EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL LIST of PLANNING APPEALS LODGED Ref: 20/0988/FUL Date Received 22.10.2020 Appellant: Mr Ian Connock
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL LIST OF PLANNING APPEALS LODGED Ref: 20/0988/FUL Date Received 22.10.2020 Appellant: Mr Ian Connock Appeal Site: Abbotsford Longmeadow Road Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5LE Proposal: Creation of a means of access to a highway (part retrospective) Planning APP/U1105/D/20/3261816 Inspectorate Ref: Ref: 20/1779/FUL Date Received 24.10.2020 Appellant: Mr John Lomax Appeal Site: Water Tower At Mount Pleasant Exmouth Road Aylesbeare Proposal: Provision of additional secure storage space adjacent and within structure Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3261920 Inspectorate Ref: Ref: 20/0411/LBC Date Received 05.11.2020 Appellant: Mr David Holt Appeal Site: Berry Cottage Longmeadow Road Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5LW Proposal: Remove existing rear porch and construct extension to the rear (north) elevation Planning APP/U1105/Y/20/3262597 Inspectorate Ref: Ref: 20/0507/FUL Date Received 05.11.2020 Appellant: Mr S James Appeal Site: Hookmills Chardstock Axminster EX13 7DD Proposal: Change of use of single storey office building to dwelling; store building to associated domestic use and adjoining land to garden Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3262604 Inspectorate Ref: Ref: 20/0572/FUL Date Received 07.11.2020 Appellant: Mr J Lacey Appeal Site: Land At Woodhouse Lyme Road Uplyme Proposal: Change of use of agricultural land for siting of static caravan and construction of generator housing (retrospective). Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3262750 Inspectorate Ref: Ref: 18/F0494 Date Received 09.11.2020 Appellant: Malcolm John Burrough Appeal Site: Thorn Park Family Golf Centre Salcombe Regis Sidmouth EX10 0JH Proposal: Appeal against the serving of an Enforcement Notice in respect of the siting of two caravans on the site. Planning APP/U1105/C/20/3262840 Inspectorate Ref: EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL LIST OF PLANNING APPEALS DECIDED Ref: 19/1299/FUL Appeal Ref: 20/00019/REF Appellant: Donna Delamain Appeal Site: Hill View Nursery Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4SZ Proposal: Change of use and extension of storage building to form a live-work unit Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 20.10.2020 Procedure: Virtual Hearing Remarks: Delegated refusal, lack of functional need reasons upheld (EDLP Policies D8 & H4 and Dunkeswell NP Policy LE1). BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3249070 Inspectorate Ref: Ref: 16/M0001 Appeal Ref: 20/00020/ENFAPP Appellant: Donna Gant Appeal Site: Hill View Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4SZ Proposal: Appeal against the serving of an enforcement notice in respect of the siting of a mobile home Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 20.10.2020 Procedure: Virtual Hearing Remarks: Enforcement Notice varied and upheld. BVPI 204: No Planning APP/U1105/C/20/3249072 Inspectorate Ref: Ref: 20/0015/CPE Appeal Ref: 20/00030/LDC Appellant: Mrs Veronica Strawbridge Appeal Site: 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. Decision: Appeal Allowed Date: 22.10.2020 (no conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal. The Inspector concluded that on the basis of the available evidence, the Council’s refusal to grant a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development was not well founded. BVPI 204: No Planning APP/U1105/X/20/3251141 Inspectorate Ref: Ref: 19/2374/FUL Appeal Ref: 20/00037/REF Appellant: Mr L White Appeal Site: Land Adjacent Valley View Farway EX24 6EE Proposal: Erection of residential dwelling log cabin. Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 22.10.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, countryside protection, landscape and sustainability reasons upheld (EDLP Strategies 7 & 46 and Policies D1 & TC2). BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3254084 Inspectorate Ref: Ref: 19/2336/LBC Appeal Ref: 20/00040/LBCREF 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 Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 22.10.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, listed building conservation reasons upheld (EDLP Policy EN9). BVPI 204: No Planning APP/U1105/Y/20/3254977 Inspectorate Ref: Ref: 19/2092/FUL Appeal Ref: 20/00041/REF Appellant: Mr Richard Gray Appeal Site: 1 Victoria Road Exmouth EX8 1DL Proposal: Replacement windows (17 No.) Decision: Appeal Allowed Date: 22.10.2020 (with conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Officer recommendation to approve, Committee refusal. Conservation reasons overruled (EDLP Policies D1 & EN10). The Inspector noted that there is a prevalence of uPVC windows in the surrounding area and considered that the proposed windows would neither read as unsympathetic nor visually intrusive additions within their context. They would also appear as high-quality replacements in relation to the condition of the existing timber frames