principle

The application site is located within the built-up area boundary for Exmouth, and there is therefore no ‘in-principle’ objection to additional residential development with Exmouth identified as a sustainable location for new development under the provisions of Strategy 6 (Development within Built-Up Area Boundaries), and Strategy 22 (Development at Exmouth) of the East Devon Local Plan. The site is considered to be particularly sustainable being located on a main transport route, with easy access to a range of services, shops and other facilities.

Given this, and given that consent for a dwelling on this site has been granted on two previous occasions very recently, the principle of development is acceptable.

Character and Appearance

The design of the proposed building is relatively traditional, with its form and design taking reference from other properties in the vicinity. It has been amended from that previously approved on the site, with the removal of the integral garage and alterations to the fenestration.

The main difference in terms of impact on the character and area relate to the increase in the ridge height of the proposed building over that previously approved. In terms of the appearance to the Salterton Road frontage of the site, the increase in the ridge height is not considered to be so significant as to have a material impact on the character and appearance of this part of Salterton Road. In this respect the ridge

19/2580/FUL page 140

height (63.89m) will be lower than both of the neighbouring properties, with 1 The Broadway having a ridge height of 64.68m and 94 Salterton Road with a ridge height of 64.19m. Although higher than number 3 The Broadway (63.35m), within the site context, and given that the proposal is not readily see from the public domain in conjunction with number 3, it is not considered that the additional height would appear to be visually intrusive, or unacceptable within the street scene.

The amendments to the appearance of the front of the property within the context of the public realm are considered to be modest. The removal of the integral garage with covered porch and the use of brickwork to the first floor are not considered to have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the property, and the use of soldier course brickwork arch detailing above the ground floor windows would provide interest to the elevation.

As the position of the dwelling, its scale and massing have been previously found to be acceptable within the context of the site and the wider character of the area, it is not considered that the proposed retention of the existing ground levels, would result in a material impact on the character and appearance of the area such that it would be reasonable to withhold permission on this basis.

Residential Amenity

The principle of a new dwelling has been established on this site through the previous extant planning permission when the impact of the proposal on the amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties was considered and, subject to appropriate conditions, found to be acceptable. Therefore the determinative issues in the consideration of this application are in terms of any additional or other impact resulting from the proposed amendments suggested.

The installation of the cycle store in the south eastern corner of the site is a modest functional structure which is not considered to have any detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents.

In respect of the alterations to the proposed dwelling, the main issues are considered to be any impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties, particularly those to the south east of the site at 3 The Broadway, whose property and garden levels are at a lower level than the site (approximately 1m lower).

The proposed dwelling is located partly on the site previously occupied by a home office which has been relocated outside of the application site. As has previously been accepted the construction of a dwelling within the application site will have some impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, it is the degree of harm and the difference over and above that which was previously found to be acceptable which needs to be considered as part of this application.

As stated above the siting of the proposed dwelling is the same as that previously considered, although there will be some additional impact arising as the ground levels are not now proposed to be reduced. This will result in more of the rear wall of the new dwelling being visible above the 2.1m high fence boundary, and whilst this will have some additional impact in terms of outlook, it is considered that this would not be

19/2580/FUL page 141

so significant that it would be unreasonably visually intrusive or result in such substantive additional harm to sustain an objection on this basis, particularly given that the roof slopes away from the boundary within number 3. Given the orientation and relationship of the proposed dwelling with that existing there will not be any loss of day light or sunlight arising from the amended plans to number 3.

In terms of loss of privacy, the fenestration arrangements have been amended during the course of the application to result in a similar number of opening to the previous consent.

There is now a similar impact to the previous consent with 3 high levels windows (two of which are obscure glazed) to the rear at first floor level with no roof lights facing number 3. Within the roof space, there are now no rooflights to the rear facing number 3. An improvement over the previous consent.

Whilst the appearance of this elevation will be altered, the use of high level windows, obscure glazing and height of opening windows is such that no additional overlooking or loss of privacy will occur as a result of these amendments.

The use of a 2.1m fence to the rear boundary of the site will be maintained which will also further ensure privacy for the occupiers of no. 3 The Broadway from the use of the ground floor and garden area of the new dwelling.

With the above in mind it is recognised that the proposed dwelling will result in a perception of being overlooked for the occupiers of no. 3 The Broadway to the south east, and that the current situation will be altered. However the impact arising from the construction of a dwelling in this position has already been found to be acceptable by the previous approvals on this site and this proposal will not result in any additional levels of overlooking or perception of overlooking. The additional impact arising from the amended proposals is not considered to be unreasonable or such that would render the proposal unacceptable. In this respect the amended proposal is considered to be in compliance with policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the Local Plan which seeks to ensure that proposals do not adversely affect the amenity of existing occupiers.

The proposed dwelling would also have some impact on the amenity of the occupiers of the property to the north east of the site, 94 Salterton Road which has a single ground floor window on the side elevation, although the outlook from this is to a certain extent limited by the presence of an existing boundary wall. The distance to the side wall of the proposed dwelling has an overall separation distance of around 5m. Two high level windows are proposed within the side elevation of the proposed dwelling which will not facilitate any overlooking or loss of privacy for the occupiers of the existing property.

The distance and presence of the road to the site frontage will protect any amenity to properties on the opposite side of Salterton Road.

On balance it is considered that subject to appropriate conditions to ensure that the proposed fenestration arrangements are maintained, and that no further windows or

19/2580/FUL page 142

openings are proposed without consent at the first floor (or above) level, the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

In addition it is also considered to be reasonable, as previously, to remove permitted development rights in respect of further extensions to the proposed dwelling, dormer windows, roof lights or other outbuilding which could impact on the amenity of existing residents.

Highway Safety

The proposed access onto Salterton Road to serve the dwelling has been considered by officers at Devon County Council as the Highway Authority. This has been found to be acceptable from a highway safety perspective and would comply with the necessary visibility requirements.

Adequate turning and parking provision has been made within the site to be compliant with the Local Plan policy and whilst the concerns raised by neighbours in respect of the highway arrangements are noted, no objection has been raised by the County Highway Authority.

Some concern was also raised that there was a difference in levels between the driveway serving the existing property and the proposed dwelling, which is not the case. The further concerns relating to position of the proposed fencing between the driveway serving 1 the Broadway and the new dwelling have been considered with amended plans submitted indicating a minimum set back of 5m from the highway for any proposed dividing fence which will comply with highway safety requirements.

Compliance with previous conditions

The consent granted under application 18/1582/FUL for the current application site and number 1, contained a number of conditions. This ensured that windows to the rear of the proposed dwelling were obscured glazed, that the 2.1m high boundary fence on the boundary with number 3 be provided, that there be no further openings, no further extensions without consent and that the dwelling should not be occupied until the new driveway has been created. Similar conditions will need to be placed on the current application if Members grant planning permission.

The second consent for the site (19/1447/FUL), also contained similar conditions but also contained a further condition to ensure that the new access serving number 1 was provided and that within 1 month of its provision and use, the existing driveway to 1 The Broadway was closed. Should this permission be implemented in relation to number 1, this condition will still be binding upon that consent regardless of whether further planning permission is granted through the current application.

Habitats Mitigation and Appropriate Assessment

The nature of this application and its location close to the Exe Estuary and Pebblebed Heaths and their European Habitat designations is such that the proposal requires a Habitat Regulations Assessment. This section of the report forms the Appropriate Assessment required as a result of the Habitat Regulations Assessment and Likely

19/2580/FUL page 143

Significant Effects from the proposal. In partnership with Natural England, the council and its neighbouring authorities of Exeter City Council and Teignbridge District Council have determined that housing and tourist accommodation developments in their areas will in-combination have a detrimental impact on the Exe Estuary and Pebblebed Heaths through impacts from recreational use. The impacts are highest from developments within 10 kilometres of these designations. It is therefore essential that mitigation is secured to make such developments permissible. This mitigation is secured via a combination of funding secured via the Community Infrastructure Levy and contributions collected from residential developments within 10km of the designations. This development will be CIL liable and the financial contribution has been secured. On this basis, and as the joint authorities are working in partnership to deliver the required mitigation in accordance with the South-East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy, this proposal will not give rise to likely significant effects.

Other matters

There is a site office on the boundary with number 3 and whilst this is visible from the garden of number 3 The Broadway, it does not require planning permission for the duration of the building works being carried out to number 1 The Broadway.

Concerns have been raised about the inclusion of a flat roof to the centre of the proposal building and potential for nesting seagulls, however this may not occur and it is within the gift of the occupiers of the new dwelling to control any nesting. The application could not therefore be refused on these grounds.

CONCLUSION

Planning permission has been granted, and remains extant for a new dwelling occupying the same footprint and of a similar design to that currently being proposed. The main differences relate to the natural ground levels of the site being maintained and not being reduced as previously proposed, the result of which is that the height of the dwelling has been increased by approximately 500mm.

The concerns raised in respect of the differences between the previously approved planning applications and the current proposal are noted, however this is an independent and unrelated application which must be considered on its individual merits. In this respect the proposal alterations to the design of the dwelling, levels of the site and proposed access arrangements are considered to be appropriate within this context subject to a number of conditions to protect the amenity of adjoining occupiers.

Whilst any increase in height of the building will have some impact on the character of the area and potential to affect the amenity of neighbouring residents, in this instance it is not considered that the impact arising from the proposals would be unreasonable, or that the proposed alterations would be unacceptable in terms of additional impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent properties.

RECOMMENDATION

19/2580/FUL page 144

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment forming part of the report be adopted; and, 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission and shall be carried out as approved. (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 permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

3. No development above ground finished floor level level shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building(s) hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (Reason - To ensure that the materials are considered at an early stage and are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

4. The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the finished floor, ridge height and garden levels indicated on the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. No alterations to the levels shall be undertaken without written approval of the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of the character and appearance of the locality and to protect the residential amenities of adjoining properties in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

5. Before the dwelling hereby permitted is occupied and in accordance with the details shown on drawing no's 19-825 A.05 Rev F; 19-825 A.06 Rev F;19-825 A.07 Rev F; 19-825 A.08 Rev C; 19-825 A.10 Rev E; 19-825 A.11 Rev C the windows indicated on the drawings shall be installed as indicated and annotated on the approved plans. (Reason – To protect the privacy of adjoining occupiers in affordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

6. Before the dwelling hereby permitted is occupied and in accordance with drawing no. 19-825 A.10 Rev E the first floor opening windows shall have been fitted with obscure glass and shall have a restricted opening of between 100 and 200mm. The obscure glazing and opening limitation of these windows shall thereafter be retained at all times. (Reason – To protect the privacy of adjoining occupiers in affordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

19/2580/FUL page 145

7. Prior to first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted the 2.1 metre high rear garden fence shall have been installed in accordance with the details shown on drawing no 19-825 A.01 Rev E, 19-825 A.12 Rev E and Landscaping Scheme 19/305/01D. The fence shall thereafter be retained and maintained in perpetuity. (Reason - To protect the privacy of adjoining occupiers in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification) no works within the Schedule Part 1 Classes A, B, C or E for the enlargement, improvement or other alterations to the dwelling hereby permitted, or the provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse hereby permitted of any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such, other than works that do not materially affect the external appearance of the buildings, shall be undertaken. (Reason - The space available would not permit such additions with detriment to the character and appearance of the area or to the amenities of adjoining occupiers in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification) no windows, doors, rooflights or other openings other than those shown on the plans hereby permitted shall be formed in the south eastern elevation of the dwelling hereby approved. (Reason - To protect the privacy of adjoining occupiers in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

10. The new dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the access, turning space and parking shown on drawing no 19-825 A.01 Rev E have been provided in accordance with the approved details. These shall thereafter be retained and kept available for those purposes at all times. (Reason - To ensure that adequate and safe provision is made for the occupiers and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with the requirements of Policy TC7 - Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access of the Adopted New East Devon Local Plan 2016.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Informative: In accordance with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 in determining this application, East Devon District Council has worked positively with the applicant to ensure that all relevant planning concerns have been appropriately resolved.

19/2580/FUL page 146

Plans relating to this application:

Landscaping Additional Information 10.01.20 details

19/305/01 Landscaping 10.01.20

A.13: Details of Other Plans 10.01.20 cycle store

T1 Location Plan 22.11.19

A01 rev E Proposed Site Plan 04.06.20 (amended)

A02 rev F : Other Plans 04.06.20 foundation plan (amended)

A03 rev E : Proposed Floor Plans 04.06.20 ground (amended)

A04 rev G : first Proposed Floor Plans 04.06.20 (amended)

A05 rev F : loft Proposed Floor Plans 04.06.20 (amended)

A06 rev F Proposed roof plans 04.06.20 (amended)

A07 rev F Sections 04.06.20 (amended)

A08 rev C : Front Proposed Elevation 04.06.20 North West (amended)

A09 rev C : Side Proposed Elevation 04.06.20 North East (amended)

A10 rev E : Rear Proposed Elevation 04.06.20 South East (amended)

19/2580/FUL page 147

A11 rev C : Side Proposed Elevation 04.06.20 South West (amended)

A12 rev E Sections 04.06.20 (amended)

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

19/2580/FUL page 148 Agenda Item 14

Ward Dunkeswell And Otterhead

Reference 19/0855/FUL

Applicant D3 Farming Ltd

Location Building Adjacent Turbury Dunkeswell

Proposal Change of use from agricultural to form 2no. commercial units (use classes B1 and B8), including new doors, windows and external cladding, car and lorry parking areas, improved access and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 149

Committee Date: 15th July 2020

Dunkeswell And Target Date: Otterhead 19/0855/FUL 26.06.2019 (Dunkeswell)

Applicant: D3 Farming Ltd

Location: Building Adjacent Turbury Dunkeswell

Proposal: Change of use from agricultural to form 2no. commercial units (use classes B1 and B8), including new doors, windows and external cladding, car and lorry parking areas, improved access and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before Members as the officer recommendation differs from the view of a Ward Member.

The application seeks consent to convert an agricultural building in the AONB into two commercial buildings in B1 and B8 use including some external alterations.

Whilst the aims and objectives outlined within the Dunkeswell Neighbourhood Plan steer industrial and commercial activity towards the airfield, Policy LE3 supports the conversion of agricultural buildings to employment uses. In addition to this policy, there is policy support in principle for the conversion of the building to commercial use under policies D8 and E4 of the Local Plan given that it is agreed that the building is no longer required for agricultural use.

In addition to the local policy support for the proposal in principle, there is support via the NPPF, and furthermore the site benefits from a ‘fall-back’ position that is material to consideration of the application. Under ‘Class R’ of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) 500sqm of the building could be changed to a flexible commercial use including B1 and B8 uses. Whilst the proposal would need ‘prior approval’, under that process the proposal could only be resisted on the grounds of an insufficient access, noise impact or contamination or flooding risk. These impacts are considered acceptable and as such this permitted development route is open to the applicant and represents a fall-back position.

