WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

WARD: Drewsteignton (Cllr P Ridgers)

APPLICATION NO: 01257/2011 LOCATION: North Beer Farm, Spreyton, Crediton, EX17 5AP APPLICANT NAME: Mr F Hawkins APPLICATION: Full PARISH: Spreyton GRID REF: 270013 97810 PROPOSAL: Erection of agricultural workers dwelling CASE OFFICER: Laura Batham TARGET DATE: 13/04/2011

This application is before Committee at the request of Cllr Ridgers for the following reasons: ‘Sustainability – the concern that the businesses may not be sustainable without additional family members on site. The margins are currently very tight in farming and casual staff cannot be viably employed. There is currently a lot of distress in farming as on-costs are rising but costs for the end materials remain flat.

As member of a very rural area, I am supportive of applications that enable our main industry, farming, to continue and thrive.’

PROPOSAL Full application for an agricultural workers dwelling.

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS North Beer Farm is located to the north of Spreyton in an isolated, rural location. The application site is to the south west of the farm complex. Access to the site would be from an existing lane access serving the main farm. The site has a Devon hedge bank along the south and west elevations and surrounding the entire plot is an existing hedge.

CONSULTATIONS Spreyton Parish Council: Neutral view

County Highways Authority: Inadequate approach roads and unsustainable location but not overriding if agricultural need is satisfied.

Environment Agency: No comments received

Natural England: No comments received

Local Residents/Interested Parties: Two letters of support were received period outlining the following points:

18 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

- Prompt care is essential for continued welfare of calves. - Lambing is an intense period requiring onsite attendance 24/7 to minimise health and welfare problems. - Delayed inspections and treatments will compromise calf welfare causing increase in mortality. - It is not a 9 - 5 job. - Signs of illness can only be spotted quickly by regular on site attention.

A letter from Mel Stride MP on behalf of the applicants was also received requesting that the council be aware of Mrs Hawkins’ concerns and that they be taken into account.

PLANNING HISTORY 01055/2010 Application for the erection of agricultural workers dwelling. Application withdrawn 17/01/11 (recommendation for refusal). 14658/000 Two storey extension for a living room and one bedroom. Conditional consent. 18/07/96

POLICY FRAMEWORK PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development

Structure Plan 2001 - 2016 Policies CO6 Quality of development TR1 Devon Travel Strategy ST1 Sustainable Development

Local Plan Review Policies H31 Residential Development in the Countryside H33 Residential Development in the Countryside H34 Residential Development in the Countryside NE10 Protection of the wider countryside and other open spaces SP20 Promoting High Quality Design T9 The Higway Network

ASSESSMENT The application is for a new agricultural workers dwelling. This application is a re- submission following the withdrawal of a previous application in January 2011. The proposed site is in the open countryside, outside the defined settlement limits, therefore, the application would need to satisfy Annex A of Planning Policy Statement 7 and Policy H31 of the Adopted Local Plan. The policies state that written independent evidence should be supplied to show the need for a new dwelling.

Financial information and an agricultural assessment were submitted during the application process. The assessment carried out for the applicant is not dated but

19 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

refers to financial information for 2010 which would indicate a recent assessment. This information was independently assessed by Mr D Roberts under the previous application and a report assessing the information provided. Following the re- submission of the information Mr Roberts assessed the information again and provided an additional report and asked that this original appraisal dated 10th December 2010 be accepted again for this resubmitted application.

There are two dwellings located at the farm – the farm house and cottage. The farmhouse is occupied by the applicants; the cottage was severed from the holding in 2003 and is occupied by the applicant’s mother. In addition there is a third dwelling; Combe Bungalow, which does not have an agricultural tie but is within the holding. This dwelling owned by the applicants and occupied by a relative of the applicants. This dwelling cannot be let to Mr D Hawkins due to an existing tenancy agreement. Therefore this current application would be for a fourth dwelling on North Beer Farm.

Functional Tests Annex A of PPS7 states that the need for a new dwelling will depend on the needs of the enterprise concerned and not the personal preferences or circumstances of the individuals involved.

North Beer Farm consists of 183 ha. The typical amount of cattle on the farm at any one time is 20 suckler cows, 200 finishing cattle 12-24 months of age and 200 calves and young cattle up to 12 months of age. There is also a sheep enterprise based on breeding ewes which currently numbers 400 but which is normally 350.

The assessment provided by Mr Ellam suggests that Mr D Hawkins needs to be resident on site for general routine husbandry and supervision throughout the day and night. The report also states that an additional dwelling is required to satisfactorily discharge his duties; however, it is understood that Mr D Hawkins is already resident at the holding in the main farmhouse.

The determination of this proposal should pay high regard to whether the additional worker needs to be resident on the holding. The independent assessment carried out by Mr Roberts suggests that as there is already a worker resident on the holding it is not necessary for a second to be also resident on the holding. Of the 400+ cattle on the farm at any one time the majority are store and fattening cattle, the management and welfare of which do not require more than one person to be readily available at most times day and night. The number of occasions during unsocial and night-time hours when these cattle would require more than one person to be on hand would be very infrequent and not to the extent that two workers would need to be resident on the farm. With regards to the 20 sucker cows, with just 20 cows, the frequency of night time calvings and other incidents requiring two people to be in attendance would not be great.

20 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Mr F Hawkins is already within sight and sound of the farm to deal with any emergencies. It was identified by Mr Roberts that during the lambing season for approximately one month it may be necessary for a second worker to be resident on site. However, this does not give a justification for a new dwelling on site as a second worker could be housed temporarily within the existing properties on site.

The applicants state that: ‘Daniel is nearly 25 and in a relationship we are thinking ahead, we don’t know when he will want to settle down, it could be next year or in 3 years … … By getting the planning now we have I believe, 3 years to start the house so with Daniel not having any desperate plans to live out of the family home at least we are planning for the day when he will’ (My emphasis).

It is clear from this statement that the need as highlighted by the applicants is addressing the future needs of the family and not the current needs of the holding. Annexe A of PPS7 advises that ‘new permanent dwellings should only be allowed… ... providing (inter alia) there is a clearly established existing functional need’. It also advises that the need for an additional dwelling must be based upon the needs of the enterprise and not the personal preferences or circumstances of any individuals involved. The information submitted and assessed by the Independent agricultural assessor identifies that there is not a current functional need for another dwelling on the holding.

Financial Test It is the independent assessor’s opinion that the accounts supplied by the applicant for the previous three years up to 31st March 2010 satisfy the financial test of Annexe A of PPS7. The farm has been consistently profitable, financially sound and has every prospect of remaining so.

Other available housing The report from Mr Ellam suggests that the properties in the surrounding area are available at premium prices, outside the reach of an agricultural worker. However, there are settlements within reach of the farm including Spreyton, North Tawton and Whiddon Down. It has not been demonstrated that there are no suitable dwellings available in the area. In addition there has been recently approved a development of houses in Spreyton which includes affordable smaller houses and is in the process of being built. Mr D Hawkins would need to apply for these properties through a housing association. Mr Ellam has stated that in his opinion there is a need for Mr D Hawkins to be resident on site and therefore the affordability of dwellings in the vicinity is not relevant.