and the mix of uPVC windows in the locality. He concluded that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Exmouth Conservation Area in accordance with Policies D1 and EN10 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031. BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3254997 Inspectorate Ref: Ref: 19/2650/PDQ Appeal Ref: 20/00035/REF Appellant: Mrs M Hazell Appeal Site: Barn West Of Tale Head Cottage Payhembury Proposal: Prior approval for proposed change of use of agricultural building to form 5 no. dwellings (Use Class C3) and associated operational development Decision: Appeal Allowed Date: 23.10.2020 (no conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: The Council refused to grant prior approval on the basis that the proposed works to convert the buildings were in excess of those permitted under Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order. The Inspector noted that the entire works would take place within the existing footprint of the building and that there was no demolition proposed. He considered that the scale and extent of the building operations were reasonably necessary for the building to function as five dwellings and concluded that the proposal was classed as permitted development under Class Q. BVPI 204: No Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3253451 Inspectorate Ref: Ref: 20/0611/FUL Appeal Ref: 20/00047/REF Appellant: Mr P & Mrs B Keeling Appeal Site: Donnithornes Mill Street Ottery St Mary EX11 1AF Proposal: Widen existing access; works to include: remove section of wall and re-position 1 no. pillar and re-build 1 no. pillar at entrance and replace entrance gate Decision: Appeal Allowed Date: 23.10.2020 (with conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, conservation reasons overruled (EDLP Policies EN9 & EN10). The Inspector acknowledged that the proposal would entail the loss of some important historic fabric within the Ottery St Mary conservation area and, to a very limited extent, would also detract from the settings of the neighbouring listed houses. However, he considered that in assessing the impact upon the significance of these designated heritage assets all elements of the proposal must be considered together and any harm needed to be weighed against any public benefits. The Inspector considered that, on balance, the settings of The Donnithornes and Colby House, would be preserved. The proposals would also preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. Even if there was some degree of overall harm, in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework, this would be less than substantial. He concluded that the proposal would be of some limited highway (public) benefit and whilst no overall harm was found, if some was to be derived it would be outweighed by this benefit. BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/D/20/3256604 Inspectorate Ref: Ref: 20/0437/LBC Appeal Ref: 20/00048/LBCREF Appellant: Mr Paul Keeling Appeal Site: The Donnithornes Mill Street Ottery St Mary EX11 1AF Proposal: Widen existing access; works to include: remove section of wall and re-position 1 no. pillar and re-build 1 no. pillar at entrance and replace entrance gate Decision: Appeal Allowed Date: 23.10.2020 (with conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, conservation reasons overruled (EDLP Policy EN9). The Inspector acknowledged that the proposal would, to a very limited extent, detract from the settings of the neighbouring listed houses. However, he considered that in assessing the impact upon the significance of these designated heritage assets all elements of the proposal must be considered together and any harm needed to be weighed against any public benefits. The Inspector considered that, on balance, the settings of The Donnithornes and Colby House, would be preserved. Even if there was some degree of overall harm, in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework, this would be less than substantial. He concluded that the proposal would be of some limited highway (public) benefit and whilst no overall harm was found, if some was to be derived it would be outweighed by this benefit. BVPI 204: No APP/U1105/Y/20/3256621 Ref: 19/2188/FUL Appeal Ref: 20/00034/REF 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. Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date: 28.10.2020 Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, tree preservation and parking reasons upheld (EDLP Policies D1, D3 & TC9). BVPI 204: Yes Planning APP/U1105/W/20/3252871 Inspectorate Ref: Ref: 19/2667/FUL Appeal Ref: 20/00046/REF Appellant: Mr Matthew Knight Appeal Site: Land Adjacent 6 The Chase Honiton Proposal: Construction of 1 no. dwelling (resubmission of application ref. 19/0754/FUL) Decision: Appeal Allowed Date: 29.10.2020 (with conditions) Procedure: Written representations Remarks: Delegated refusal, amenity reasons overruled (EDLP Policy D1). The Inspector noted that the proposed dwelling would be sited within a relatively small plot however, he considered that the proposal would not appear incongruous given the variation of plot sizes in the surrounding area.