In light of the policy support and fall-back position, the principle of development is considered to be acceptable.

19/0855/FUL page 150

There is also a requirement to ensure that the proposal has an acceptable visual impact, particularly on the AONB.

The proposed conversion of the building would retain its overall scale, mass and form. The most notable physical alterations relate to the removal of the timber cladding, to be replaced by anthracite grey cladding above a concrete block plinth. Additionally the submitted elevations communicate the instillation of a large commercial door on the north elevation.

The building is surrounded by areas of compacted gravel with intermittent areas of shrubland. An area of permeable hardstanding to provide parking to the north and south of the building would be installed. This would extend to the northern boundary. The proposed parking area would have a degree of visual impact upon what is currently a scruffy arrangement of compacted gravel, shrubland and shipping containers. The proposed development would see the creation of a formal parking area and removal of the shipping containers. A submitted landscaping scheme details the provision of a Devon hedgebank to enclose the proposed access track and parking area. Additional tree planting would be provided in between the access track and Devon Bank with trees also being incorporated into the Devon bank that runs parallel to the east of the application building.

Objection comments concerned with the developments visual impact, and subsequent harm caused to the AONB, are duly acknowledged. However, in light of the stated ‘fall-back’ position, the proposed landscaping scheme is considered an opportunity to secure the provision and protection of native trees and hedging to assist in screening the application building, hardstanding and associated parking. Securing this level of landscaping would not be possible through the assessment of a prior notification under Class R of the GPDO.

Additionally the potential impact of B1 and B8 uses upon the tranquillity of the AONB and the amenity enjoyed by nearby residents also needs to be considered. The proposed development would likely see an increase in the footfall of traffic to the site. However this is not considered to be at odds with the level and type of traffic that is currently attracted to the commercial units at Westerhope or nearby poultry farms. Furthermore, noise impacts caused by the movement of traffic, particularly HGVs, can be partially addressed by requesting further details of the hard surfacing intended for the access track and parking area. Hours of operation of the units and times of deliveries shall be restricted to ensure that noise from the movement of traffic to and from the site is further minimised.

It is acknowledged the introduction of a B1 and B8 use at the application site would have a degree of impact upon the AONB through an increase in traffic, subsequent noise pollution and light intrusion. However, it is proposed that these impacts can largely be addressed through appropriately worded conditions to mitigate against these impacts. Assessment of the current planning application provides an opportunity to apply conditions to mitigate against these potential adverse impacts of the development that would otherwise not be possible during the assessment of a prior notification. Particularly in light of comments made by

19/0855/FUL page 151

Environmental Health, it is deemed that controlling the use of the use of the building and the potential subsequent impacts to the amenity enjoyed by adjoining residential properties, would be less than an unrestricted use that could be obtained by the applicant utilising permitted development rights.

Overall the application, subject to compliance with conditions listed at the end of the report, is considered to propose development that would conserve the landscape character of the area whilst retaining the amenity of nearby residents. Additionally the application is deemed to be in accordance with policy within the East Devon Local Plan, Dunkeswell Neighbourhood Plan and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework. As such, despite objections from statutory consultees the application is recommended for approval.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council

14.05.2019

The Parish Council Object to this application. They believe that the it should remain as agricultural land and should not become a commercial area. They do not wish to set a precedent for future planning applications that could then lead to the creation of an additional industrial area, when there is plenty of Industrial offices, storage & Light Industrial space available on the Industrial Estate on the Airfield. They believe that this is contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan Policy LE3, Page 51. There were also concerns regarding Increase in traffic Contrary to NHP Policy TA3, Page 43 & TA4 Page 44.

Further comments:

21.10.2019

The Parish Council Object stands by it's comments made 13th May 2019 and in addition to this believe that the original application only granted permission for agricultural building and would wish for this to remain agricultural and not industrial.

Dunkeswell And Otterhead - Cllr David Key This building was granted originally as an agricultural (sheep shed) and therefore should remain as agricultural as it is situated on agricultural land and so I object to the application and should be refused. There is no need to extend the area to business premises as it is contrary to the Neighbourhood plan with ample space on the existing industrial estate for offices and storage available on the airfield.

Technical Consultations

Environmental Health

19/07/2019

19/0855/FUL page 152

I am concerned about the proposal for a use such as this in the open countryside and immediately adjacent to a dwelling. There are scant details about what is proposed and it would appear that a planning approval is sought which would essentially include no control on future use of the building. The applicant does mention quite a number of car parking spaces and therefore may already have an occupation in mind although this is not detailed in the application. It is not therefore possible to anticipate environmental impacts on the adjacent residents and the wider environment and I do not consider that the application can be determined until such detail is provided. I have some specific concerns:

I am familiar with the adjacent B1 and B8 site and the history of severe impact on the residents living adjacent to it during various uses of those buildings. The proposed access roadway is immediately adjacent to the residence and cannot fail to impact upon it, particularly if the use were to extend beyond normal daytime working hours. There is no information included as to how these impacts would be minimised and mitigated. EDDC has planning policies which presume against allowing industrial development adjacent to residential properties, and in this countryside area there is certainly no need for these policies not to be implemented.

Our concerns regarding lack of information include the following:

1. No details of the proposed occupation are included in the application. B1, B2 and B8 uses can impact by way of noise, odour, dust, lighting and fumes and we would need to be in a position whereby we could anticipate potential impacts on local residents and the wider environment. Because of the very wide range of uses that could be accommodated if a non-specific B1, B2 and B8 consent is given, we consider that it is unreasonable to try to condition everything that might occur. The applicant should be requested to provide the detail of what is proposed to be accommodated within and outside the building and what it is to be used for. In this way they can provide reports alongside the application which will demonstrate that they have anticipated impacts and designed the proposal in such a way that they are effectively mitigated (if they can be).

2. The nearest residence is barely 20m from the access roadway and 50m from the boundary of the development. The residents will be affected by large vehicles using the access road. Two other residences are a short distance away and all could be impacted upon by noise and emissions. It is unlikely that the noise and pollution, particularly from certain B2 uses, could be fully mitigated even with a reasonable standard of management. No details have been provided regarding whether the work or processing would take place inside or outside of the building. In any case internal noise would be prone to escape through external openings.

3. Activities based in buildings on the adjacent site have established on the footprint of a former farm yard and have impacted on the residences by way of delivery vehicle noise, reversing alarms, noisy machines and out of hours working. Some of the other occupied units impact from time to time although all are consented only for daytime B1 uses. The addition of another large commercial unit will further contribute to the changing of the character of this rural area, impacting in a negative way.

19/0855/FUL page 153

4. I am most concerned about the proposal for B2 and B8 use. The most important element of this is that once a B2 use is approved then any B2 use can start up without further consent, and this use class covers a significant range of potentially polluting uses. The current adopted plan includes a policy which states that employment uses will not be permitted where they would significantly harm the quality of a locality by way of through traffic, amenity, environmental and other associated problems. It is our experience that all of these factors apply to this site. This area is predominantly rural and uses should not impact on either the very close by residences or the tranquility of the countryside. We have serious concerns that a use such as that proposed would impact in an entirely unacceptable way and that the amenity of the residential occupiers would be seriously compromised.

I recommend that this application cannot be determined until the above concerns have been addressed, and in the absence of further information which address the policy and environmental issues it should be refused.

Further comments:

28.10.2019

I have considered the further information and still consider that this is not an appropriate location to extend commercial activity, given that this was a green field site only a few years ago and this building was intended as an agricultural sheep shed within the field. However if the policy concerns are overcome I have the following comments to make which should reduce the impact of this use on the adjacent residence and the local rural environment:

1. I am pleased to see that unspecified B2 has been removed from the application as the various environmental controls required would usually need to be related to more specific uses.

2. In view of the very close proximity of a residence, and the designation of this area as semi-tranquil, we would not like to see any worsening of the noise climate in this area, particularly out of hours and at night. If the application is approved in its current form I therefore recommend that the following condition is applied:

No deliveries shall be accepted or despatched to or from the site except between the hours of 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday, and not at all on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents from noise.

and

The premises shall not be open for business except between the hours of 07.30 to 18.30 Monday to Friday only, and not at all on Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents from noise.

19/0855/FUL page 154

3. This area is fully rural with an important dark sky environment. I therefore recommend that the following condition designed to control light pollution is included on any approval:

A lighting scheme shall be provided for the site which complies with the requirements of the Institute of Light Engineers guidance on the avoidance of light pollution. The lamps used shall not be capable of reflecting light laterally, upwards or off the ground surface in such a way that light pollution is caused. No area lighting shall be operated outside the hours of 7.30am to 6.30pm on Mondays to Fridays only, although low height low level security lighting may be acceptable. Reason: To comply with Policy EN15 for the avoidance of light pollution.

4. As the specific occupiers of the building cannot be identified at this stage, I would like to see a condition included which ensures that any machinery, ventilation or air conditioning equipment with the potential to cause off site noise, which might be installed in the future would require an additional planning approval.

5. I cannot see any details of the road or car park surface proposed. Again as this access road is immediately adjacent to a residence it is important that the final surface is smooth and well drained in order that the likelihood of noise, particularly from large empty vehicles, is reduced to a minimum.

Landscape Architect Chris Hariades

18.02.20

The report provides a review of landscape related information submitted with the application in relation to adopted policy, relevant guidance, current best practice and existing site context and should be read in conjunction with the submitted information.

2 LOCATION, SUMMARY PROPOSALS, SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT

2.1 Location and brief description of proposals

The site is situated to the north of Long Lane at Dunkeswell Turbury. The application is for conversion of the existing barn in to two business use premises and creation of car park with associated planting.

2.2 Site description and context

The site is set some 200m off Long Lane and is served by an unmettled access track running adjacent to the western boundary. The site is situated on an extensive plateau at an altitude of 265m AOD, 1km south of the WW2 Dunkeswell airfield and is part of a cluster of agricultural and business use sheds and some dwellings situated to the north side of Long Lane. A large agricultural barn stands on the site. In addition there are several porta-cabins and steel containers together with a number of soil heaps. The land is generally flat with a slight fall towards the south.

19/0855/FUL page 155

The roadside boundary comprises a low bank lined with beech trees which continues with some breaks as a notable roadside feature of Long Lane. The western boundary is native mixed hedgerow. The north and eastern boundaries are defined by post and wire fence with open fields beyond. A large communications mast is situated 500m to the north. A small business park abuts the western boundary.

Land to the south is a mix of commercial woodland and open common land. There is no public access within the site but it is visible from Long Road and access land to the south.

The site is also likely to be visible from a number of dwellings the nearest being Turbury Croft 150m to the east which has clear views towards it.

2.3 Opportunities and constraints

The site currently has an air of dereliction and there is opportunity to put the boundary beech trees in to proper management, remove container units and soil heaps and provide additional hedgerow and tree planting which would enhance landscape character, provide biodiversity benefit and help to reduce visual impact of the existing building and the adjacent industrial estate to the west when viewed form the road. The site is situated in the Blackdown Hills AONB which has the highest status of protection in relation to conservation and enhancement of landscape and scenic beauty and the submitted scheme should reflect this.

3 REVIEW OF SUBMITTED INFORMATION

Very limited information is provided with the application but the following points are noted which should be addressed prior to determination of the application: - There is no indication of what will happen to the existing porta-cabins and containers, which should be removed from site. Confirmation should also be provided of how the soil heaps will be dealt with. - The proposed orchard does not reflect local landscape character and may struggle to survive in this elevated and windswept location and further consideration is required of appropriate tree planting within a narrower strip to the east of the site access track. New hedgerows should comprise Devon hedgebanks with appropriate native planting constructed in accordance with recommendations of Devon Hedge Group (Appendix A).

- Proposed mitigation planting is shown outside of the redline application boundary. The red line should be adjusted accordingly. - The existing beech trees to the road frontage should be shown on the site plan and it should be established that they will not be adversely impacted by any visibility splay requirements. - An accurate topographic survey including boundary features should be provided together with details of proposed levels. - Proposed 2.4m high perimeter chain-link fencing seems excessive and should be reduced to 2 metres. - The western edge of the proposed car park/ access track appears to encroach into the existing boundary hedgerow. Proposed hardstanding should not encroach beyond the western edge of existing hardstanding.

19/0855/FUL page 156

- Car park surfacing is shown to be permeable but it is likely that additional drainage provision will be required to cope with heavy/ continual rain events and further details should be provided in accordance with Devon CC SuDS Guidance principles. - Details should be provided of any required utilities connections not already available on site. In addition to the above points the following matters should be addressed by condition should the application be approved: - External lighting should be limited and details provided for approval together with measures to contain light spill from within the building. - A 25 year management plan should be provided to cover proposed planting and the existing hedgerow and roadside beech trees. - Details of suitable fair-faced block work for the building plinth should be submitted.

CONCLUCION & RECOMMENDATIONS For the reasons noted above the submitted scheme is considered unsatisfactory in terms of landscape design and visual impact and as such should be considered contrary to EDDC Local plan policies D1, D2 and D3. However, subject to submission of satisfactory details addressing the issues raised the scheme could be considered acceptable.

Blackdown Hills AONB Project Partnership

Thank you for advising of amendments to this application. It appears that the AONB Partnership had not previously commented, but having reviewed the material online I would confirm that the comments and concerns of the parish council, ward councillor and the environmental health officer are supported.

The AONB Partnership supports its local planning authorities in the application of national and local planning policy in order to ensure that any development in the AONB conserves and enhances the natural beauty of this nationally designated landscape, which is afforded the highest level of protection by national policy. In support of this, the Blackdown Hills AONB Management Plan 2019-24 is the agreed policy framework for conserving and enhancing the AONB and seeks to ensure that all development affecting the AONB is of the highest quality. It contains the following policy of particular relevance to development proposals:

Planning and development PD2 All necessary development affecting the AONB will conserve and enhance natural beauty and special qualities by: - Respecting landscape character, settlement patterns and local character of the built environment, - Being sensitively sited and of appropriate scale, - Reinforcing local distinctiveness, and - Seeking to protect and enhance natural features and biodiversity

The rural character and appearance of this part of the AONB is already compromised by existing development and as such further encroachment of urbanised development (industrial use and associated car parking, etc) into undeveloped areas should be resisted in order to safeguard that character, conserving and enhancing the AONB.

19/0855/FUL page 157

Contaminated Land Officer No contaminated land officer concerns.

County Highway Authority Observations: The site is situated on the C97, Long Lane. The proposed access can achieve a visibility splay of 120m in either direction with hard standing to the County Highway Authority (CHA) standard. The proposed layout includes 2 lorry spaces and 13 car spaces, I would recommend that disabled parking spaces are marked out, in addition to cycle storage as the planning application will provide employment should it be approved. Overall however the CHA has no objections to this planning application.

Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, MAY WISH TO RECOMMEND CONDITIONS ON ANY GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION

No development shall take place until details of secure cycle/scooter storage facilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To promote sustainable travel in accordance with the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.

Other Representations

None

Planning History

04/2777/FUL: Farm Building, approved

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D2 (Landscape Requirements) D8 (Re-use of Rural Buildings Outside of Settlements) E4 (Rural Diversification) TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development) EN19 (Adequacy of Foul Sewers and Adequacy of Sewage Treatment System)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

19/0855/FUL page 158

Dunkeswell Neighbourhood Plan Policy LE3 (Conversion of Agricultural Businesses)

Site Location and Description.

The application site relates to land off Long Lane that currently consists of a large agricultural building of approximately 855sqm and approximately 16 acres of agricultural land.

The site is located outside of any built up area boundary but within the Blackdown Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The surrounding landscape is a high open flat plateaux characterised by large rectangular pastoral fields. The immediate area is characterised by agricultural and commercial units all located immediately to the north of Long Lane.

Proposed Development

The application seeks planning permission to convert the existing agricultural building to two commercial unit to be used as B1 (Business) or B8 (Storage and Distribution) use. The access would be slightly widened with car and lorry parking spaces being proposed immediately around the existing building. The proposal also includes physical alterations to the barn, including new doors, windows, external cladding and landscaping.

ANALYSIS

The key issues for consideration are the principle of development, visual impact, impact on the amenity of nearby residents, and highway safety.

Principle of Development

Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) of the East Devon Local Plan states that development in the countryside will only be permitted where it is in accordance with a specific Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plan policy that explicitly permits such development and where it would not harm the distinctive landscape qualities within which it is situated.

The planning application proposes the conversion of an existing agricultural building, in open countryside where restrictive policies apply. Therefore the most relevant policies, in terms of assessing whether the principle of development is acceptable, relates to Policies D8 (Re-use of Rural Buildings Outside of Settlements), E4 (Rural Diversification) of the Local Plan and Policy LE3 (Conversion of Agricultural Buildings) of the Dunkeswell Neighbourhood Plan.

All of these policies require development to be sympathetic to the rural setting of the site and retain neighbouring amenity and due to the comments from statutory consultees, and the technical issues raised by the Environmental Health Team, these issues are assessed below.

19/0855/FUL page 159

In terms of the principle of development and compliance of the proposal with the relevant policies, the assessment is as follows.

• Policy D8 (Re-use of Rural Buildings Outside of Settlements)

The policy states that the re-use of buildings in the countryside outside of Built-Up Area Boundaries will be permitted where applications satisfy a number of criteria. These requirements/criteria are as follows;

-The new use is sympathetic to, and will enhance the rural setting and character of the building and surrounding area and is in a location which will not substantively add to the need to travel by car or lead to a dispersal of activity or uses on such a scale as to prejudice village vitality.

- The building is structurally sound a capable of conversion without the need for substantial extension, alteration or reconstruction and any alterations protect or enhance the character of the building and its setting.

- The form, bulk and general design of the building and its proposed conversion are in keeping with its surroundings, local building styles and materials

- The proposed use would not harm the countryside by way of traffic, parking, storage, pollution or the erection of associated structures.

- The proposal will not undermine the viability of an existing agricultural enterprise or require replacement buildings to fulfil a similar function.

The justification to the policy at paragraph 21.15 of the Local Plan states that the policy has been developed to help manage and guide the re-use of rural buildings and that proposals will be encouraged where they benefit the local economy, local community or for part of an agricultural diversification scheme.

Whilst compliance with the criteria above in relation to its visual impact and traffic are assessed below, the proposal complies with the policy and criteria in relation to not undermining an existing agricultural enterprise, being structurally sound, or requiring a replacement building (this has been confirmed by the applicant). The farming business is stated to have recently restructured resulting in giving up 100 acres of land at Dunkeswell. As such, with no evidence to the contrary, the proposal is not considered to undermine the viability of an existing agricultural enterprise.

• Policy E4 (Rural Diversification)

This policy supports the diversification of agriculture subject to the following criteria:

1. The proposal is complementary to, or compatible with, the agricultural operations in the rural area or on a farm and is operated as part of an overall holding. 2. The character, scale and location of a proposal are compatible with its landscape setting and any area of nature conservation importance. 3. The proposal would not use the best and most versatile agricultural land.

19/0855/FUL page 160

4. The likely amount of traffic generated by the proposal could be accommodated on the local highway network without harming road safety and without adverse visual impact upon the surrounding countryside. 5. Any new building (and associated parking and other structures/storage) does not detract from the historic environment is modest in scale and is sited in or adjacent to an existing group of buildings and is of a compatible design and will blend into the landscape in terms of design, siting and materials. 6. The proposal would not cause noise, air or water pollution or flooding nor harm the amenity of local residents. 7. All new agricultural and agricultural related buildings within 1 kilometre of sighting of barn owls or signs of their activity with a ridge height of 3 metres or more shall make suitable provision for the nesting of barn owls, whether or not they have been observed at the site.

Whilst matters of visual impact and traffic are addressed below, the proposal complies with the other policy criteria in terms of being compatible with the remainder of the holding and adjoining businesses uses; would not result in the loss of any further valuable agricultural land; and there being no ecological or heritage value to the building.

In addition, the justification to the policy states that the Council acknowledges the changing role of agriculture and the need for new employment in rural areas. Whilst the policy seeks to encourage diversification in the form of the keeping of non- traditional livestock, production of other crops, recreation and tourism, the policy does not prevent diversification into other employment uses.

• Policy LE3 (Conversion of Agricultural Buildings)

The Dunkeswell Neighbourhood Plan also contains a policy that addresses such development. Policy LE3 (Conversion of Agricultural Buildings) is broadly similar to Policy D8 of the East Devon Local Plan. Objectives of the policy seek to ensure development would have a minimal impact upon the surrounding rural landscape, not negatively impact the local road network and not have an unacceptable impact upon neighbouring amenity.

The policy states that when considering the conversion of agricultural buildings for business use, therefore implying that it is supportive of such proposals, it should mainly be through conversions and respecting local character.

• National Planning Policy Framework

Additionally, the National Planning Policy Framework includes guidance on how planning policies and decisions should support a prosperous rural economy. Paragraph 83 sub para a) states that decisions should enable sustainable types of business in rural areas both through conversion of existing buildings and well- designed new buildings.

In addition to the above policy position that is supportive in principle of the conversion of agricultural buildings to employment generating uses, also material to consideration of the application is a fall-back position.

19/0855/FUL page 161

• Fall-back position

It is material to consideration of the application that there is available to the applicant a Permitted Development Right that provides a fall-back position. The applicant has stated within the application that they are aware of availability of such rights.

‘Class R’ of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) allows for the conversion of ‘agricultural buildings to a flexible commercial use’. This particular part of the GPDO sets out a list of criteria that a development must accord with to be considered ‘permitted development’. As such the owner could convert up to 500m2 of the building’s floor space under Class R of the GPDO through the submission of a prior notification to the Local Planning Authority.

Past case law (Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC, 2017) saw the Court of Appeal uphold a judgement of the High Court that such Permitted Development Rights can properly be taken into account as a ‘fall-back’ position where some alternative form of development is then proposed. Therefore the potential of a ‘fall-back’ is acknowledged and considered to carry significant weight in the planning balance.

The criteria (which relate solely to having an acceptable access, no noise impacts, no contamination risk and no flooding risk) within Class R has been assessed against information within the application. It is considered that if a prior approval were to be submitted that a change of use of part of the building (up to 500sqm) to a B1 and or B8 use, it would be considered as permitted development. Unusually for these such Permitted Development Rights, it does apply with an AONB.

Taking into account this fall-back position and the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan policy support policy for the principle of development, it is considered that the change of use of the building from agriculture to B1/B8 use is acceptable in principle.

Impact Upon the Blackdown Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

The site is located within the Blackdown Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Therefore certain restrictive polices apply. The Local Plan and NPPF both contain guidance and policy giving conservation of the AONB significant weight in planning decisions. Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) of the East Devon Local Plan states that development shall only be permitted where it:

1) Conserves and enhances the landscape character of the area. 2) Does not undermine landscape quality. 3) Is appropriate to the economic, social and wellbeing of the area.

The application proposes to convert the existing building whilst making some minor external alterations to the building. As such the structure retains it's agricultural scale, mass and form. Therefore the overall visual harm of converting the building itself is considered minimal.

The most significant visual impact would be caused by the provision of the parking area. The building is currently surrounded by areas of compacted gravel with

19/0855/FUL page 162

intermittent areas of shrubland. An area of permeable hardstanding to provide parking to the north and south of the building would be installed. This would extend to the northern boundary.

The proposed parking area would have a degree of visual impact upon what is currently an untidy arrangement of compacted gravel, soil heaps, shrubland and shipping containers. A submitted landscaping scheme in response to concerns raised by statutory consultees, including the local authority’s Landscape Officer, details the provision of a Devon hedgebank to enclose the proposed access track and parking area. Additional tree planting would be provided between the access track and Devon Bank with trees also being incorporated into the Devon bank that runs parallel to the east of the application building. Tree planting would consist of a mix of oak and field maple. Views into the site would be largely restricted from areas immediately to the south of the site off Long Lane. The proposed Devon bank, hedging and retention of the existing beach trees that border the south of the site has the potential to mitigate any potential visual impact caused by parked vehicles from viewpoints to the south of the site. Although the site is relatively open to the northeast there are limited vantage points to view the site, these being limited to filtered views along a private track that serves Lammas Lands.

The most significant physical alterations to the building would be the instillation of rooflights on either roof pitch. The timber cladding on the exterior walls would be replaced with Athracite gray cladding, the existing steel roof would remain.

However, as specified within the Blackdown Hill's Management Plan, 'natural beauty' is not just the look of the landscape. There is also a duty to ensure the tranquillity of the AONB and its sensory experiences, cultural associations and the relationship between people and space.

The immediate area that surrounds the application site is characterised by varying uses. Immediately adjoining the site to the west at Westerhope are a number of agricultural buildings that have been converted to commercial units. Residential units also border Long Lane to the west, many of which are located in close proximity to the access of the Westerhope industrial units. To the east is Southayes Farm, an active poultry farm with a number of large agricultural buildings.

Introducing a B1 and B8 use to the building would likely see an increase in the footfall of traffic to the site. However this is not considered to be at odds with the level and type of traffic that is currently attracted to the commercial units at Westerhope or nearby poultry farms. Furthermore, noise impacts caused by the movement of traffic, particularly HGVs, can be partially addressed by requesting further details of the hard surfacing intended for the access track and parking area. Additionally hours of operation of the units and times of deliveries shall be restricted to ensure that noise from the movement of traffic to and from the site is further minimised. Obviously the lawful agricultural use would in itself create traffic movements and noise.

Due to the provision of multiple rooflights along the roof pitch, and anticipated need for external lighting, there are concerns over potential light spill. As such it has been considered an appropriate measure to condition the submission of a lighting scheme

19/0855/FUL page 163

prior to commencement of the development to ensure the amount of light spill can be assessed and controlled.

Concerns raised by statutory consultees regarding the developments potential impact upon the AONB are acknowledged. Whilst the site would undergo a degree of visual change, removal of the shipping containers, soil heaps and implementation of the landscaping scheme would not harm the landscape character of the area. The introduction of native hedging and tree planting are both elements that improve landscape quality whilst mitigating any visual impact that the replacement cladding or parking may have.

The fall-back position available to the applicant is also material to the visual impact. Under the fall-back position, there is no opportunity to improve the appearance of the site through landscaping and tidying of the site. Approving development via a planning application provides this additional benefit.

Subject to conditions to ensure suitable materials, a suitable lighting scheme, and controlled noise levels, the application is considered to propose development that would conserve the relative tranquillity, scenic and landscape qualities of the Blackdown Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The suggested conditions further reduce the proposed developments impact upon the immediate area to a level deemed acceptable when assessed against Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs) of the Local Plan, Policy LE3 (Conversion of Agricultural Buildings) and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Impact Upon the Amenity of Adjoining Neighbours

The Local Authority's Environmental Health Team have reviewed the proposals and provided comments. Concerns relate to hours of operation and the potential of deliveries outside of normal working hours and the subsequent impact this could have on nearby residents. To protect the amenity of nearby residents and to conserve the semi-tranquil character of the immediate area, it is requested that the hours of operation of the building for B1 and B8 use should be restricted to the following;

No deliveries shall be accepted or despatched to or from the site except between the hours of 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday, and not at all on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays.

And;

The premises shall not be open for business except between the hours of 07.30 to 18.30 Monday to Friday only, and not at all on Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Also;

Details regarding the hardstanding has also been requested prior commencement of the development to ensure that the movement of HGVs entering and exiting the site do not negatively impact upon adjoining neighbours through noise.

19/0855/FUL page 164

The above conditions are considered to ensure that any additional noise and disturbance caused by the B1 and B8 use can be mitigated to an acceptable level impact upon the amenity enjoyed by Little Turbury, Beech Croft and, most importantly, Windhover. No comments have been made by occupants of the aforementioned properties on the planning application.

The Environmental Health officer has also highlighted the importance of assessing the impact through noise of any plant machinery, ventilation or air conditioning on adjoining residents. In this instance this type of development would be likely to require further planning permission in its own right as external alterations to the building, but noise from any internal equipment can be control through a condition requiring details before any internal equipment is installed.

Other Matters

The Devon County Council Highways have been consulted and provided feedback on the application. Visibility when existing the site is considered acceptable. However it has been suggested that a pre-commencement condition be attached to secure details of secure cycle/scooter and storage facilities to promote sustainable travel. Subject to the submission of this application the application is considered to comply with Policy TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) of the Local Plan.

CONCLUSION

The application seeks consent to convert an agricultural building in the AONB into two commercial buildings in B1 and B8 use including some external alterations.

Whilst the aims and objectives outlined within the Dunkeswell Neighbourhood Plan steer industrial and commercial activity towards the airfield, Policy LE3 supports the conversion of agricultural buildings to employment uses. In addition to this policy, there is policy support in principle for the conversion of the building to agricultural use under policies D8 and E4 of the Local Plan given that it is agreed that the building is no longer required for agricultural use.

In addition, there is support via the NPPF and furthermore the site benefits from a ‘fall- back’ position that is material to consideration of the application whereby 500sqm the building could be converted to B1 and B8 use under the prior approval process.

In light of the policy support and fall-back position, the principle of development is considered to be acceptable.

The proposed conversion of the building would retain its overall scale, mass and form. The most notable physical alterations relate to the removal of the timber cladding, to be replaced by anthracite grey cladding above a concrete block plinth. Additionally the submitted elevations communicate the instillation of a large commercial door on the north elevation. As such the building would have an acceptable visual impact on the AONB.