It remains that the functional requirement for someone to be resident on the holding has not been met and therefore properties in the area could be considered.

21 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Design If the assessment had identified that this proposal satisfied both the functional and financial tests the proposed new dwelling would need to be commensurate with the needs of the holding. The proposed dwelling is considered overly large and not reasonably required for the purpose. In addition the design is considered to be suburban and not vernacular to the local area. The external chimney stack, brick surrounds and quoins are considered out of keeping. In addition the gable projection on the northern elevation is not considered acceptable.

The provision of three bedrooms, living room, dining room, study and garage is considered to be particularly large for the accommodation of a worker. There are currently three dwellings associated with the holding and any new dwelling, should it have been acceptable, should reflect the hierarchy of the dwellings.

Concern is also raised as to the affordability of the proposed dwelling for an agricultural worker. The size of the dwelling should be commensurate with the functional requirement and dwellings that are overly large should not be permitted. However, as identified above, it is not considered that there is a functional need for the dwelling.

Conclusion The financial test of Annexe A of PPS7 has been fully met; however, the functional test is not met as it is the independent assessor’s opinion that the proper functioning of the enterprise would not be compromised if Mr D Hawkins were not resident on the farm. In addition the size of the proposed dwelling is not considered commensurate with the needs of the holding and would be unaffordable to an agricultural worker. The design is considered out of keeping with the area.

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE for the following reasons: 1. The Local Planning Authority does not consider that the proposed additional agricultural workers dwelling is justified as there is no essential functional agricultural requirement for an additional full-time worker to reside on-site. As such the proposal constitutes an unjustified, unsustainable new dwelling in the open countryside and as such would be contrary to West Devon Borough Development Plan policies T5 and H31, Devon County Structure Plan 2001 to 2016 policy CO6, and the advice contained in PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. 2. The size of the proposed dwelling is considered overly large for the accommodation of a single worker and the resultant dwelling would not be commensurate to the needs of the holding and would be unaffordable to an agricultural worker. Therefore the proposal would be contrary to Policy H31, H33 and H34 of the West Devon Borough Development Plan and the advice of PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

22 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

3. The design of the proposal is out of keeping with the local vernacular but is neither a sensitive modern design. As such it is contrary to Policy H31 and SP20 of the West Devon Borough Development Plan. ______

WARD: Drewsteignton (Cllr P Ridgers)

APPLICATION NO: 01258/2011 LOCATION: Begbeer Farm, Spreyton, Crediton, Devon, EX17 5AR APPLICANT NAME: Mr C Jordan APPLICATION: Full PARISH: Spreyton GRID REF: 270892 99045 PROPOSAL: Erection of agricultural workers dwelling CASE OFFICER: Anna Henderson-Smith TARGET DATE: 11/04/2011

This application is before Committee for determination at the request of Cllr Ridgers on the basis of ‘Sustainability - the concern the businesses may not be sustainable without additional family members on site. The margins are currently very tight in farming and casual staff cannot be viably employed. There is currently a lot of distress in farming as on-costs are rising but costs for the end materials remain flat. As member of a very rural area, I am supportive of applications that enable our main industry, farming, to continue and thrive.’

PROPOSAL Full application for Agricultural Workers Dwelling.

Overview of the farm at Begbeer: The applicants currently farm and own around 74ha (185 acres) of which all except approximately 4ha is permanent pasture. In addition the applicant’s occupy an additional 41ha under rental agreements.

The principal enterprise is dairying with a few beef cattle. At the time of the applicant’s appraisal there were 150 dairy cows, at the time of the Council’s advisor visiting there were 145 as a result of culls but these are to be replaced:

In addition to the dairy herd are mature beef cattle, in calf-heifers, yearling to bulling heifers, and dairy calves.

The applicant Mr Charlie Jordan and his son Mr Chris Jordan are both full-time workers on the farm and are substantially assisted by Mrs Jordan who does the

23 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

milking. The three family members currently reside in the existing farmhouse on-site built in the 1980s and which is subject to an agricultural occupancy condition.

The farm has a substantial range of buildings and an ongoing programme of improvement and replacement for the site.

The agricultural and business appraisal submitted with the application conducted by Mr M Neason of Stags supports the application and considers that the functional and financial tests of Annex A of PPS7 are passed. The main need stated is:

‘The farm business is expanding and there is a current requirement for two dwellings to be available for residential farmworkers. Mr and Mrs Jordan’s son can no longer continue to live in the farmhouse with his parents, and unless alternative accommodation can be provided on-site, he will need to move off the farm thus placing an excessive burden on Mr and Mrs Jordan senior which will in turn prejudice the long-term viability of the successful farming business.

The business is also vulnerable if Chris Jordan decides to leave, as there would be no accommodation for the necessary replacement worker’.(paras 4.1 and 4.2).

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site is located on land opposite the existing farmhouse and cluster of farm buildings in the open countryside, outside any settlement boundary.

There are no immediately adjacent residential properties, the nearest residential property is to the south east and is the applicant’s farmhouse at Begbeer Farm. From the application site it is possible to view some other residential properties, one to the northwest, one to the south west, and one some distance away to the east which is East Begbeer.

The site is currently grassed agricultural land and is bounded to the south by a 2m (approximately) high bank with hedge above, there is also approximately 1.5m partial hedge to the east and west boundaries and the site is open to the north.

The site is set high to the road and the access into the site slopes up, a large area of the current accessway is covered by the tree canopy of the immediately adjacent oak.

Due to the height of the land on the application site there are long views visible out to the north east and over the hedges to the south long views to the south beyond the main farm and farm buildings themselves.

There is an existing access gate on the southern boundary and to the immediately adjacent road.

24 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

CONSULTATIONS Spreyton Parish Council: Neutral view

County Highways Authority: If the agricultural dwelling can be justified through the agricultural appraisal then any highway reason for refusal should not be overriding. Environment Agency: No comments received

South West Water Services: No comments received

Borough Engineer: Requests additional percolation tests

Agricultural consultant: Does not support the application

Local Residents/Interested Parties: 2 letters of support received: - This dairy farm is now too large to be run by a husband and wife team alone - Such a holding deserve every support and encouragement for young people staying in agriculture - Family members are dedicated and work long working hours to ensure the very high standards of husbandry on the holding and secure its economic viability - Staff living at even the nearest village would incur unnecessary travel from Bow or Spreyton - Dwelling required for animal safety and welfare, particularly due to recent years bad weather

PLANNING HISTORY 5758/1 Erection of agricultural workers dwelling - conditional consent 05/10/81

POLICY FRAMEWORK PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

Structure Plan 2001 - 2016 Policies CO6 Quality of development TR1 Devon Travel Strategy ST1 Sustainable Development

Local Plan Review Policies H31 Residential Development in the Countryside H33 Residential Development in the Countryside H34 Residential Development in the Countryside NE10 Protection of the wider countryside and other open spaces

SP20 Promoting High Quality Design (Core Strategy Policy)

25 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

ASSESSMENT The application is for a new agricultural workers dwelling. The proposed site is in the open countryside outside the defined settlement limits. Therefore the application would need to satisfy Annex A of Planning Policy Statement 7 and Policy H31 of the Adopted Local Plan.

The main planning considerations in the assessment of this application are therefore those relating to design, amenity and the functional/financial tests.

Functional test Following the appraisal of the agricultural case by the Council’s agricultural consultant (Mr Roberts), the outstanding issue is that of the functional test criteria.

It is not disputed that the farm requires Chris Jordan as a permanent full-time worker on the farm in terms of man-hours. However a farm worker only need be resident on- site where they are required ‘to be readily available at most times…day and night.’ (PPS 7), for example to deal with animal care at short-term notice and to deal with emergencies which could cause serious loss of crops or products, e.g. by frost damage.

Chris Jordan is on the farm during his usual (and long, 6am-10pm) working day and is thus readily available during those hours. Therefore based on the nature and frequency of incidents which would require Chris and Charlie Jordan outside these hours, (e.g. a difficult calving) and the relatively short journey to the farm from any of the nearby settlements it is not considered that he would need to be readily available at most times day and night, particularly as Mrs Jordan is also resident on-site and therefore readily available at most times day and night and thus able to provide assistance in such instances. Derek Roberts commented on this as follows:

Derek Roberts has also cited examples of other similar enterprises and situations where a second property is not necessary as the farm enterprise functions fully with only one on-site house and a husband and wife residing on-site.

26 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Were Chris Jordan to move off site in order to gain the independence which is cited as the reason for Chris needing to move out from the existing farmhouse, Derek Roberts does not consider that this would put an ‘excessive burden’ onto Mr and Mrs Jordan despite Mr Neason’s assertion that it would. Likewise he doesn’t consider that the financial burden of Chris Jordan moving to another property would ‘prejudice the long-term viability’ of the farm business.

In addition any arguments in relation to future situations relating to other farm- workers that the farm may employ in the future should Chris Jordan leave etc are hypothetical future scenarios and the tests of PPS7 must be based on the existing circumstances only.

Financial test The financial test has been assessed and is satisfied, although this is a secondary test which need only be considered pertinent if the functional requirement is satisfied. Derek Roberts stated the following:

Amenity It is not considered that the proposed dwelling would have any significant detrimental effect upon residential amenity as the nearest third party residential property is some distance away.

There is adequate external amenity space proposed with the property to meet the needs of any future occupiers.

The proximity of the proposed unit to working agricultural buildings and livestock is not considered an issue from an amenity point of view due to the unit being proposed for an agricultural worker.

Design With regards to the design, the proposal is a simple three bedroom single storey property. It is considered acceptable in this location and for the proposed use and occupancy. Although it is sited quite high to the surrounding countryside, its low roofline and space for boundary treatments could overcome the visual impact on the surrounding area. It is sufficiently close to the farm buildings and farmyard areas to

27 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

both aid in mitigating against its visual impact and to allow it to operate functionally for the purposes of agriculture.

Other There is adequate on-site parking proposed to serve the property and adequate space within the site and farmyard to turn a vehicle such that vehicles could leave and join the highway forward gear

The drainage of the site to a septic tank and soakaway would be considered acceptable with the addition of a drainage condition ensuring adequate percolation test results for the soakaway and the use of a bio-package treatment unit for foul water.

Although there is a mature oak tree adjacent to the access, it is considered that a ‘no dig’ approach could ensure that the roots and root protection area would not be unduly affected by the proposal.

Applicant’s response to Derek Robert’s report Following Mr Roberts’ report, the applicant’s agent has responded. It was requested that this was circulated to members and this has been done, therefore the following summarises the key points raised: - to base the functional need test on night time calving numbers only is misleading and irrelevant to a well managed, high-yielding dairy business - there are other night time checks required other than simply calvings - the herd calves year-round and it is unreasonable to expect Mr and Mrs Jordan (senior) to be on hand 365 days a year - Mr and Mrs Jordan may be away from the farm together at times enjoying a joint social life - Chris Jordan leaving the farm is not hypothetical, it could occur. - This application is a genuine one form a genuine farming business with a genuine need.

Conclusion Although there will be occasions when Chris Jordan does need to be “readily available” at Begbeer, the short distance away which he could reside in a nearby settlement combined with the amount of time which he is already present on the farm does make him readily available. It is not considered that he needs to be “readily available at most times…day and night” to a degree that he essentially needs to live on the farm, in a second on-farm dwelling’

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE for the following reasons: 1. The Local Planning Authority does not consider that the proposed additional agricultural workers dwelling is justified as there is no essential functional agricultural requirement for an additional full-time worker to reside on-site. As such the proposal constitutes an unjustified, unsustainable new dwelling in the

28 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

open countryside and as such would be contrary to West Devon Borough Development Plan policies T5 and H31, Devon County Structure Plan 2001 to 2016 policy CO6, and the advice contained in PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. ______

WARD: Drewsteignton (Cllr P Ridgers)

APPLICATION NO: 01292/2011 LOCATION: The Old Vicarage, Spreyton, Crediton, Devon, EX17 5AL APPLICANT NAME: Mrs C Lamb APPLICATION: Listed Building PARISH: Spreyton GRID REF: 269732 96794 PROPOSAL: Works to building for conversion to annexe CASE OFFICER: Anna Henderson-Smith TARGET DATE: 25/04/2011

PROPOSAL Works to building for conversion to annexe

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application building is a former stable/barn in the grounds of a grade II listed old vicarage. The site is located within the Spreyton settlement boundary, to the north of the main road through Spreyton. The site is set on relatively level area, to the north of the barn is a cobbled courtyard with other former barns which have been converted to residential to the north and east (these are separated off by approximately 2m high stone wall or lie the other side of the blank eastern gable of the barn). To the south of the building is a static caravan (which has planning permission) beyond which is a high established hedge to the road, to the west is open garden which is part of the walled garden of the vicarage.

The existing building has a corrugated tin roof, the walls are predominantly whitewashed and untreated roughcast render with some timber infilling of current openings. There is a stone wall attached to the western gable end which forms part of the enclosure of the walled garden of the vicarage. The barn itself still has cobbled floors and many internal features including timber partitioning, mangers and stall divisions.

29 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

CONSULTATIONS Spreyton Parish Council: No comments received

County Highways Authority: Do not wish to comment

English Heritage: No comments to make

Local Residents/Interested Parties: 1 letter received on the following grounds: - Conversion has been refused before - Building should be retained as stables - Building still has significant valuable internal architectural features - Other buildings converted nearby were not within the curtilage of the vicarage - By converting the upper floors to bedrooms, occupants would overlook neighbours garden causing loss of privacy - A corner of the barn projects into the neighbours garden - if it became even a temporary residence it would cause noise disturbance - It could easily become a permanent dwelling

Many of these objections relate to amenity issues (e.g. overlooking) which are outside the scope of consideration for this listed building application. The only issues for consideration here are those relating to the impact upon the special historical and architectural features of the listed building.