19/0855/FUL page 165

The areas surrounding the building will be tidied up and landscaped to ensure an improved visual impact and in light of this, and given that such benefits could not be secured through the fall-back position, the proposed landscaping scheme is considered an opportunity to secure the provision and protection of native trees and hedging to assist in screening the application building, hardstanding and associated parking to the benefit of the AONB and visual amenity of the area.

Additionally the potential impact of B1 and B8 uses upon the tranquillity of the AONB and the amenity enjoyed by nearby residents can be controlled through the imposition of suitable conditions.

The access is suitable to serve the development.

Overall the application, subject to compliance with conditions listed is considered to propose development that would conserve the landscape character of the area whilst retaining the amenity of nearby residents. Additionally the application is deemed to be in accordance with policy within the East Devon Local Plan, Dunkeswell Neighbourhood Plan and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework. As such, despite objections from statutory consultees the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission and shall be carried out as approved. (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 permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

3. The premises shall not be open for business except between the hours of 07.30 to 18.30 Monday to Friday only, and not at all on Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays. (Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents from noise in accordance with Policies D1 and EN14 of the adopted East Devon Local Plan.)

4. Prior to the instillation of any external lighting a lighting scheme shall be provided for the site which complies with the requirements of the Institute of Light Engineers guidance on the avoidance of light pollution. The lamps used shall not be capable of reflecting light laterally, upwards or off the ground surface in such a way that light pollution is caused. No area lighting shall be operated outside the hours of 7.30am to 6.30pm on Mondays to Fridays only, although low height low level security lighting may be acceptable.

19/0855/FUL page 166

Reason: For the avoidance of light pollution and to comply with Policy EN14 (Control of Pollution) and Strategy 46 (Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs).

5. The landscaping scheme, as detailed on approved plan 2712-PL-02H, shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development unless any alternative phasing of the landscaping is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the landscaping shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To ensure that the details are planned and considered at an early stage in the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D2 - Landscape Requirements of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

6. No deliveries shall be accepted or despatched to or from the site except between the hours of 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday, and not at all on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays. (Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents from noise in accordance with Policies D1 and EN14 of the adopted East Devon Local Plan.)

7. The building herby approved shall only be used for B1 and/or B8 uses as defined within the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. (Reason: To retain the amenity enjoyed by nearby residents and be in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness).

8. Prior to commencement of the hereby approved development, details of hardstanding to be used as part of the access track and parking area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents from noise in accordance with Policies D1 and EN14 of the adopted East Devon Local Plan.)

9. Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved, details of secure bike storage facilities shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented with the approved details. (Reason: To promote sustainable travel in accordance with Strategy 5b (Sustainable Transport) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

10. Prior to the installation of any internal or external plant machinery, ventilation or air conditioning, details shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter any such plant or machinery shall be operated in accordance with the approved details. (Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents from noise in accordance with Policies D1 and EN14 of the adopted East Devon Local Plan.)

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

19/0855/FUL page 167

Informative: In accordance with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 in determining this application, East Devon District Council has worked positively with the applicant to ensure that all relevant planning concerns have been appropriately resolved.

Plans relating to this application:

Location plan 2712-PL-03 REVA 01.05.2019 Proposed Site Plan 2712-PL-02H 11.03.2020 Proposed Elevation 2712-PL-04 REV A 01.05.2019 Proposed Floor Plans 2712-PL-01 REV A 01.05.2019

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

19/0855/FUL page 168 Agenda Item 15

Ward Seaton

Reference 19/2445/FUL

Applicant Mr G Mettam

Location Vintage Court The Square Seaton

Proposal Demolition of 2 x commercial units and 1 flat to be replaced with 2 x retail units and 8 flats.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 169

Committee Date: 15th July 2020

Seaton Target Date: (Seaton) 19/2445/FUL 07.01.2020

Applicant: Mr G Mettam

Location: Vintage Court The Square

Proposal: Demolition of 2 x commercial units and 1 flat to be replaced with 2 x retail units and 8 flats.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before Members as the officer recommendation differs to the view of a Ward Member.

The proposal seeks planning consent for the demolition of 2 commercial units and 1 flat to be replaced with 2 retail units with 8 flats above.

The proposal takes place on the rear of the existing properties which front onto The Square in the heart of the town centre. The application site would also be visible from the adjacent public car park to the rear. The proposed takes place within the designated conservation area and town centre shopping area.

The Conservation Officer has raised concerns over this proposal pointing toward the inappropriate fenestration and detailing of the extension. As such substantial harm to the heritage asset (the conservation area) has been identified. Both the local plan and national planning policy framework require significant public benefits to outweigh such harm and in this case there are not considered to be those benefits.

Further, the curvature of the building and its height means that the proposed windows would overlook existing windows on the rear of the properties which front the High Street. As a result significant overlooking would arise to the detriment of adjacent occupiers.

Although there would be no net loss in the number of commercial units, the commercial floor area would be reduced under this scheme. However, this would not affect the designated primary shopping frontage and the scheme would provide for modern and attractive commercial space which may be more attractive from a viability standpoint and as such this loss of floorspace is accepted.

19/2445/FUL page 170

As a result of the harm to the conservation area and amenity of adjacent occupiers the proposal is recommended for refusal.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Seaton Town Council

Clerk To Seaton Town Council Seaton Town Council object to this planning application.

Reasons for the objection: Planning application 18/2077/FUL for the demolition of 2 x retail units and 1 flat to be replaced with 2 x retail units and 9 flats at Vintage Court, The Square, Seaton was withdrawn by the agent in November 2018. The current application is for the demolition of 2 x commercial units and 1 flat to be replaced with 2 x retail units and 8 flats.

Even though the new design is more in keeping with the surrounding development and the Conservation Area the Town Council cannot support this application for several reasons.

Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the East Devon Local Plan states that: Proposals will only be permitted where they: Respect the key characteristics and special qualities of the area in which the development is proposed. Ensure that the scale, massing, density, height, fenestration and materials of buildings relate well to their context and Do not adversely affect: The distinctive historic or architectural character of the area.

Councillors thought the proposal was overdevelopment of the site and the design, scale, massing density and height of the building did not relate well to the surroundings. The application site is in a Conservation Area and the proposed plans for the development do not relate well to the distinctive historic character of the area. The way the proposed building is angled does not look as though it will be an attractive and coherent building and only 3 of the flats have outside space. The Seaton Town Design Statement states 'new developments should be sympathetic to and in keeping with the well-established architecture within its zone and near neighbours, particularly in terms of scale, layout and mass. It also states that the special character of the Conservation and Town Centre Areas must be preserved and in order to retain the identity and existing character of the town centre, only small-scale developments in terms of density, height and footprint should be permitted. The design is contrary to the Seaton Town Design Statement as it: a) Does not reflect local characteristics b) The development is not sympathetic to the existing architecture and is out of context with its surroundings

19/2445/FUL page 171

c) It doesn't preserve the special character of the Conservation Area and town centre in fact this would erode the town's intrinsic character d) The building density is inappropriate in terms of height, mass and scale Concern was raised over the vehicular access to the site and the safety of pedestrians. The proposed small and narrow access strip onto Harbour Road is not enough for the traffic which will be generated to the site. Approval of this application would greatly increase the number of vehicles accessing the site by crossing over the pavement. The Council strongly believes that this would be a health and safety risk to both pedestrians and motorists. The application does not clearly delineate pedestrian paths and emphasise pedestrian priority areas.

This application does not meet the criteria of the strategies and policies listed below of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031. Therefore, Seaton Town Council strongly object to this application as it fails to comply with the following:

Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 as it does not respect the key characteristics and special qualities of the area in which the development is proposed and it has not ensured that the scale, massing, density, height, fenestration and materials of buildings relate well to their context. Policy EN10 - Conservation Areas of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 as the proposed development does not preserve or enhance the appearance and character of the area. Policy E2 - Employment Generating Development in Built-Up Areas of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031 as the proposed development will generate traffic of a type or amount inappropriate for the character of access roads or require will improvements that would damage the character of those roads

The proposed development is also contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework as it goes against the principles of community led planning and the EDDC Local Plan.

Ward Member - Seaton - Cllr Marcus Hartnell

I support this application. The proposed development will improve both the appearance and vitality of the town centre. It is welcome to see the two retail units retained and refurbished, which will offer employment opportunities alongside the 1-2 bedroom flats. I agree with the comments of the environmental health officer and agree with the time constraints proposed for the retail units to avoid any nuisance to nearby residents. I would like to request that the pedestrian walkway between The Square and Harbour Road is well lit, with pedestrian signage at either side, and has litter bins to ensure it is kept clean, tidy and free from anti-social behaviour.

Technical Consultations

EDDC Trees I have no objection to this proposal on Arboricultural Grounds

Environmental Health I have assessed the application and have the following concerns:

(A) Noise from commercial units affecting residential units:

19/2445/FUL page 172

I am concerned that noise from the activities generated within the commercial units will impact on the proposed and existing residential units. No hours of opening have been suggested in the planning application, but, given the proximity of existing and proposed residents I consider daytime opening only is appropriate. I am also concerned that noise from potential plant and equipment (for example air conditioning) may also impact on the proposed and existing residential units.

(B) Impact of demolition and construction activities on existing residential units: The proposed site is very close to existing residential units and the proposed demolition and construction activities will impact on local residents.

I therefore recommend the following conditions:

(1) Sound insulation - Proposed commercial units below and adjacent to proposed residential units: Prior to the first occupation of any of the residential units hereby approved a sound insulation scheme shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such a scheme shall be designed to reduce the transmission of noise between the commercial premises and the residential development with the airborne sound insulation performance designed to achieve, as a minimum, a 10dB increase in the minimum requirements of Approved Document E. The standard must be applied to all walls, floors, ceilings and any other separating structures that are shared with the commercial premises. The scheme to be submitted shall also provide for post construction testing certification to demonstrate the sound insulation performance has met the required standard and where necessary set out what further mitigation measures will be employed to achieve the required levels. The sound insulation scheme shall be installed and maintained only in accordance with the details approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason -To protect the amenity of future occupiers of the dwelling in accordance with policies D1 (Design and Distinctiveness) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031.

(2) Hours of opening - Proposed commercial units: The commercial premises shall not be open for business except between the hours of 09:00 and 18:00 Monday to Saturday and 10:00 and 16:00 on Sundays or Bank Holidays Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents from noise.

(3) Hours of servicing - Proposed commercial units: No deliveries shall be accepted or despatched to or from the site except between the hours of 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday, or 0800 to 1300 on Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents from noise.

(4) Noise from plant and equipment - Proposed commercial units: Any plant (including ventilation, refrigeration and air conditioning units) or ducting system to be used in pursuance of this permission shall be so installed prior to the first use of the premises and be so retained and operated that the noise generated at the boundary of the nearest neighbouring property shall not exceed Noise Rating Curve 25, as defined in BS8233:2014 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings

19/2445/FUL page 173

Code of Practice and the Chartered Institute of Building Service Engineers Environmental Design Guide. Details of the scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first use of the premises. Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents from noise.

(5) Impact of noise etc. from demolition and construction A Construction and Environment Management Plan must be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works commencing on site, and shall be implemented and remain in place throughout the development. The CEMP shall include at least the following matters : Air Quality, Dust, Water Quality, Lighting, Noise and Vibration, Pollution Prevention and Control, and Monitoring Arrangements. Construction working hours shall be 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. There shall be no burning on site. There shall be no high frequency audible reversing alarms used on the site. Reason: To protect the amenities of existing and future residents in the vicinity of the site from noise, air, water and light pollution.

Devon County Archaeologist

Vintage Court The Square Seaton: Demolition of 2 x commercial units and 1 flat to be replaced with 2 x retail units and 8 flats: Historic Environment

My ref: Arch/DM/ED/24885a

I refer to the above application. The proposed development lies in an area of high archaeological potential within the historic core of Seaton, which has pre-Conquest origins, the earliest documentary reference to the town is as aet Fleote in a charter of 1005. The extant buildings are shown on the mid-19th century Tithe Map and previous archaeological investigations undertaken on the site have identified an earlier foundation wall and recovered artefacts that date to the 17th century. As such, groundworks for the construction of the proposed development have the potential to expose and destroy archaeological and artefactual deposits associated with these heritage assets. The impact of development upon the archaeological resource should be mitigated by a programme of archaeological work that should investigate, record and analyse the archaeological evidence that will otherwise be destroyed by the proposed development.

The Historic Environment Team recommends that this application should be supported by the submission of a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) setting out a programme of archaeological work to be undertaken in mitigation for the loss of heritage assets with archaeological interest. The WSI should be based on national standards and guidance and be approved by the Historic Environment Team.

If a Written Scheme of Investigation is not submitted prior to determination the Historic Environment Team would advise, for the above reasons and in accordance with paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and Policy EN6 (Nationally and Locally Important Archaeological Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan, that any consent your Authority may be minded to issue should carry the condition as

19/2445/FUL page 174

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 developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out at all times in accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason 'To ensure, in accordance with Policy EN6 (Nationally and Locally Important Archaeological Sites) of the East Devon Local Plan and paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development'

This pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that the archaeological works are agreed and implemented prior to any disturbance of archaeological deposits by the commencement of preparatory and/or construction works.

I would envisage a suitable programme of work as taking the form of the archaeological monitoring and recording of all groundworks associated with the proposed development to allow for the identification, investigation and recording of any exposed archaeological or artefactual deposits. The results of the fieldwork and any post-excavation analysis undertaken would need to be presented in an appropriately detailed and illustrated report, and the finds and archive deposited in accordance with relevant national and local guidelines.

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

Devon County Highway Authority

Observations: The site is located between the square, Fore street, V2201 and Harbour Road, X2231.

In early 2019, we did make discussions for a possible car lift in this location, I believe by the current plans proposed in this application that this idea has not been carried forward, this removes concerns regarding maintenance and breakdowns. However a pedestrian access still remains off Fore street, in addition to the vehicular access from Harbour Road.

A basement car park facility proposed upon the site gives dedicated car parking spaces for each of the dwellings and retail unit. Furthermore the site has the added advantage of being present in the centre of Seaton with public car parks, services and

19/2445/FUL page 175

facilities and sustainable travel methods available. The site layout gives enough room for vehicles to turn off-carriageway and re-enter the carriageway in a forward facing motion. Additionally the pedestrian access through-route allows for predicted desire lines.

Due to the extent of the construction works to be carried, I do recommend that a Construction and Environment Management plan (CEMP) is prepared for this scheme together with the provision of secure cycle storage to further reduce trip generation from this proposed application. However, in saying that, the site is a brown field site and has incurred trip generations from previous uses.

Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, MAY WISH TO RECOMMEND CONDITIONS ON ANY GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION

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.

2. No development shall take place until details of secure cycle/scooter storage facilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

19/2445/FUL page 176

REASON: To promote sustainable travel in accordance with the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.