PLANNING HISTORY 13220/2009/OKE Works to barn to form dwelling - refused 10/11/2009 and appeal dismissed 13217/2009/OKE Change of use of barn to dwelling - withdrawn 2183/2001/OKE Use of land for stationing of residential caravan (application for established use) - granted 20/11/01 9504/2 Conversion of redundant barn to 2 dwellings - conditional consent 11/01/89

POLICY FRAMEWORK Structure Plan 2001 - 2016 Policy/Policies CO6 Quality of new development CO7 Historic buildings and environment

Local Plan Review Policy/Policies BE3 Listed Buildings (SP18 of Core Strategy) BE9 Archaeology

PPS5

30 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

ASSESSMENT The main consideration is what impact the proposed works will have on the character and appearance of the Listed Building. Essentially if the proposal has a neutral or positive impact on the building then it is considered to be acceptable.

This scheme is quite different to that previously refused as it is proposed for an annexe only and is contained completely within the existing shell of the building rather than including large new openings, extensions etc as before.

Although the Conservation Officer has raised some concerns regarding the position one of the rooflights, some of the restoration elements and the timber to be used in the windows, these can be overcome by conditions.

With regards to the conversion in relation to the setting of the listed vicarage, it is considered acceptable as there is little external alteration proposed and previous concerns about the insertion of boundaries etc which may have been an issue were this proposed as a separate unit, are not an issue in this instance as the building is proposed to be ancillary to the main house only and will be tied as such in the planning permission which accompanies this Listed Building Consent application but which has been approved under delegated powers as no consultee responses were received. Any future change from annexe to a holiday let use or full residential use would require a planning application and these issues (including amenity etc) would be revisited then.

In relation to the barn/stable building itself, the proposal is the result of pre- application discussions with Officers and is considered acceptable with the conditions proposed. Although some rooflights and new openings are being introduced, these are minimal and sympathetic and allow for the internal layout to be altered as little as possible from that at present. Although the Conservation Officer would prefer that a rooflight is not inserted in the South elevation and is moved, this single rooflight will be conservation style and is considered acceptable overall as this siting avoids associated overlooking issues.

Internal features such as mangers are being retained and stall dividers and posts are being retained, likewise the existing cobbled floor is to retained and covered sympathetically.

Conclusion: Overall this proposal is considered an acceptable and sympathetic repair, alteration and re-use of the building which would not have an undue detrimental impact upon the building itself or the setting of any adjacent listed building. This proposal has addressed the previous concerns of the committee and of the appeal Inspector.

31 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

RECOMMENDATION GRANT subject to the following conditions: 1. Standard 3 year LBC time limit 2. Notwithstanding the details submitted, prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of the external timber type and finishes, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the works carried out in accordance with the approved details. 3. All internal and external mortars and renders shall be lime-based 4. Prior to the commencement of the works hereby approved, a sample of the roof slates proposed and details of the render and limewash mixes and colour shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to the commencement of works, and the works carried out in accordance with these approved details. 5. All rainwater goods shall be cast iron or cast aluminium unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA

6. Prior to the commencement of the works hereby approved, a schedule of repair of internal fixtures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to the commencement of works, and the works carried out in accordance with these approved details prior to any occupation of the unit. 7. The existing timber first floor will be retained in situ in its current entirity (as per the design and access statement submitted) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. ______

WARD: North Tawton (Cllr N Morgan)

APPLICATION NO: 01270/2011 LOCATION: Land To Rear Of Taw Valley Creamery, North Tawton, Devon, APPLICANT NAME: ZW North Tawton Ltd APPLICATION: Full PARISH: North Tawton GRID REF: 265120 101211 PROPOSAL: Change of use of land and construction of photovoltaic solar farm including plant buildings, panel mounting and boundary fencing CASE OFFICER: Anna Henderson-Smith TARGET DATE: 14/06/2011

32 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

PROPOSAL An array of solar photovoltaic static panels for a lifetime of 25 years. These would be 21 modules comprising 992 strings of 20,832 panels, each of which measure 1.66m by 0.99m and are mounted on frames 2.1m high. These would produce 5MW of electricity. The application also includes 1.8m high security fencing, CCTV, infrared lighting, access tracks and associated plant buildings. The proposed buildings are substations and grid connections building and would be painted blockwork with aluminium roof and timber doors. All cabling is to be underground.

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The site comprises 35 acres (14.2 ha) and is approximately 0.9km from North Tawton Town. The land is grade 2 agricultural land (taken from the Natural England dataset) and is currently used for arable.

The site is set high to the surrounding landscape and the site area itself includes the ridge of the hill. Both North Tawton and the Dartmoor National Park are visible from the application site.

The site is also immediately adjacent to a public footpath on the eastern boundary and visible from an additional public footpath further to the east and also the Tarka Trail which lies approximately 250m of the eastern boundary of the site.

The site is approximately 890m from the nearest Grade II* listed building (the Barton) at its nearest point, 330 metres from the nearest Grade II listed building (Mysteria) and 4120 metres from the Grade II listed Woollen Mill and Taw Bridge.

The site is within an area of archaeological interest with several designated Ancient Scheduled Monuments in the vicinity (nearest 500m away) including the Roman Fort, oblong ditch and ring ditch. The site is also immediately adjacent to the southern fringe of the last Prayer Book Rebellion battlefield. The site itself also covers elements of a prehistoric Enclosure/Settlement complex and prehistoric settlement cropmarks.

The site is accessed off a classified class 3 road from the A3072 or A3124 and is upslope of an area of flood zones 2 and 3.

CONSULTATIONS Parish/Town Council: support - ‘welcome increase in renewable energy with potential for partial continued use as agricultural grazing land and subject to ultimate reinstatement with financial bond’

County Highways Authority: ‘Whilst raising no basic highway objection…I am concerned about the points of access shown within the supporting information’ the access shown near Culm Cross ‘would not be acceptable as it would result in a conflict of traffic movements at the junction and there are also issues with the visibility which would be available from

33 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

and of vehicles using the access.’ No detailed plan of the other second point of access is provided, visibility splays would need to be provided corresponding to the speeds along this derestricted class 3 road - 215m in each direction from 4.5 m back from the carriageway edge which will have clear implications for hedges etc.

Does not foresee a problem with the traffic associated with construction and staff movements.

Requests a Construction Environment Management Plan and pre-start survey of the route and detail s of the holding area/reception point. Any construction traffic must avoid the Town.

Operation traffic following construction would be minimal

In a later comment Mr C Gubby stated that ‘We could probably go for a 2.4m X distance although I have referred to 4.5m, as when the site is operational levels of traffic will be minimal, and during construction warning signs would be erected indicating site access etc’ At the time of writing the Case Officer was awaiting clarification regarding the length of splay required.

Natural England: ‘Natural England mostly support the proposed development, however feel the following conditions and comments need to be taken into account. - Natural England would agree with the conclusions and recommendations detailed in the Environmental Statement (ES) specifically Chapter 3 of Ecology Report (appendix 2), and would recommend that protected species surveys are undertaken for bats, dormice and badgers across the site to determine their presence. We would also recommend that monitoring of protected species and habitats across the site be undertaken throughout the lifetime of the development, so would support the proposals in Chapter 8 of Enhancing Biodiversity in Solar PV Fields report (ES, appendix 1). - Natural England support the proposals to enhance and create biodiversity across the development site explained in the Sustainability Appraisal (ES, appendix 6) and would particularly support creation of habitat features that have subsequent benefit to landscape character such as farm ponds or reinstating of old hedgerows. Further enhancement of biodiversity on the site could involve extending the areas of woodland/scrub that follows the watercourse, Spire’s Lake to the southern perimeter of the site. This would contribute to the overall mosaic of biodiversity and subsequent landscape character benefits; even to some extent may screen the development, however this would depend upon the management control. - Within the Environmental Statement, is the Initial Landscape Site Analysis which scores the suitability for a solar farm. It would be useful if there was more explanation in regard to the scoring system as it is difficult to follow.

34 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

- It is appreciated that the land is not within or immediately adjacent to a protected landscape, however Natural England consider that a landscapes matter therefore perhaps a little more information could be provided to fully assess the Landscape and Visual Impact of this development. We would suggest that a few viewpoints and photomontages are included from strategic location to fully appreciate the development in a landscape context. Suggested points may be along the Tarka trail, possibly at grid reference SX657012 and the section along B3215; along A3072 at Greenslade Cross; footpaths on land to the North of North Tawton (approximate grid reference SX658026); potentially from vistas from North Tawton its self. On the other hand it may be worth consulting the Dartmoor National Park Authority as although unlikely to be seen from this protected landscape there may be issues relating to glint and glare. - It is observed that although the development is contributing to both national and regional targets for sustainable energy sources it could be viewed as removing a sizable area of good agricultural land from conventional production. Although Natural England are not place to weigh up the cost/benefit of this activity we hope it may be considered during the decision making process.’ In response to the LVIA sent through on 25th March. Natural England had some further comments: ‘Natural England support the submission of this information which provides further detail upon the assessment that has been undertaken for landscape and visual impact in relation to this proposed development. The LVIA identifies that areas within a 2km radius of the site will be most likely to have significant impact; due to the sheer size of the development surely the significant effects maybe be felt wider than this parameter. We suggest that this be explored further and potentially a wider parameter reflected in the LVIA. Natural England uphold comments made in previous consultation on 16th March 2011 supporting opportunities to create or enhance biodiversity which would have a combined benefit to boosting landscape character, furthermore perhaps such undertakings maybe be included as conditions of the planning permission. Additionally we appreciate that the site is not within or immediately adjacent to a protected landscape, however Natural England consider all landscapes matter therefore any decisions made should follow guidance outlined in the relevant Landscape Character Assessment, i.e. National Character Area 149. The Culm.’

English Heritage: Extract from consultation response, ‘This application, for the construction of a photo- voltaic farm and associated infrastructure has a high potential to impact upon buried archaeological remains and a potentially high impact upon the setting of nearby designated heritage assets. However we are seriously concerned about the poor quality and absence of proper assessment of impacts in the “archaeology and cultural heritage appraisal” submitted as appendix 5 of the Environmental Statement. This document does not allow an informed assessment of the potential impacts of the development upon the historic environment and in the absence of an appropriate

35 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

supporting historic environment assessment English Heritage has no option but to object to this application’…‘Recommendation, The absence of an appropriate Heritage impact assessment means that English heritage can not provide informed advice upon this application. We therefore have no option but to object to this application and I therefore recommend that the application be refused.’

Landscape Officer: ‘Firstly those elements of the scheme considered to be critical to the landscape character of this site west of The Cheese Factory, North Tawton are; the fixed 2.1m solar photovoltaic panels mounted on frames with piled foundations (size 1.6x1m mounted at 30 degrees), the 1.8m high powder coated mesh security fence, CCTV, infrared lighting, five associated buildings 2.5m high and access tracks. The anticipated operational lifetime of the proposal is 25 years. 1. Assessing the visual impact; from site visits; i. I have limited concern over the visual intrusiveness of the proposal from Culm Cross to North Tawton road to the north of the site where limited hedgerow openings and levels mean that the site is well set behind the roadside hedge (particularly in context of the proposal to alter the management regime of the hedge to generate growth to 4-5m.) Visibility here is therefore largely limited to the three site access points. ii. From the A3072 to the south of the site; from here the site forms the skyline to the north and is clearly visible, this is not helped by the fact that there are sections of open fence where hedgerows are absent. The opportunities for mitigating for this exposure lie in significant tree planting on the southern boundary of the site; this is not shown on the Landscape Mitigation Plan (with maturity such planting could of course result in the shading of the units). iii. From de Bathe Cross into North Tawton as viewed from the south; from here the site again has strong visibility with very limited opportunities for screening. Importantly the site is not viewed against totally undeveloped landscape but rather in the context of the Cheese Factory and the large units associated with The Barton. Along a similar orientation but closer to the site lies The Tarka Trail, a nationally important long distance footpath. iv. Much of the town of North Tawton is visible from within the development site entailing that there will be views into the site from residential areas. 2. Assessing the visual impact; desk study; 1. Firstly considering the Initial Site Analysis submitted by WRS Energy; this mentions road names not within the North Tawton area (such as West Sedgemoor Road suggesting that this has been lifted from another application in the Somerset area, I therefore wonder how accurate these assessments are). 2. Secondly considering 'Enhancing Biodiversity in Solar Photovoltaic Fields' by the Somerset Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group; this is generic guidance, the report from Emergence Environmental on Ecology is site specific; this discusses if tree surgery work is required; I have been unable to ascertain in the documentation whether tree surgery work is planned to facilitate the development.

36 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

3. The West Devon Borough and Tamar valley AONB Landscape Character Assessment categorises this site as Inland Undulating Upland Landscape Character Type. In summary the key characteristics are; Gently rolling upland with streams, mainly pastoral, in a small to medium sub-regular pattern on slopes, wide low hedgebanks, little woodland, network of sinuous minor roads, sparse settlement and importantly high and open with extensive views where hedgebanks permit. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) submitted with this application categorises this landscape to have Medium sensitivity (ie. generally positive in character but with some degregation). I am in agreement with this categorisation. The pertinent Management Guidelines for this Landscape Character Type are given as; i. Ensuring that development proposals associated with key settlements (eg. Tavistock, Okehampton , North Tawton) mitigate any negative impact on the local landscape character. ii. In all areas of open countryside, resisting development which is uncharacteristic and visually intrusive over wide areas. Any development should reinforce the traditional landscape character of the area. iii. Having regard to the potential impact on and dilution of local landscape character through the introduction of renewable energy sources such as windfarms and biomass crops. The LVIA concludes that ' effects on landscape character are considered moderate to minimal. The greatest effects would be on the character of the site itself where the effects are considered moderate'. In view of the scale of the proposal and exposure to some aspects I question this conclusion. We are provided with one photomontage, others would have helped to assess the impact and I would certainly recommend that Members have a Committee site visit. 4. The Landscape Mitigation Plan ref. 487.1a from Emergence Environmental This shows the photovoltaic panels to be set 13m from the centre of the existing hedge (this conflicts with the 6m as advised in other documentation, please request confirmation). Assuming the former, this gives good scope to allow the existing hedgerows to be drawn up to a height of 4-5m as indicated, the text also states that individual trees will be selected and allowed to grow up through the hedge, it also gives scope for a varied habitat. I'd like confirmation to the frequency of the selection of hedgerow trees as this will be important in the screening of the development particularly as in points 1. ii., iii., iv. above. This drawing shows a pink line surrounding the site; this is unannotated and I assume that this is the security fence mentioned elsewhere in the documentation . The security fence is not shown on the cross section; in my opinion it needs to be; the position and nature of the fence is critical as it will dictate the hedgerow management; confirmation of the relationship of the fence to the hedgerow is required please.