Conservation Officer

CONSULTATION REPLY TO LISTED BUILDING CONSENT/CONSERVATION AREA PLANNING APPLICATION AFFECTING LISTED BUILDING

ADDRESS: Vintage Court, The Square, Seaton

GRADE: N/A APPLICATION NO: 19/2445/FUL

CONSERVATION AREA: Seaton

PROPOSAL: Demolition of 2 x commercial units and 1 flat to be replaced with 2 x retail units and 8 flats.

HOW WILL PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AFFECT HISTORIC CHARACTER OF BUILDING AND ITS SETTING:

This area is within the Seaton Conservation Area and is identified as forming part of the Seafront area. The street pattern follows that of an early inland village and coastal fishing settlement. There was significant development during the nineteenth century which has informed the character of the town in the present day. The area of Marine Place, where Vintage Court is located, makes an important contribution to the commercial area, where the underdeveloped rear spaces, form an edge to the open land beyond.

There are localised groups of shopfronts which can be identified as Victorian architecture. They have much of their original detailing with 2 upper storeys, many of which have a bay window at first floor. These reflect the local vernacular, with vertical sliding sash, timber windows and natural slate roofs. These shopfronts are bounded by open public spaces, with hard landscaped surfaces.

HOW WILL PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AFFECT HISTORIC CHARACTER OF BUILDING AND ITS SETTING:

There has been a robust analysis of the historic environment above and below ground of this site. The archaeological report identifies the phases of development of the buildings. It is unfortunate that there is total loss of the rear section of the mid to late 19th century structure.

The design does not reflect the character of the local vernacular. The greatest harm is the negative effect of the overbearing height and massing of the flats. They dominate the conservation area and the significant views into the site. It starts to turn away from the historic street pattern of the high street and the hierarchy that has been established over the centuries. They do not respect the height of the principle heritage assets that contribute to the streetscene. It does not reflect the local vernacular and should be responding to the height and massing of rear subservient buildings.

19/2445/FUL page 177

The 2 new commercial units within the proposed courtyard are on a curve and angled away from any views and potential passing trade in from the high street.

The important view through to the site from the street is not enhanced, as the proposal is too over bearing. The materials, pattern of fenestration and numerous balconies have little regard for historic context or original architectural detail, other than the vertical emphasis of the fenestration.

In conclusion, it does not respect or seek any heritage enhancement to the high street as part of the proposal. The proposal causes significant harm to the character and value of the conservation area.

PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATION - PROPOSAL UNACCEPTABLE

Other Representations

2 objections have been received to date (in summary);

• Gross overdevelopment of the site. • Impact on neighbouring properties. • Not in keeping with the scale and appearance of surrounds. • Objet to historic walls being demolished. • Potential flooding of basement level. • Imposing and bigger than reasonably expected. • Increased traffic in congested area. • Access narrow and could compromise pedestrian/vehicular safety. • Noise and disruption during construction phase. • Harm to conservation area.

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

18/2077/FUL Demolition of 2 x retail units Withdrawn 12/11/2018 and 1 flat to be replaced with 2 x retail units and 9 flats

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness)

EN10 (Conservation Areas)

Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development)

19/2445/FUL page 178

TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access)

EN8 (Significance of Heritage Assets and their setting)

EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset)

E9 (Town Centre Vitality and Shopping Areas)

Government Planning Documents NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019)

Other Documents

National Planning Policy Guidance Seaton Conservation Area Appraisal

Site Location and Description

The application site takes place on land known as Vintage Court, which is in Seaton. The site is situated within the designated conservation area and can be seen from the adjacent car park.

The proposed footprint of the extension is currently occupied by what appears to be vacant buildings including Byron Jones (retail use). In terms of surrounding residential use 11 Marine Place features 3 flats and 2 flats of Seaton House. These are positioned above the ground floor of each property.

Proposed Development

The proposal seeks planning consent for a contemporary rear extension to provide for demolition of 2 commercial units and 1 flat to be replaced with 2 retail units and 8 flats.

The proposal could be accessed via a pedestrian walk way which links to the high street and vehicular access to the south. Due to the change in ground levels between the application site and land to the south a staircase is proposed. Within the building itself a lift is proposed to allow access for all. The proposal would also involve a basement level to contain vehicular parking. Above ground level consist of three stories. On the ground floor two commercial units are proposed along with two residential units. To the immediate north of the footprint of the proposed extension is an extensive terrace area. At first floor level are another two units with three units at second floor level.

The north facing elevation of the extension features a staggered pattern with balconies whereas the southern elevation is a smooth curve. On this southern elevation there are windows at all levels.

ANALYSIS

19/2445/FUL page 179

The main issues concerning this proposal are the principle of the development, the design and impact on the conservation area, the impact on amenity, access and parking and the impact on the town centres shopping area.

Principle of the development

The development takes place within the Built Up Area Boundary (BUAB) for Seaton. Strategy 6 of the adopted local plan facilities residential and retail development within the BUAB as a matter of principle.

Impact on the conservation area and the design

Policy EN9 - Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset of the Local Plan states that the Council will not grant permission for developments involving substantial harm or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset unless it can be demonstrated that it is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss and other criteria. With specific regard to conservation areas local plan policy EN10 states that development will only be permitted where it would preserve or enhance the appearance and character of the area. Favourable consideration will be given to proposals for new development within conservation areas that enhance or better reveal the significance of the asset, subject to compliance with other development plan policies and material considerations. These policies chime with both the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and statutory duty under Section 72 of the Listed Building and Conservation Area Act, 1990. To give special regard to the impact upon heritage assets.

This area is within the Seaton Conservation Area and is identified as forming part of the Seafront area. The street pattern follows that of an early inland village and coastal fishing settlement. There was significant development during the nineteenth century which has informed the character of the town in the present day. The area of Marine Place, where Vintage Court is located, makes an important contribution to the commercial area, where the underdeveloped rear spaces, form an edge to the open land beyond.

There are localised groups of shopfronts which can be identified as Victorian architecture. They have much of their original detailing with 2 upper storeys, many of which have a bay window at first floor. These reflect the local vernacular, with vertical sliding sash, timber windows and natural slate roofs. These shopfronts are bounded by open public spaces, with hard landscaped surfaces.

There has been a robust analysis of the historic environment above and below ground of this site. The archaeological report identifies the phases of development of the buildings. It is unfortunate that there is total loss of the rear section of the mid to late 19th century structure.

The design does not reflect the character of the local vernacular. The greatest harm is the negative effect of the overbearing height and massing of the flats. They dominate the conservation area from the adjoining car park and the significant views into the site. It starts to turn away from the historic street pattern of the high street and the

19/2445/FUL page 180

hierarchy that has been established over the centuries. They do not respect the height of the principle heritage assets that contribute to the streetscene. It does not reflect the local vernacular and should be responding to the height and massing of rear subservient buildings.

The design of the elevation facing onto the adjoining car park appears bulky with a contrived window arrange to avoid overlooking of neighbours and results in a zig-zag arrange that is not only out of character but also poor in its design and appearance.

The area to the north of the application site has been recently regenerated and the proposal could be seen as complementing this regeneration with a contemporary design. Whilst the café, recently completed, is within the conservation area the gym and commercial buildings lie further to the east outside of the conservation area and so the impact on this heritage asset did not have the same weight attributed to it.

The important view through to the site from the street is not enhanced, as the proposal would appear too over bearing. The materials, pattern of fenestration and numerous balconies have little regard for historic context or original architectural detail, other than the vertical emphasis of the fenestration.

The raised terrace/common space with parking below would also be an alien feature and visually at odds with the conservation area.

In conclusion, the scheme does not respect or seek any heritage enhancement to the high street as part of the proposal. The proposal causes significant harm to the character and value of the conservation area.

The conservation officer has clarified that this significant harm equates to 'substantial harm' within the context of chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This is perhaps not too surprising given the prominence which the development would take relative to the overall conservation area. NPPF paragraph 195 states that where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to (or total loss of significance of) a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: a) the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and b) no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and c) conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and d) the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

There is not anything before officers to illustrate that points a to d inclusive would be satisfied or explain how the public benefits of the proposal are likely to be 'substantial'.

Accordingly, and having due regard to the statutory provisions under Section 72 of the Listed Building and Conservation Area Act 1990 this identified harm to a heritage asset weighs heavily against the development.

19/2445/FUL page 181

Impact on the amenity of adjacent occupiers

It is a requirement of policy D1 that development does not harm the amenity of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.

It is appreciated that the curved design seeks a contemporary interpretation of a significant rear extension. Further, this would be read in conjunction with the recent redevelopment in the area of the café, gym and business units. However, this curve means that the arc of the building line brings windows, belonging to habitable rooms, in close proximity to other existing windows to the rear of the properties which front on to the high street.

From the car park it can be seen that these adjacent windows belong to habitable rooms of flats with separation distances of as low as 12 metres. It is also the case that the proposed windows on the proposed south elevation belong to habitable rooms of the apartments. The proposal takes place within a town centre and there expected to be a tight knit relationship which at times means there can be mutual overlooking and it is acknowledged that the separation distance could mean that in other scenarios this would not be an issue. However, in this instance there is a significant degree of direct overlooking, including looking down into existing flat windows, to the detriment of occupiers adjacent, in conflict with local plan policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the Local Plan.

The close relationship combined with the scale and bulk of the proposed building would have a considerable impact upon the outlook of the existing residents and appear oppressive.

The Environmental Health department have commented on the proposal and although several noise related issues have been identified they have considered that the use of appropriate conditions could mitigate these.

Access and Parking

The proposal provides for internal vehicular parking at basement level. The access route is narrow, as noted by third parties. However, it remains passable for the majority of vehicles.

The Highway Authority have commented on the proposal and have considered that the proposed parking is adequate and that highway safety of the wider area would not be compromised. Although there could be some congestion, and it is noted that the proposal takes place within a town centre locality, the additional parking provision is unlikely to give rise to a significant increase in traffic movements when considered within this context.

Impact on the town centre shopping area

The proposal takes place within the town centre shopping area and therefore policy E9 of the local plan is relevant.

19/2445/FUL page 182

In terms of economic impact there would be no net loss in the amount of retail units. Further, the proposal could invite more economic investment by providing a modern space and facilities. This noted the floor space of each unit is restricted and it is likely that the proposal would represent a loss in floor are of commercial space of approximately 200 square metres. However, a shop unit would still be presented to the High Street and so the proposal would not harm the primary shopping frontage. The proposed commercial uses would not undermine the shopping character, and vitality or viability of the town centre as there would be no net loss in commercial units. Accordingly the proposal is not consider to harm the town centre in terms of vibrancy or vitality.

Other Matters

Due to the historic context of the development the Archaeologist at Devon County Council has recommended that an implementation programme be conditioned in the event of an approval.

CONCLUSION

The proposal seeks permission for the demolition of 2 commercial units and 1 flat to be replaced with 2 retail units with 8 flats above.

The proposed takes place within the designated conservation area and town centre shopping area and the conservation officer has raised concerns over this proposal pointing toward the inappropriate fenestration and detailing and scale of the extension. As such the proposal is considered to result in substantial harm to the conservation area and in the absence of any significant public benefits to outweigh such harm, the proposal is contrary to Local Plan policy, guidance with regard to the impact upon heritage assets in the NPPF and therefore unacceptable.

Further, the curvature of the building and its height means that the proposed windows would overlook existing windows on the rear of the properties which front the High Street. As a result significant overlooking would arise to the detriment of adjacent occupiers and the close relationship is considered to be oppressive.

Whilst there would be no harm to the vitality and viability of the town centre, due to the resulting harm/visual impact to the conservation area and amenity of adjacent occupiers the proposal is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reasons:

1. The proposal, by reasons of its incongruous scale, design features and balcony detailing within a prominent position, results in a development which fails to respect the historic character of the designated conservation area. Additionally the size, height and scale does not respect the hierarchy of building transition. The harm to the irreplaceable heritage asset that has been identified is considered 'substantial', and there is no evidence to suggest that the development is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh

19/2445/FUL page 183

this harm, or that the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; or that the harm is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. Therefore the proposal would conflict with the requirements of policies EN8 (Significance of Heritage Assets and their Setting), EN9 (Development Affecting a Designated Heritage Asset) and EN10 (Conservation Areas) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan, guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and the statutory provision of Section 72 of the Listed Building and Conservation Area Act, 1990.

2. The proposal, by virtue of the position and height of the windows belonging to habitable rooms on the southern elevation, would be angled toward adjacent windows of existing residential buildings. This close proximity results in a significant and unacceptable overlooking element and oppressive impact o the detriment of the private amenity of the adjacent occupiers. As such the proposal conflicts with the requirements of Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Informative: In accordance with the aims of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 East Devon District Council seeks to work positively with applicants to try and ensure that all relevant planning concerns have been appropriately resolved; however, in this case the development is considered to be fundamentally unacceptable such that the Council's concerns could not be overcome through negotiation.

Plans relating to this application:

E-100 Existing Combined 06.11.19 :Location/site Plans plan

P100 Proposed Site Plan 06.11.19

P200: Basement Proposed Floor Plans 06.11.19

P202: First Proposed Floor Plans 06.11.19

P203: Second Proposed Floor Plans 06.11.19

P220 Sections 06.11.19

P300: East Proposed Elevation 06.11.19

P301: South Proposed Elevation 06.11.19

P302: East Proposed Elevation 06.11.19

19/2445/FUL page 184

P303: North Proposed Elevation 06.11.19

P304: West from Proposed Elevation 06.11.19 courtyard

P201: Ground Proposed Floor Plans 06.11.19

C0730-S1: Existing Floor Plans 12.11.19 Ground

C0730-S2 Existing Combined 12.11.19 Plans

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

19/2445/FUL page 185 Agenda Item 16

Ward West Hill And Aylesbeare

Reference 19/2834/OUT & 20/0482/RES

Applicant Mr E Flowers

Location Hasta La Vista Windmill Lane West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1JP Proposal (19/2834/OUT) Outline application for the construction of a single dwelling house with all matters reserved (20/0482/RES) Application for approval of reserved matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for the construction of a new dwelling house pursuant to outline planning permission 16/2517/OUT

RECOMMENDATION 19/2834/OUT: 1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to this Committee Report be adopted; 2. That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION 20/0482/RES: Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 186

Committee Date: 15th July 2020

West Hill And Target Date: Aylesbeare 19/2834/OUT 04.03.2020 (West Hill)

Applicant: Mr E Flowers

Location: Hasta La Vista Windmill Lane

Proposal: Outline application for the construction of a single dwelling house with all matters reserved

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment attached to this Committee Report be adopted;

2. That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions.

Committee Date:

West Hill And Target Date: Aylesbeare 20/0482/RES 28.04.2020 (West Hill)

Applicant: Mr E Flowers

Location: Hasta La Vista Windmill Lane

Proposal: Application for approval of reserved matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for the construction of a new dwelling house pursuant to outline planning permission 16/2517/OUT

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

These two applications at the same site are related and before Members as the officer recommendation for application 19/2834/OUT differs from that of a Local

19/2834/OUT page 187

Ward Members comments. As the applications are related, and for the same residential development, albeit one in outline form and one for reserve matters consent, it was considered that both applications should be presented to Members for determination.