37 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

A shrub hedgerow mix is shown though I am unclear if this is seen as an edge feature to supplement the existing hedge or in some instances is used to create a new hedge, the area of planting is unclear (ie. whether a single line is proposed or whether this is to cover an area) and I would like further discussion regarding the species mix. My conclusions from the above are as follows; That the proposal is notably visible from two of the three A or B roads to the west and south of North Tawton with only limited possibility for mitigation through planting, further photomontage documentation could have been helpful. That when seen from a distance the site will be in the context of the large scale industrial and transport uses located to the west of the town, When viewed from a distance e.g. as from Dartmoor; that it is better to site such a development in the context of existing settlement rather than in the open countryside. That this is a finely balanced decision. That several aspects of the submission are unclear and confirmation particularly regarding hedgerow management, hedgerow tree selection, the extent of proposed planting and the position of the proposed fence, CCTV and lighting would be helpful.’

DCC Planning: no comments received following submission of LVIA.

Dartmoor National Park: ‘The proposed site is approximately 9km north of Cosdon Beacon, the high ground that has the principle vantage point from within the National Park. Given the distance, concern regarding the visual impact on the setting of the National Park is reduced. However, the supporting documentation makes no reference to the National Park and the Authority is not convinced that glint and glare will not have an adverse visual impact. Views from Cosdon Beacon give extensive views over the mid Devon countryside which is dominated by gently rolling agricultural land with scattered settlements and farmsteads. Whilst the distance of the proposed solar farm from the National Park mitigates the potential for impact on the enjoyment of the National Park, the potential for harm arises from the glare from the broad extent of panels which has not been appraised in the EIA with regard to the National Park.

A landscape assessment of the impact on the National Park should be carried out including, given the greater altitude of the area of high moorland from which the site is visible, an appraisal of glint and glare when viewed from Cosdon Beacon as a ‘Key View Point’. Furthermore consideration should be given to the potential for additional landscaping to the southern perimeter of the site to soften views on the site from the high moorland within the National Park.

Based on the information currently submitted, the National Park Authority has some concern over the potential impact of the proposal on the character and setting of the national park’.

38 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Following the late submission of the Landscape Visual impact Assessment which was omitted from the initial submission of documents from the applicant, DNP confirmed that: ‘having reviewed the LVIA, ‘it is noted that there is no appraisal of the impact when viewed from the National Park nor any acknowledgement of the National Park. As such the Authority remains concerned about the potential for impact on the landscape character as viewed from the National Park ad the enjoyment and understanding on the National Park’s setting’

Environment Agency: ‘The proposed development will only be acceptable if planning conditions are included on the planning permission to secure the design and implementation of an appropriate surface water drainage scheme and with regard to the management of unsuspected contamination at the site.’

They recommended such conditions and went on to say that ‘We consider that given the amount of space available within the site it will be feasible to accommodate an appropriate drainage system. The detailed design of the drainage system could be secured by means of a planning condition as described above.’

DCC Archaeology: Extract from Cressida Whitton’s comments ‘The information submitted in support of this application does not consider the impact of the proposed development upon the archaeological resource. Contrary to the Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Appraisal submitted with the application (Environmental Statement Summary (Section 9) & Appendix 5), there is a designated Scheduled Monument (SM 34280) archaeological site within 1km of the proposal area and I would strongly advise consultation with English Heritage in respect of the setting impact of the scheme on this monument.

In addition, the appraisal states that a desk-based study was undertaken in January 2011, which included a search of information at Devon County Council’s Heritage & Environment Service, however, none of the above sites which are listed on the County HER (Historic Environment Record) have been referred to in the application. Contrary to the submitted heritage statement (section 4.1.5), foundation groundworks for solar panels, including any piling and associated fencing/installation or services are very likely to damage or remove important and already recorded archaeological sites within the proposal area.

Given the high potential for survival and significance of below ground archaeological deposits associated with the prehistoric complex and Prayer Book Rebellion battlefield and the absence of sufficient archaeological information, the Historic Environment Service objects to this application. If further information on the impact of the development upon the archaeological resource is not submitted in support of this application then I would recommend the refusal of the application. This would be in accordance with the West Devon Local Plan Policy BE7 & BE9, Devon Structure

39 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Plan Policy CO8 and Policy HE6 of Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5) (2010).’

Following the submission of the LVIA, Cressida still reiterated these and the comments of English Heritage (an extract from which is above).

Local Residents/Interested Parties: 2 letters received objecting on the following grounds: - Regularly take walks over these fields - Loss of view from property - Potential for harsh glare - Serious visual impact on rural area - She fields are on the skyline - The feed in tariff was not designed to allow developers to cover the countryside in black glass - Will do nothing for the local community - Entirely inappropriate use of agricultural land

PLANNING HISTORY None relevant

POLICY FRAMEWORK Structure Plan 2001 - 2016 Policies CO2 National Parks CO7 Historic Settlements and Buildings CO8 Archaeology CO10 Protection of Nature Conservation sites and species CO12 Renewable Energy Development CO14 Conserving Agricultural Land

Local Plan Review Policies NE10 Protection of the wider countryside and other open spaces BE3 Listed buildings BE7 Archaeology BE8 Sites of Local Importance BE9 Sites of Local Importance BE10 Sites of Local Importance T9 The Highway Network PS2 Surface Water

Core Strategy SP3 Renewable Energy (replaces PS10) SP17 Landscape Character SP18 The Heritage and Historical character of West Devon SP19 Biodiversity (replaces NE6) SP21 Flooding (replaces PS1)

40 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

PPS1 PPS7 PPS9 PPS22 PPS25

ASSESSMENT The main planning issues associated with this application are those relating to Landscape, heritage, access, protected species/biodiversity, amenity and drainage. These issues are over-arched by the issue of renewable energy production

Landscape It is evident from the consultee responses above that the landscape information which has been submitted in support of this application is somewhat limited in its scope. Much of the information is quite generic and the montages and photographic images provided are from locations close to the application site itself with little information on longer views, particularly from DNP, the nearby designated heritage assets or key public views. Photographs and photomontages were particularly sparse in relation to this. The following explores the main landscape issues.

Cumulative impact: It is agreed that the consideration of cumulative impact of solar arrays is not an issue in this location as there are no nearby current live planning applications or extant planning approvals.

Boundaries and screening: It is proposed to reinforce the bunding and planting to the east of the site, however although this may go some way to screening the proposal from nearby locations, such as views from the immediately adjacent footpath or from the lower set Tarka Trail, longer views from higher viewpoints such as from Dartmoor or the road from De Bathe cross into North Tawton would not be afforded screening. It is also unclear from the plans whether the ‘shrub/hedgerow mix’ planting is within the existing banks or as a new separate hedgerow, in which case the interaction between the hedges and boundaries is not explored (as detailed by the Landscape Officer above).

In addition although the existing hedge is shown to be retained and allowed to grow up to 4-5 m through an altered management regime, it is evident from the Highway Engineer’s comments that in order for the more eastern access to be acceptable a visibility splay of 215 m in each direction from 4.5 m back from the carriageway edge would be required. This would be likely to involve the removal of the hedge in its entirety along this splay, removing 430m of Devon hedge bank. Not only would this have implications for screening as the current screening would be removed, there are also detrimental biodiversity and landscape character effects of such removal. Even if a replacement bank were to be erected this would not have the species or habitat value of an established bank and would take far longer to provide even the

41 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

level of screening on-site at preset, yet along that level which is proposed by allowing the current hedge to grow up.

The south of the site is perhaps the most exposed, particularly as the proposal reaches up and over the brow of the field towards the south. Despite this there is no boundary planting proposed to the southern boundary of the site. This is the area which the Council’s Landscape Officer identifies as being the most exposed: ‘From the A3072 to the south of the site; from here the site forms the skyline to the north and is clearly visible, this is not helped by the fact that there are sections of open fence where hedgerows are absent. The opportunities for mitigating for this exposure lie in significant tree planting on the southern boundary of the site; this is not shown on the Landscape Mitigation Plan (with maturity such planting could of course result in the shading of the units).’ It is appreciated that substantial screening could eventually shade the closest panels and compromise the effectiveness of the panels, however the land to the south of the applications site is within the control of the applicant and thus a scheme for additional hedge planting to fill existing sparse areas of hedge along the road affording views of the site could have been explored, or screening a suitable distance down the field away from the panels but still providing screening. Dartmoor National Park: Even following the further submission of the Landscape and Visual impact Assessment, DNP commented that still, ‘it is noted that there is no appraisal of the impact when viewed from the National Park nor any acknowledgement of the National Park. As such the Authority remains concerned about the potential for impact on the landscape character as viewed from the National Park and the enjoyment and understanding of the National Park’s setting’. Natural England, DCC Archaeology and English Heritage also made reference to the potential impact of the proposal on the designated landscape of the National Park.

Glint and Glare: Both DNP and Natural England raise concern regarding the impact of glint and glare upon the National Park. Glint and Glare is addressed by the applicant’s LVIA under point 5.3:

‘Solar PV panels are purposefully designed to absorb rather than reflect light. The surface of PV panels is intentionally rough to disperse and absorb the sunlight, reflecting only 2% of incoming sunlight compared to steel at c95%, standard glass at c22% and calm water at c11% (Glint and Glare study for Panoche Valley Solar Farm Project by Power Engineers).

…Cornwall, as the UK Council with most experience of solar farm proposals, recognises that solar panels are designed to absorb, not reflect, irradiation. It points out that in some instances it may be necessary to seek a glint and glare assessment as part of a planning

42 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

application, …also suggests that particular consideration should be given to the potential glint and glare impact on properties that are higher up a slope than the solar park, as the angles involved mean that these are more likely to experience any glint and glare effects generated. These are exceptions since most planning applications are not requiring glint and glare assessments.

The North Tawton solar farm proposal is not adjacent to an airport, is not overlooked by higher properties (except in the very far distance) and employs a static racking system without tracking. The orientation of the panels will not cause glint or glare to drivers on A3124. Glint and glare are, therefore, not considered to be an issue in terms of landscape and visual effects.’

However DNP, and in particular significant tors and viewpoints on it, such as Cosden Beacon, are at a more elevated position that the application site. Thus the advice from Cornwall Council relating to glint and glare impacts on properties higher up slopes than a solar park, can be applied here, whereby the receptor of the National Park is potentially vulnerable to glint and glare due to its higher situation in the landscape. We are unable to assess this potential impact from the limited information which has been provided.

Amenity: In relation to amenity and the potential impacts of glint and glare on any private residential amenity, it is not considered that this is likely to be a problem due to the siting of the proposal a significant distance from the nearest neighbouring property to the south. Although properties to the North and potentially to the East (allocated H10 residential site) are closer, due to the angle of the panels tipped towards the South, glint and glare is unlikely to be significant from the North and East of the site.

Due to the separation distance between the proposal site and the nearest residential properties, combined with the level of existing background commercial noise from the road, nearby hauliers and creamery, it is not considered that any potential noise from plant/machinery on-site would have an undue effect upon rural noise levels or residential amenity.

Access and Highways: Although the level of operational traffic expected from the proposal is low, (hence the highway officer’s revised thoughts on the set-back of visibility splays) there would still be an estimated 125 HGV movements associated with construction, as such appropriate visibility splays are still required. Unfortunately no detailed visibility splay or access plans have been submitted, thus the only indication of access points are the crosses on the un-scaled aerial photograph within the Access Appraisal.

The point of access shown to the east is unacceptable as it is directly opposite the junction to the road to Winkleigh.

43 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Protected Species/Biodiversity: The proposal area is currently down to an arable crop and as such has been ploughed etc. A buffer to the existing hedge row is shown on the proposal of around 8metres however from the landscape mitigation plan it is unclear whether the hedge which currently cuts across the site is to be retained or a new hedge replanted.

In addition the Ecological survey submitted with the application essentially concludes that further surveys are required of both flora and fauna, this specifically includes protected species such as badgers, bats, otters and dormice. The report, although it covers a wide range of areas, is quite generic and non-committal throughout with many comments such as ‘may be required’, ‘If trees and hedges are to be cleared’, ‘a very high likelihood that badgers will be present’ etc the survey is not very site specific and recommends a great deal of work post decision.

Although Natural England have not objected, the conditions they have recommended include the further survey work and request further information. Since these comments were received new standing advice has come into force from NE, this includes advice to officers not to validate applications where accompanying ecological surveys recommend further survey work - all survey information should come in upfront and accompany the application in full.

It is officer opinion that the quantity of site specific work required in order to fully assess the impact of this proposal on protected species, biodiversity and habitats is such that Officers are unable to make a full and informed assessment of the potential effects and can not therefore assess the proposal against either the relevant planning policies or the three derogation tests of the habitats Directive 2010.

Heritage: It is evident from the consultation responses above from English Heritage and DCC Archaeology that the information which has been supplied is lacking in information, particularly site specific information, and is also incorrect in many areas where the submitted report states that the site is not adjacent to any battlefield or Scheduled Monuments which is clearly not the case. Likewise although the mounting for the panels only have a small footprint, they are numerous and their erection across this 14 + ha cumulatively would have an effect upon archaeology on this site, some of which is already known (crop patterns) and some of which may be as yet undiscovered, however this impact has not been adequately assessed.

Cressida Whitton of DCC Archaeology adds further comments to her initial response following the landscape visual impact, an extract from which is as follows and summarises the current shortcomings of the heritage information well: ‘…at present the application makes no effort to assess potential visual and landscape setting impacts for designated Heritage Assets, including Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings and North Tawton Conservation Area, as well as the wider visual impact of the development upon the setting of Dartmoor National Park. I would add the impact on the setting of the Prayer Book Rebellion Battlefield to the

44 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

NW and including part of the proposal area, also needs to be considered, yet there are no views presented in the landscape assessment from/to this direction, apart from a 'blocking' view of the hedgebank boundary of the proposal area.’