The site has had a previous outline planning permission approved for the construction of a single dwelling under reference 16/2517/OUT. The first application seeks a further outline consent for the site whilst the second application seeks reserved matters consent following the previous outline consent.

Since the approval of the original outline consent, the Ottery St Mary and West Hill Neighbourhood Plan has been adopted. The document now forms part of the development plan and includes a policy that specifically addresses applications for infill, backland and residential development (Policy NP3: Infill, Backland and Residential Garden Development). There is also a specific design policy for West Hill (Policy NP26).

Whilst concerns raised by the Parish Council and Ward Member are acknowledged, the construction of a dwelling east of Hasta La Vista is considered achievable whilst respecting the character of the immediate area and retaining the amenity of adjoining properties. Notwithstanding its limited size and area, the plot is capable of accommodating a single storey dwelling of modest proportions. This resulted in the grant of outline consent in 2017 under reference 17/2517/OUT and given this there are not considered to be sound grounds to resist the grant of a second outline consent for identical development.

The reserve matters application seeks consent for a detailed layout and design of dwelling proposing a 'T' shaped bungalow with a north facing gable and hipped western and eastern projections. The submitted elevations indicate that the dwelling would be constructed with a brink plinth, finished in render with a tiled roof. Four PV panels are proposed along the southern roof slope. A beech hedge will be planted to the eastern boundary alongside Windmill Lane, replacing the existing Leylandii. This hedging would be reduced in overall length to provide space for the new dwelling to have its own access. The western area of the site that immediately adjoins the new dwelling would be levelled as a patio area with steps leading up to a small area of lawn enclosed by a retaining wall.

Notwithstanding its limited size and area, the proposed bungalow would not appear unduly harmful to the character or appearance of the street scene of Windmill Lane or result in any materially adverse impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring or nearby residential properties. Furthermore, it is considered that development can be accommodated without compromising the health or integrity of the adjacent protected Walnut tree.

In light of the previous grant of outline planning permission, and the visual impact of the proposed dwelling being considered to be acceptable with no wider harm caused, both applications are recommended for approval subject to conditions that are set out at the end of this report.

19/2834/OUT page 188

CONSULTATION RESPONSES FOR OUTLINE APPLICATION 19/2834/OUT

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council This application was discussed at the West Hill Parish Council meeting on 4th February 2020. Councillors noted that the Neighbourhood Plan had been made since the previous application had been approved. Councillors also considered the adverse impact of the proposed development on nearby trees. It was noted that the submitted Tree Survey (from 2014) is out of date and is not a current assessment.

Councillors do not support the application for the following reasons

• contrary to Policy NP3: Infill, Backland and Residential Garden Development and NP26 West Hill Design. The development would lead to over-development of the site or the appearance of cramming, and the proposals do not reflect the character of the surrounding area, and the density is not appropriate to the immediate surrounding area. • support the serious concerns expressed by the Tree Officers • submitted Tree Survey is out of date and as such is invalid.

West Hill And Aylesbeare - Cllr Jess Bailey I wish to register my OBJECTION to this application for the following reasons: 1. It does not comply with the neighbourhood plan which has been adopted since the previous consent was granted. The NP contains very clear policies on overdevelopment, cramming, and density which this application will breach; and 2. The arbo Officer has registered his serious concerns - all of which I endorse.

Technical Consultations

EDDC Trees

22.01.2020 I have serious concerns on arboriculture grounds with this proposal for the following reasoning: • The Arboricultural report is 5 years out of date and in accurate. • The tree survey, incorrectly identifies and classifies T1 which is a walnut and class A1/B1 • Any location of a dwelling must take into account the shading caused by T1 and any future growth of the tree which cause pressure to have this tree pruned.

Further comments 13.02.2020:

I still have concerns over this proposal, as there is no footprint of the building it is difficult to respond accurately. I feel the standard circular RPA should be offset into the site due to the loss of rooting zone by the neighbouring driveway and the road. Consideration should be made for the location of the windows and the large mass of the tree, which stretches beyond the shading of the tree, there has to a liveability

19/2834/OUT page 189

between the existing tree and the proposal to reduce the pressure on pruning or requests for removal by any new occupier

Further comments 06.05.2020:

I have reviewed the file on this application and consider that the three issues raised by David Lomas are in principle relevant, but in practice the arboricultural impact of the proposed development will be minimal.

The planning officer report correctly appraises the relative arboricultural views, as well as the case history of past tree related refusal decisions. I fully support the planning officers conclusion to recommend the application be approved.

Other Representations

None

CONSULTATION RESPONSES FOR RESERVE MATTERS APPLICATION: 20/0482/RES

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council 19/03/20 - This application was considered at the West Hill Parish Council Meeting on 17th March 2020.

Councillors had no objection to the application, subject to the Tree Officers being satisfied with the RPA for the walnut tree in the adjacent garden.

Technical Consultations

EDDC Trees

26.03.2020 Although the footprint of the dwelling is acceptable on arboricultural terms I do have concerns about the windows to the south of the dwelling, as these will be shaded by the neighbouring tree and consideration should be given to these being removed. I am also concerned about the 'air source heat pump' and any underground cabling and emissions which could have a long term effect on the tree, and also the TPF should be moved further from th tree as there is a likelyhood of more roots in this area due to the hard-standing in other areas

Further comments 06.05.2020:

I have reviewed the file on this application and consider that the three issues raised by David Lomas are in principle relevant, but in practice the arboricultural impact of the proposed development will be minimal.

19/2834/OUT page 190

The planning officer report correctly appraises the relative arboricultural views, as well as the case history of past tree related refusal decisions. I fully support the planning officers conclusion to recommend the application be approved.

Other Representations

None

PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Description Decision Date

16/2517/OUT Outline application for the Approval 07.03.2017 construction of a new dwelling with house with all matters conditions reserved. 11/0929/TRE Felling of one Ash tree Approval 13.06.2011 with conditions

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies Strategy 6 (Development within Built-up Area Boundaries) Strategy 27 (Development at the Small Towns and Larger Villages) D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D3 (Trees and Development Sites) EN19 (Adequacy of Foul Sewers and Adequacy of Sewage Treatment System) EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development) TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

Ottery St Mary and West Hill Neighbourhood Plan NP3 (Infill, Backland and Residential Garden Development) NP26 (West Hill Design)

Site Description and Location

The site comprises of a plot of land approximately 0.045 hectares in area that currently forms the front garden of Hasta La Vista, a detached residential property located on the west side of Windmill Lane, a residential cul de sac, towards the north western corner of the built-up area of West Hill.

The existing dwelling itself is set well back within the curtilage, the overall area of which is around 1 hectare, and is positioned towards its north western corner. Vehicular access is taken from Windmill Lane at a point positioned towards the north eastern corner of the plot and application site.

19/2834/OUT page 191

The plot is mainly laid to lawn with some shrubs and rises gently from its road frontage, which is defined by established, and mainly evergreen, hedge and tree planting to the rear of a low stone wall, to the west.

Windmill Lane is characterised by a mix of detached houses, bungalows and older properties that are sub-divided into flats set within plots of varying areas and configurations with, in some cases, building forms positioned close to plot frontages that are predominantly either open or defined by tree and hedge planting. It is therefore perhaps slightly less typical of the lower density layout and spacious settings of many residential properties elsewhere throughout West Hill.

Proposed Development

19/2834/OUT:

This application seeks outline permission, with all matters reserved, for the construction of a dwelling. Whilst all matters, including layout, scale, landscaping and access are reserved for later consideration. The application does include some indicative detail. The submitted site plan aims to communicate how a single storey dwelling could be accommodated within the plot. This shows a shared vehicular access with the host property of Hasta La Vista onto Windmill Lane.

20/0482/RES:

This fully detailed application proposes a 'T' shaped bungalow with a north facing gable and hipped western and eastern projections. The submitted elevations indicate that the dwelling would be constructed with a brink plinth, finished in render with a tiled roof. Four PV panels are proposed along the southern roof slope. A beech hedge will be planted to the eastern boundary alongside Windmill Lane, replacing the existing Leylandii. This hedging would be reduced in overall length to provide space for the new dwelling to have its own access. The western area of the site that immediately adjoins the new dwelling would be levelled as a patio area with steps leading up to a small area of lawn enclosed by a retaining wall.

Policy within the East Devon Local Plan and Ottery St Mary and West Hill Neighbourhood Plan shall be considered in addition to guidance within the National Planning Policy Guidance.

ANALYSIS

The mains issues for consideration are the principle of development (that relates to both applications), visual impact, impact upon neighbouring amenity, impact on tree and highway safety (that relate more to the reserve matters application as a detailed design and layout is proposed but need consideration in terms of the outline application to ensure that the site is capable of accommodating a dwelling).

Principle of Development

19/2834/OUT page 192

The site is located within the Built-up area boundary of West Hill as defined within the adopted East Devon Villages Plan. Therefore the site is considered to occupy a sustainable location within an area considered appropriate in principle to accommodate additional residential development.

Over recent years West Hill has seen comparatively high levels of infill village development as people have subdivided large gardens to accommodate additional new dwellings. There has, more recently, been outward expansion of the village to accommodate new houses.

The Neighbourhood Plan through Policy NP3 supports infill, backland and residential garden development in principle stating that such development will only be permitted where it reflects the character of the area, is of an appropriate density, benefits from adequate parking provision and has boundary treatments that reflect the area.

In light of the support for development within the Built-up Area Boundary of West Hill provided by the Local Plan, Villages Plan and Neighbourhood Plan, residential development of the site is acceptable in principle.

Visual Impact

Objections have been raised by a Local Ward Member and the Parish Council with regards to the developments relationship with adjacent and nearby properties. Comments made by the Parish Council have referred to Policies NP3 and NP26 (West Hill Design) of the Neighbourhood Plan and, in particular, express concerns of the proposal failing to conserve the low density pattern of development of West Hill.

Policy NP3 states that proposal ‘…should reflect the character of the surrounding area…’, ‘…be informed by the scale, mass, height and form of neighbours;’ ‘…demonstrate that the development is of a density appropriate to the immediate surrounding area;’ and that ‘Adequate provision must be made for private amenity space and off street parking…’.

Policy NP26 relates specifically to West Hill and states the following:

‘Proposals for development should reflect the established character and development pattern of their surroundings and should preserve key features of the village, including trees, hedgebanks, spacious gardens and individuality between properties.

Proposals for new residential development in West Hill should incorporate the following design principles:

1. New development will maintain the low density pattern of development in West Hill and should reflect built density and layout of the surroundings; 2. Proposals for the developments of more than one dwelling must show individual variation between units whilst respecting the character of the immediate surrounding area; 3. Proposals for development will include adequate off road parking;

19/2834/OUT page 193

4. Access to properties will be designed to minimise harm to Devon banks/hedges and be designed to enhance the street scene; 5. Where new boundaries are required (including frontages), these should consist of Devon banks or hedges incorporating native species, rather than metal or closeboarded fences or brick walls; 6. Development that damages or results in the loss of ancient trees or trees of good arboricultural and amenity value will not normally be permitted. 7. In cases where a proposal for development is likely to affect existing trees, applications should be accompanied by a tree survey that establishes the health and longevity of any affected trees; 8. New development should demonstrate that adequate landscaping proposals have been included to reflect the existing landscape character of the surrounding area; 9. Permeable surfaces, such as gravel or grass, should be used in place of nonpermeable surfaces wherever possible.

Proposals should be supported by a design statement setting out how the above design principles have been met (in addition to the Requirements of Policies NP2, NP3 and the Local Plan).’

It is acknowledged that the plot is modest in size and any subsequent dwelling would need to have a limited footprint to reflect this and enable the provision of suitable amenity space and parking whilst protecting existing landscape features. Additionally it is accepted that the plot is small when compared to the spacious character, layout and pattern of development that prevails throughout the remainder of West Hill. However, Windmill Lane itself is characterized by smaller plots with dwellings and outbuildings positioned in close proximity to their highway frontages with very limited front garden areas. As such, it is not considered that the construction of a modest dwelling on the plot close to its highway boundary would appear unduly harmful to the character or appearance to the street scene of Windmill Lane.

Whilst the Neighbourhood Plan was not a material consideration during the assessment and approval of the previous outline application (16/2517/OUT) in 2017, it is considered that the objectives of Policies NP3 and NP26 are reflected within Policy D1 (Design and local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan. The delegated officer’s report for application 16/2517/OUT, detailed how the development, when assessed against Policy D1, was deemed acceptable and would not be out of character.

Due to the well landscaped nature of the road, public views of the proposed dwelling would be restricted to, and most prominent from, the northern most part of Windmill Lane where it will be viewed in associated with the dwellings opposite that sit at the back edge of the road. Therefore it is not considered that the development would result in material harm to this part of settlement such that it could be reasonably resisted. Whilst concerns expressed by the Parish Council and Ward member are duly acknowledged, it is considered that the reserved matters application puts forward a scheme that would be sympathetic to the prevailing character of Windmill Lane.

The reserved matters application has provided other statutory consultees an opportunity to consider a fully detailed scheme. In this instance, no comments or

19/2834/OUT page 194

objections have been raised by the other statutory consultees on the grounds of unacceptable design or subsequent impact upon the character of the area.

The proposed location of the dwelling and reduction in the amount of hedging to the east along Windmill Lane would result in the development being visible from the northern end of Windmill Lane. However the design approach of a single storey dwelling, despite being located close to the highway, is considered in keeping with the character of Windmill Lane. The use of brick, render and tiles frequently appears on other residential buildings within the immediate area and therefore their use is considered appropriate.

Adequate off-road parking is proposed, along with the retention of the boundary hedge and tree on the site boundary.

Overall, the site plans communicate a modest dwelling within the site with an appropriate level of outdoor amenity space, parking and landscaping. The ratio of the footprint and garden is thought to be similar to that exhibited at other properties along Windmill Lane. Additionally, the design, scale and form of the bungalow reflects what was envisaged at outline stage and is therefore considered sympathetic to the character of Windmill Lane. As such the applications are considered to meet the objectives of Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the Local Plan and Policy NP26 (West Hill Design).

Impact upon Neighbouring Amenity

The existing boundary to the south ensures that the dwelling would be unlikely result in any harm detrimental to the living conditions to occupiers of Four Seasons. Additionally the boundary to the north consists of dense mature tree growth that completely screens the site from views along the rear gardens of properties along Bendarroch Road. The landscaped boundary with the road and presence of the road itself provide adequate separation with the dwelling son on opposite side of Windmill Lane. Obviously the single-storey nature of the proposed dwelling reduces the potential for any harmful impacts upon surrounding properties.

The area with the potential for the greatest impact is therefore be upon the host dwelling itself. The land rises slightly rise from east to west and therefore the proposed dwelling is located on lower lying ground and as such would not be physically overbearing or dominating to the amenity enjoyed at Hasta La Vista. The proposed dwelling's primary outlook would be to the north and west. The bedrooms would have a primary outlook to the north over the existing driveway. The living and dining space would have a main outlook to the west through two sets of bi-folding doors. Whilst these doors face towards part of the host dwellings outdoor amenity space, the difference between levels in addition to the proposed hedging ensure that overlooking is not an issue.

In light of the above the impact upon neighbouring amenity is considered to be acceptable.

Impact on Trees

19/2834/OUT page 195

The applications necessitate the removal of two small individual trees, annotated as T3 and T4 on the Constraints Plan, and the removal and replacement of G2. These two trees are considered to be of little amenity value and their loss is not considered unduly harmful or of any particular significance to warrant the need for replanting.

To the south east of the site, in the north eastern corner of Four Season's garden, is a mature Walnut tree which is approximately 17 metres tall. The arboriculture report, conducted by Devon Tree Services, categorises the tree as a 'B1' which allocates it as a tree with moderate quality. The Walnut is protected under a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and plays an active role in providing visual amenity along Windmill Lane.

Turning to the relationship of the development with the existing Walnut, concerns were initially raised by Officers in relation to the location of the dwelling to the tree and the consequential pressure that may result in future pruning works to the Walnut, more especially in the light of the level of shading to some of the southern facing windows. These concerns do not relate to the footprint of the dwelling or its construction impacting upon the tree.

In response the applicant submitted a Tree Protection Plan that includes a shade arc cast by the Walnut tree in question. During morning hours it is anticipated that the windows serving the kitchen and utility room would be shaded, however, from midday onwards, the windows would receive direct sunlight. As such, there are concerns over prospective occupants potentially seeking to prune the Walnut and subsequently altering the shape of the crown and therefore the amenity value of the tree.

The Council has recently refused two applications, upheld at appeal, on the grounds of 'liveability' where it appeared inevitable that future occupiers of the proposed development would seek to prune or even fell trees at some future point in order to maintain or improve their living conditions. Applications18/1798/FUL (APP/U1105/W/19/3235304) and 18/2151/FUL (APP/U1105/W/19/3233336) both proposed the construction of dwellings that were subsequently refused and upheld by the inspector mainly, or partly, over concerns of anticipated living conditions and subsequent pressure to prune the crowns of protected trees.

However, in both cases, concerns related to a number of trees on each site that would shade multiple habitable rooms and significant parts of the garden throughout the day. The lack of natural light available to the dwellings and outdoor amenity spaces would inevitably result in future occupiers of the developments seeking to prune trees at some point in the future to maintain or improve their living conditions. Significant pruning and/or felling of the trees at the appeal sites would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding areas and as such both appeals were dismissed.

In this case, the shading caused by the Walnut would only impact one habitable room (Kitchen) for a relatively short period of the day. Additionally, the canopy of the Walnut tree already has a clearance of almost 9 metres over the ground level of the garden due to past pruning. Whilst the appeal decisions at Sidmouth and Exmouth establish that such reasons for refusal are well founded when a certain level of harm is inevitable, the potential harm in this case, and associated risk of this harm arising, is considered to be relatively low.

19/2834/OUT page 196

As such, whilst comments from the Town Council are duly acknowledged, and following further discussion and consultation with the Council’s Tree Officers, it is not considered reasonable to refuse the applications on the grounds of potential harm brought about by future pruning to the Walnut tree.

Highways

The application proposes a shared access with the host dwelling of Hasta La Vista. The County Highway Team have not come forward with any comments and the access is suitable to serve two dwellings.

The site plan proposes that two parking spaces would be incorporated along the eastern boundary in tandem with one located under a car port. It is considered that sufficient parking and turning could be provided for at least two cars on the site.

Habitat Mitigation and Appropriate Assessment

The nature of the outline application and its location close to the Pebblebed Heaths and its European Habitat designations is such that the proposal requires a Habitat Regulations Assessment. This section of the report forms the Appropriate Assessment required as a result of the Habitat Regulations Assessment and Likely Significant Effects from the proposal. In partnership with Natural England, the council and its neighbouring authorities of Exeter City Council and Teignbridge District Council have determined that housing and tourist accommodation developments in their areas will in-combination have a detrimental impact on the Exe Estuary and Pebblebed Heaths through impacts from recreational use. The impacts are highest from developments within 10 kilometres of these designations. It is therefore essential that mitigation is secured to make such developments permissible. This mitigation is secured via a combination of funding secured via the Community Infrastructure Levy and contributions collected from residential developments within 10km of the designations. This development will be CIL liable and the financial contribution has been secured. On this basis, and as the joint authorities are working in partnership to deliver the required mitigation in accordance with the South-East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy, this proposal will not give rise to likely significant effects.

CONCLUSION

The site has had a previous outline permission for the construction of a single dwelling under reference 16/2517/OUT. Since the approval of the original outline, the Ottery St Mary and West Hill Neighbourhood Plan has been adopted. The document, that now carries full weight and forms part of the development plan, and includes policies that specifically addresses applications for infill, backland and residential development (Policy NP3) and the design of dwellings (NP26) in West Hill.

Whilst the concerns raised by the Parish Council and Ward Member are acknowledged, the construction of a dwelling east of Hasta La Vista is considered possible whilst respecting the character of the immediate area and retaining neighbouring amenity. Notwithstanding its limited size and area, the plot is capable of accommodating a single storey dwelling of modest proportions and would not be out

19/2834/OUT page 197

of character with the immediate area where dwellings on smaller plots are located close to the highway.

Having regard to the balance of considerations set out above it is thought that notwithstanding its limited size and area, the proposed bungalow would not appear unduly harmful to the character or appearance of the street scene of Windmill Lane or result in any materially adverse impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring or nearby residential properties.

Furthermore, it is considered that development could be accommodated without compromising the health or integrity of the adjacent protected Walnut tree.

It is therefore recommended that both the outline application and the proposal for reserve matters consent be granted.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1 - 19/2834/OUT:

1. ADOPT the Habitat Regulations Appropriate Assessment that forms part of the report; and, 2. APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

1. Approval of the details of the layout, scale and appearance of the building, the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. (Reason - The application is in outline with one or more matters reserved.)

2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters 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.).

3. The approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season after commencement of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or other plants which die during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with specimens of the same size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D2 - Landscape Requirements of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

19/2834/OUT page 198

4. Prior to commencement of any works on site (including demolition), tree protection details, to include the protection of hedges and shrubs, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. These shall adhere to the principles embodied in BS 5837:2012 and shall indicate exactly how and when the trees will be protected during the site works. Provision shall also be made for supervision of tree protection by a suitably qualified and experienced arboricultural consultant and details shall be included within the tree protection statement. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the agreed details.In any event, the following restrictions shall be strictly observed:

(a) No burning shall take place in a position where flames could extend to within 5m of any part of any tree to be retained.

(b) No trenches for services or foul/surface water drainage shall be dug within the crown spreads of any retained trees (or within half the height of the trees, whichever is the greater) unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such installations shall be in accordance with the advice given in Volume 4: National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) Guidelines For The Planning, Installation And Maintenance Of Utility Apparatus In Proximity To Trees (Issue 2) 2007.

(c) No changes in ground levels or excavations shall take place within the crown spreads of retained trees (or within half the height of the trees, whichever is the greater) unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(Reason - To ensure retention and protection of trees on the site prior to and during construction in the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D3 - Trees and Development Sites of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no development of the types described in Classes A, B or E of Part 1, or Class A of Part 2, of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be carried out without a grant of express planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over operations that would not ordinarily require a grant of planning permission in the interests of preventing overdevelopment of the site and to comply with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031.)

6. The development shall take the form of a single storey dwelling (and for the avoidance of doubt a chalet type bungalow is not regarded as a single storey dwelling). (Reason - In the interest of the character and appearance of the locality in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

19/2834/OUT page 199

Plans relating to this application: 19/2834/OUT

P1920:01 Location Plan 23.12.19

Recommendation 2 - 20/0482/RES:

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

1. East Devon District Council as Local Planning Authority HEREBY APPROVE THE FOLLOWING RESERVED MATTERS of the above described development proposed in the application numbered as shown above and in the plans and drawings attached thereto, copies of which are attached to this notice relating to:-

(a) Access (b) Appearance (c) Landscaping (d) Layout (e) Scale

This Reserved Matters application numbered as shown above is made pursuant to the Outline Planning Permission (ref. No. 16/2517/OUT) granted on 7th March 2017.

The following reserved matters have yet to be approved:

None

The following conditions attached to the Outline Planning Permission (ref. No. 16/2517/OUT) referred to above and relating to the site covered by this reserved matters application are hereby discharged, have previously been discharged or remain to be complied with on-site but without the need for the submission of details or separate agreement:

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7

2. Prior to commencement of any works on site (including demolition), Tree Protection measures shall be carried out as detailed within the Arboricultural Report and method statement submitted by Devon Tree Services on the 28 February 2020 and shall adhere to the principles embodied in BS 5837:2012 and shall remain in place until all works are completed, no changes to be made without first gaining consent in writing from the Local Authority In any event, the following restrictions shall be strictly observed: (a) No burning shall take place in a position where flames could extend to within 5m of any part of any tree to be retained. (b) No trenches for services or foul/surface water drainage shall be dug within the crown spreads of any retained trees (or within half the height of the trees, whichever is the greater) unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning

19/2834/OUT page 200

Authority. All such installations shall be in accordance with the advice given in Volume 4: National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) Guidelines for the Planning, Installation And Maintenance Of Utility Apparatus In Proximity To Trees (Issue 2) 2007. (c) No changes in ground levels or excavations shall take place within the crown spreads of retained trees (or within half the height of the trees, whichever is the greater) unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (d) No trees, shrubs or hedges within the site which are shown as being planted or retained on the approved plans shall be felled, uprooted, wilfully damaged or destroyed, cut back in any way or removed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees, shrubs or hedges removed without such consent, or which die or become severely damaged or seriously diseased within five years from the occupation of any building, or the development hereby permitted being brought into use shall be replaced with trees, shrubs or hedge plants of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. (Reason - To ensure retention and protection of trees on the site prior to and during construction in the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness and D3 - Trees and Development Sites of the Adopted New East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no development of the types described in Classes A, B or E of Part 1, or Class A of Part 2, of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be carried out without a grant of express planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over operations that would not ordinarily require a grant of planning permission in the interests of preventing overdevelopment of the site and to comply with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013 - 2031.)

Plans relating to this application:

Location Plan 02.03.20

P1920:105 Proposed Site Plan 02.03.20

P1920:106 Proposed Floor Plans 02.03.20

P1920:103 Proposed Site Plan 02.03.20

P1920:107 Proposed Combined 02.03.20 Plans

19/2834/OUT page 201

DTS19.1167.2.T Tree Protection Plan 02.03.20 PP

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

19/2834/OUT page 202 Agenda Item 17

Ward Woodbury And Lympstone

Reference 20/0270/MFUL

Applicant F W S Carter and Sons Ltd

Location Unit 50 Greendale Business Park Woodbury Salterton Exeter EX5 1EW

Proposal Erection of extension to warehouse (use class B8), new HGV turning head, creation of a new footpath link, regrading and associated earthworks and landscaping

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023746

page 203

Committee Date: 15th July 2020

Woodbury And Target Date: Lympstone 20/0270/MFUL 18.05.2020 (Woodbury)

Applicant: F W S Carter and Sons Ltd

Location: Unit 50 Greendale Business Park

Proposal: Erection of extension to warehouse (use class B8), new HGV turning head, creation of a new footpath link, regrading and associated earthworks and landscaping

RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This application is before Committee as it represents a departure from the Local Plan.

This application seeks to extend an existing business unit, create an HGV turning area and provide an emergency vehicular link to the west of the Business Park, together with re-grading, re-profiling and landscaping of the land on the western boundary. The application is partially retrospective as the re-grading, re-profiling and some surfacing works have been undertaken.

The site extends beyond the identified boundary of Greendale Business Park and the proposal therefore represents a departure from the local plan. There are no policies within the local plan that specifically permits the development, although there is general support within the NPPF for the sustainable growth and expansion of businesses to support a prosperous rural economy where this respects the character of the countryside.

In terms of scale within the context of Greendale Business Park, the site it is of a relatively modest size. The extension to the existing building represents an increase in floor area of almost 1,200 square metres (around a 30% increase in the floor area of the existing building) and creating an additional 10 jobs.

Whilst the extended building would be more visible within the landscape, there are few public views of the site, generally limited to field gate openings from lanes to the south and west from where the building, although at a higher level than the surrounding land, would be seen against the background of the existing business units. It is not considered that this would create any significant or unacceptable visual harm.

20/0270/MFUL page 204

It is considered that whilst there are no local or neighbourhood plan policies which provide specific policy support for the proposals, there are a number of other benefits, particularly the creation of additional jobs and consequent economic benefit to the area; an improvement in the traffic management of this part of the estate by the provision of a HGV turning area; improved pedestrian links to the site, and the provision of an emergency access to the western boundary of the business park.

Overall, it is considered that subject to appropriate conditions relating to landscaping, surfacing, use of the building and surroundings it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable and is recommended for approval.

CONSULTATIONS

Local Consultations

Parish/Town Council The Parish Council is unable to consider the merits of the application.

Woodbury And Lympstone - Cllr Geoff Jung 20/0270/MFUL Unit 50 Greendale Business Park Woodbury Salterton.

I have viewed the documents for the retrospective planning application 20/0270/MFUL for the erection of extension to warehouse (use class B8), new HGV turning head, creation of a new footpath link, regrading and associated earthworks and landscaping at Unit 50 Greendale Business Park Woodbury Salterton.

This application incorporates some of the land associated with 18/2867/FUL for the regrading and planting for Compound 62 which was submitted in 2018 but has never been approved. Therefore, may I suggest that the 2018 application is withdrawn to show clarity.

The proposal is to extend the storage building within Unit 50 which I have no concerns. The extension of unit 50 will require the removal of a "Sound Barrier" which was erected on behalf of the previous tenant Wood Yew Waste to reduce sound emanating to the residential area of Woodbury Salterton. Although the present tenant is using the compound for storage which does not present a noise nuisance, I therefore I have no concerns. However, I would ask for a condition to rebuild a sound barrier if a tenant in the future carries out activities that do create a noise nuisance again.

I note that the proposal incorporates the regrading and landscaping to the boundary embankment and the provision of a cycleway access from the existing cycle way. If there is no further encroachment beyond the permitted 2009 09/1195/MOUT Greendale Extension and the new planting is incorporated in the Greendale Tree protection order I again do not have any problems with the proposal.

The final part of the proposal is to construct an HGV turning head. However, the proposal seems to suggest hardcore surface rather than concrete or tarmac finish to

20/0270/MFUL page 205

the roadway. Although I support the proposed road layout, I consider the use of hardcore surface will create dust and therefore be a health hazard.

If this Application is approved, I would suggest the following conditions to apply which are like the other full planning applications for the expansion area for Greendale Business Park.

Proposed Conditions for all units on the Extension at Greendale Business Park.

Maximum height of buildings.

1. The height of buildings permitted shall not exceed the eaves height of 7.5 metres (as referred to in the applicant's letter of 22nd June 2009 ref M de C/5724)

REASON: In the interests of the character and visual amenities of the area Ref 09/1195/MOUT

Yard Areas.

2. The finished yard areas to be concrete or tarmac. Gravel or crushed concrete should not be used.

REASON: To minimise dust disturbance to nearby residential areas.

Colour Scheme of Buildings

5. The building hereby approved shall be finished in Merlin Grey for the roof and Olive Green for the walling.

Reason - In the interests of the appearance of the development in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan.

Operational Hours

3. The site shall be open for the receipt of deliveries between 07.00 hours to 18.00 hours Monday to Friday

Weekend and Bank Holiday workings. The site shall be open for the receipt of deliveries between Saturday mornings 07.00 to 13.30 hours only.

No other operation to be carried out on Sundays and Bank Holidays

REASON: In the interests of the amenity of the area.

Reversing Alarms

4. All vehicles involved in the operation (excluding delivery and collection Vehicles not in the operator's control) shall be fitted with white noise reversing alarms. Such alarms shall be fitted within 3 months and shall be continued to be used for the life of operations at the site.

20/0270/MFUL page 206

REASON: To minimise the impact of reversing alarms on nearby residential properties.

Noise

5. All plant and machinery used for the operation shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers' guidelines in order to minimise noise.

REASON: To minimise the impacts of noise on nearby residential properties.

6. All vehicles parked overnight at the site shall be manoeuvred so that they can leave the site in a forward gear.

REASON: To ensure reversing alarms are not activated during early morning hours.

Lighting

6. A detailed lighting scheme for the application site shall be submitted to the EDDC Environmental Health for its approval in writing prior to the start of construction. Following approval, the lighting shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the scheme.

REASON: To reduce lighting impacts in the interests of the amenity of the area.

Conclusion. I cannot support this application at the present time until it has been confirmed it is totally within the Greendale Employment Zone and not within the open countryside, and the suggested conditions are confirmed; however, I reserve my final views on this planning application until I am in full possession of all the relevant arguments for and against.

Technical Consultations

Economic Development Officer We're pleased to see local support for this application and very much welcome both the 10 new FTE jobs the proposed development will deliver.

EDDC Trees No objection on Arboricultural Grounds, The Arb report is acceptable.

Devon County Highway Authority

Observations: None

Recommendation:

20/0270/MFUL page 207

THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Other Representations

None received

POLICIES

Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 Policies

Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside)

D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D2 (Landscape Requirements) D3 (Trees and Development Sites)

EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Features) EN14 (Control of Pollution) EN22 (Surface Run-Off Implications of New Development)

E7 (Extensions to Existing Employment Sites)

TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) TC9 (Parking Provision in New Development)

East Devon Villages Plan 2016

VP04 – Greendale Business Park

Government Planning Documents

NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework 2019) National Planning Practice Guidance

Site Location and Description

The application site lies on the western edge of Greendale Business Park, with Unit 50 occupying the westernmost site of the business park. The site extends beyond this unit and associated compound to include the land adjacent, part of which has been re-profiled with the land being raised and levelled without planning permission.

The south and western area of the site slopes steeply down to a wooded plantation and the countryside beyond. There is an existing informal access track leading down to an attenuation pond to the west of the site.

Proposed Development

20/0270/MFUL page 208

Planning permission is sought for an extension to Unit 50 and the formation of a new HGV turning area. In addition permission is sought for re-grading some of the adjacent land including earthworks, and re-profiling the land, with associated landscaping. The formation of a new footpath to the west is also proposed which would provide a link to the permissive footpath which links Greendale Farm Shop to the north with Honey Lane and Woodbury Salterton which lies to the south of the site.

Much of the re-profiling and earthworks have been undertaken and the application is therefore partially retrospective.

Planning History

The wider business park has been subject to numerous applications with the most relevant being the historic consent in 2009 that established the extent of the business park.

Also relevant is planning application 18/2867/FUL for the current application site for regrading and planting works. This application remains un-determined but the applicant has advised that this application will be withdrawn if the current proposal is granted planning permission.

ANALYSIS

The main issues are considered to be in respect of the principle of the development and any impact which the works will have on the landscape character and appearance of the area, on trees, residential amenity or highway safety.

Principle of Development

Part of the application site is located beyond the identified Greendale Business Park consented boundary and is therefore in planning terms classed as being within the countryside where Strategy 7 (Development in the Countryside) of the East Devon Local Plan applies. Within the countryside new development is strictly controlled and will only be permitted where it is in accordance with a specific local or neighbourhood plan policy that permits such development and where it would not harm the distinctive landscape, amenity and environmental qualities within which it is located.

The East Devon Villages Plan was adopted on 26 July 2018 and within this Policy VP04 – Greendale Business Park states that development as indicated on the inset map will be considered to be in accordance with the relevant policies of the development plan. In this situation the main part of the site where development is proposed lies outside of the identified development boundary for the Business Park, and there are no other specific Local Plan policies which permit development such as that proposed. The application has therefore been advertised as a departure from the Local Plan.

The Woodbury Neighbourhood Plan covering this part of the District is in an early stage of production and therefore does not, at this stage, carry any weight in policy terms.

20/0270/MFUL page 209

As the application represents a departure from Local Plan policy, assessment of the application turns to whether there are any material considerations that weigh in favour of the proposal and outweigh the lack of planning policy support.

The National Planning Policy Framework provides support for a prosperous rural economy with Paragraph 83 seeking to enable the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas, including new buildings.

Paragraph 84 recognises that sites to meet local business and community needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements. In such circumstances development should be sensitive to its surroundings. In addition paragraph 84 states that the use of previously developed land, and sites that are well- related to existing settlements should be encouraged where suitable opportunities exist. This paragraph also indicates that proposals should be sensitive to their surroundings and which do not have an unacceptable impact on local roads should exploit any opportunity to make a location more sustainable, such as improving the scope for access on foot or by cycling.

The application is accompanied by supporting information which indicates that the proposed extension would permit the expansion of a local business and the creation of an additional 10 jobs which weighs heavily in favour of the proposal. The potential for the business to expand on alternative sites has also been explored, but there are very limited options, and none readily available for a building of the size required which is realistically deliverable.

It is also considered that there are potential benefits arising from the provision of the turning head which would assist the highway arrangements within the Business Park by reducing conflict between manoeuvring large HGVs and other vehicles using the current road system. There are other benefits in terms of an additional footpath link and emergency access link.

Whilst the proposal represents an extension of the Business Park beyond the defined and consented boundary of the Local and Villages Plans, which weighs against the proposal, it gains support in terms of the general provisions of the NPPF in supporting and promoting a prosperous rural economy.

With the above in mind and having regard to the scale of the development and the economic benefits which it would offer, it is considered that, on balance the development would be acceptable as a policy departure subject to no harmful visual impacts or other significant harm.

Character and Appearance of the Area

The proposed extension to the building is considered to be relatively modest within the overall context of the Business Park, although at almost 1,200 square metres it is not an insignificant extension. Where it would be viewed from any public vantage points, of which there are very few, it would be seen against the backdrop of the large buildings currently on the business park. The design of the extension would be the same as the existing building, and given matching materials it is not considered that it would be either prominent or out of character within its context.

20/0270/MFUL page 210

The re-profiling of the land has altered the appearance of the western boundary of the Business Park with a more sharply rising land form than that previously existing. Whilst different, this has also presented the opportunity to provide significant new and additional planting and landscaping which will, in time, soften the appearance of the edge of the business park, although it is accepted that given the scale of the buildings and industrial form, landscaping will not be able to disguise their presence. . The formation of the turning head and the proposed emergency link road are not considered to have any wider visual impact.

Whilst there will therefore be a visual impact from the proposals, the impact is limited to longer range views where there is little harm as the works are read in combination with the wider business park, or from the footpath to the west of the site from which landscaping is proposed to soften the visual impact to an acceptable extent.

In light of this, it would be difficult to argue that the proposal results in a harmful visual impact.

Trees

There is a blanket tree preservation order (18/0002/TPO) relating to the western boundary of the business park. The protected trees comprise a number to varieties including Ash, Oak, Beech, Maple, Birch and Alder, some of which have been group planted. The order was imposed to ensure the protection of these relatively young trees planted to provide screening of the Business Park. This proposal seeks to reinforce the existing planting and provide additional protection to the existing trees which will, in time further soften the boundary of the site.

The landscaping, planting and protection measures have been considered by the Councils Arboricultural Officer and found to be acceptable.

Residential or other Amenity Impact

The nearest residential properties are located to the south west of the site, with the closest in excess of 400m away, with the topography of the land and existing planting meaning that the application site is not clearly visible in general views from this area.

Despite the lack of visibility of the site, external lighting and operation of the site at night has the potential to result in a loss of amenity, in terms of an increase in light pollution for the nearest residents, although restrictions in terms of hours of operation and controls over external lighting could ensure that this potential issue is addressed.

The creation and operation of the turning area would result in additional traffic movements on the south western edge of the site, which has the potential to create additional noise and disturbance. However the turning head would offer the opportunity for large vehicles to be able to turn within the western edge of the business park without having to manoeuvre and reverse around the existing buildings. As such there would appear to be the potential to reduce, or at least minimise noise arising from reversing alarms within this part of the site. It is considered that this issue can

20/0270/MFUL page 211

be further addressed through appropriate conditions and it is not considered that there would be any significant impact on residential amenity arising from the proposed development.

Impact on Highway Safety

The site is served by an established access onto the main estate road network, and whilst there will be a resultant increase in vehicular movements with the additional floor area and further staff, it is not anticipated that the extension to the building will result in any significant alterations to the current situation.

The new turning area may also result in additional traffic using this part of the Business Park, with large vehicles using the turning area. However the road network within the Business Park is private, and whilst the turning head would be unlikely to reach any highway design criteria it is considered to be suitable in this location. It would also be likely to reduce the need for some reversing/manoeuvring which is considered to be of some positive highway benefit.

There is an existing permissive footpath extending from Greendale Farm Shop to the north and Honey Lane on the edge of Woodbury Salterton to the south and it is proposed to provide a link to this from the edge of the Business Park. Whilst modest in nature and probably in terms of use, this link would offer an alternative pedestrian access to the Business Park which at the present time has no access from its western side.

No details as to the proposed construction of the footpath have been provided and as such it is considered that these should be conditioned and that the footpath should be installed prior to the occupation of the proposed extension to ensure that this element of the proposal is undertaken in a timely manner.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that whilst there are no local or neighbourhood plan policies which provide specific policy support for the proposals, there are a number of other benefits that derive from the proposal, particularly the creation of additional jobs and consequent economic benefit to the area; an improvement in the traffic management of this part of the estate by the provision of a HGV turning area; improved pedestrian links to the site, and the provision of an emergency access to the western boundary of the business park.

On balance, and given the relative lack of landscape harm or other harm resulting from the proposal, it is considered that subject to appropriate conditions relating to landscaping including the design of the proposed footpath link, surfacing, use of the building and surroundings, the benefits from the proposal outweigh the harm and lack of planning policy support for the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

20/0270/MFUL page 212

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission and shall be carried out as approved. (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 permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice. (Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

3. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match, in type, colour and texture those of the existing building. (Reason - To ensure that the materials are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the existing building in accordance with Policy D1 - Design and Local Distinctiveness of the Adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031.)

4. Notwithstanding the submitted details and prior to first use the proposed turning area shall be finished in concrete, or other hard surface as otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason - To protect the amenities of residential properties from dust and in accordance with the provisions of policy EN14 (Control of Pollution of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

5. Prior to first occupation of the building hereby permitted the link to the existing footpath on the western boundary of the site shall have been installed in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The path shall be maintained thereafter available for access in perpetuity. (Reason – In the interests of sustainable development and in accordance with policy TC2 (Accessibility of New Development) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and the guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework 2019

6. The site shall be open for the receipt of deliveries between 07.00 hours to 18.00 hours Monday to Friday only. The site shall be open for the receipt of deliveries between Saturday mornings 07.00 to 13.30 hours only. No other operation to be carried out on Sundays and Bank Holidays. (Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the surrounding area in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan)

7. All vehicles involved in the operation (excluding delivery and collection vehicles not in the operator's control) shall be fitted with white noise reversing alarms. Such alarms shall be fitted within 3 months and shall be continued to be used for the life of operations at the site. (Reason: To minimise the impact of reversing alarms on nearby residential properties in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan).

20/0270/MFUL page 213

8. A detailed lighting scheme for the application site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the EDDC Environmental Health Department prior to the building being brought into its intended use. Following approval the lighting shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the scheme prior to the use of the site commencing. (Reason: To reduce lighting impacts in the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the East Devon Local Plan).

9. Landscaping and planting shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the details and specifications submitted by Redbay Design on Drawing No. 670/01 Rev A (Planting Plan) and Drawing No. 670/02 (Details and Notes) dated 30.01.2020 and received 17 February 2020, and Aspect Tree Consultancy Drawing No. 05213 TPP (Tree Protection Plan), and Drawing No. 05213 AMS (Arboricultural Method Statement) dated 13.05.2020 and received 13.05.2020. (Reason – In the interests of amenity and to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and Policy D2 (Landscape Requirements) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031).

NOTE FOR APPLICANT

Informative: In accordance with the aims of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 East Devon District Council works proactively with applicants to resolve all relevant planning concerns; however, in this case the application was deemed acceptable as submitted.

Plans relating to this application:

05213-AMS - Arboriculturist Report 13.05.20 13.05.20

05213-TPP - Tree Protection Plan 13.05.20 13.05.2020 TPP

Landscape Visual 07.02.20 Impact Appraisal

7898-LP rev C Location Plan 07.02.20 tree survey Arboriculturist Report 17.02.20

670/01 rev A : Landscaping 17.02.20 planting plan

670/02 : details Other Plans 07.02.20 and notes

20/0270/MFUL page 214

7898-11 rev D Proposed Floor Plans 07.02.20

7898-12 rev E Proposed Elevation 17.02.20

7898-14 rev I Proposed Site Plan 07.02.20

5030545-DR-C- Landscaping 07.02.20 3001 rev P2 : planting+ regrading works

List of Background Papers Application file, consultations and policy documents referred to in the report.

20/0270/MFUL page 215