PPS 5 advises under its policy HE1 that ‘HE1.2 Where proposals that are promoted for their contribution to mitigating climate change have a potentially negative effect on heritage assets, local planning authorities should, prior to determination, and ideally during pre-application discussions, help the applicant to identify feasible solutions that deliver similar climate change mitigation but with less or no harm to the significance of the heritage asset and its setting.

HE1.3 Where conflict between climate change objectives and the conservation of heritage assets is unavoidable, the public benefit of mitigating the effects of climate change should be weighed against any harm to the significance of heritage assets in accordance with the development management principles in this PPS and national planning policy on climate change.’

The issue of heritage, Listed Buildings and the need to liaise with bodies such as DCC Archaeology was raised at pre-application stage in a screening opinion issued by the LPA. Unfortunately due to the lack of information it is not possible to weigh up these possibly conflicting issues of renewable energy and heritage as a proper assessment of the heritage and the development’s impact upon this and any mitigation has not been provided.

Drainage: The EA have recommended numerous drainage conditions. It is considered that a suitable surface water drainage scheme could be attained on this site as although percolation rates are often poor in this area, providing that the water can be attenuated in some form on-site so as to ensure the rate of run-off doesn’t increase, the amount of area for soaking away surface water would remain unaltered, it is purely the ‘funnelling’ of water into concentrated areas on the fields by the impermeable panels which would alter the rates of flow/location of water etc. As such a condition for requirement of an adequate drainage scheme could address this issue.

Agricultural Land: The Natural England data set identifies this land as being grade 2 thus it is amongst the higher grade and more versatile land and is one of few areas within the borough of a high enough quality to support arable agriculture. They also raised the issue of loss of such land within their consultation response. As such policies CO14 of the Structure plan and NE10 of the West Devon Local Plan Review are pertinent, NE10 and advises that:

(iii) – ‘Where the development is not associated with agriculture the best and most versatile land is only developed if sufficient lower grade land is not available or that

45 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

lower grade land has an environmental value that outweighs agricultural considerations.’ (p26 WDLP)

Although renewable energy development is generally supported and promoted through the Development Plan all such policies emphasise the need for the correct location, mitigation and the need to be in accordance with other plan policies. And although stock grazing can continue below the panels in some cases, this arable production would not be possible were such a development constructed. Overall inadequate information has been provided to satisfy officers that other lower grade areas of land are not available and would not have been more suitable. Although we accept that this proposal has environmental benefits due to its renewable energy production, there is inadequate evidence that these benefits could not have been achieved in an alternative location without the loss of this higher grade land.

Renewable energy production The principle of supporting renewable energy production is well established in both national and local planning policy, as well as by bodies which has provided consultation responses on this proposal (Natural England and English Heritage both stated this in their correspondence). Local Plan Policy PS10 has now been superseded by Core Strategy policy SP3 which states that:

‘Proposals for development involving the provision of renewable and/or low carbon technologies, including micro-generation technologies, together with ancillary buildings and additional infrastructure will be supported and encouraged except where the proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects which are not outweighed by the local and wider environmental, economic, social and other considerations of the development.

Permission will only be granted if the developer has satisfactorily addressed the following on an individual case by case basis:  The use of the most appropriate technology;  Measures to mitigate any adverse impacts on the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction, operational lifespan and decommissioning of the equipment/infrastructure;  The provision for the protection, preservation, and/or mitigation for any features of strategic, cultural, agricultural, ecological, historic and/or archaeological importance, including landscape character.

Commercial scale renewable energy generation projects will be supported in locations where other policies of the plan can be satisfied. Developments of this type will be subject to a comprehensive assessment which will be based on relevant regional and national guidance/best practice and the individual and unique circumstances of the case. When considering assessments, regard will be given to the wider benefits of providing the energy from renewable sources as well as the potential effects at the local scale.’

46 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Thus commercial renewable energy schemes such as this are supported, but only where the above issues are adequately addressed and where the location is acceptable. As is evident from the comments from consultees and from the discussion above, there are many areas of information which are either incorrect or lacking in detail and site-specific information, particularly heritage, impact upon DNP, ecology and alternative lower agricultural grade locations, as such the proposal fails to address the requirements of policy, particularly those referred to under bullet point 3 above.

Conclusion: Overall, although the LPA supports the principle of renewable energy developments and accepts the addition to renewable energy targets and environmental benefits this proposal offers, insufficient and imprecise information has been submitted in relation to other planning considerations, as set out above, to allow the LPA to discharge its responsibility to adequately assess the implications and impacts of this proposal.

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE on the following grounds: 1. Insufficient information has been provided to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the proposal will not have a detrimental effect upon archaeological and heritage assets. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy CO7 and CO8 of the Structure Plan, policies BE3, BE7, BE8, BE9 SP17 and SP18 of the West Devon Borough Council Development Plan and the advice of PPS5. 2. Insufficient information has been provided to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the proposal will not have an unjustified detrimental effect upon biodiversity, protected species and their habitats. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy CO10 of the Structure Plan, SP19 of the West Devon Borough Council Development Plan and the advice of PPS9. 3. Insufficient information has been provided to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the proposal will not have a detrimental effect upon the rural landscape and the designated landscape of the Dartmoor National Park. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy CO2 of the Structure Plan, policies NE10 and SP17 of the West Devon Borough Council Development Plan and the advice of PPS7. 4. Insufficient information has been provided to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that alternative lower grade agricultural land is not available for this development, nor that there is an over-riding need for this development in this location. As such the proposal would result in the unjustified loss of higher grade agricultural land and as such is contrary to Policy CO14 of the Structure Plan, policy NE10 and SP17 of the West Devon Borough Council Development Plan and the advice of PPS7. ______

47 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

WARD: Okehampton West (Cllrs Mrs C Marsh; M Morse)

APPLICATION NO: 01330/2011 LOCATION: 31 Upcott Valley, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 1UX APPLICANT NAME: Mr R Wonnacott APPLICATION: Full PARISH: Okehampton GRID REF: 258471 95714 PROPOSAL: Erection of 2 storey extension and conservatory CASE OFFICER: Mr Louis Dulling TARGET DATE: 05/05/2011

The application is before Committee at the request of Cllr Young.

PROPOSAL The proposal is for the erection of a 2 storey side extension and a rear conservatory.

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS No. 31 Upcott Valley is a 2 storey detached dwelling. The application site falls within flood zones 1 and 2. There is also a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) at the rear boundary to the north.

The proposed 2 storey extension is 3.3 metres in width, 6.4 metres in length and 7.2 metres in height, taken from the front elevation, with a ridge height which is stepped down from the existing ridge height by 0.5 metres. The proposed front elevation of the 2 storey extension is stepped back 3.9 metres from the existing its most forward position. The proposed side extension is also stepped back from existing rear elevation by 0.6 metres.

The proposed rear conservatory is to be sited on the existing raised patio area and projects 3.1 metres from the rear elevation and is 6.3 metres in length.

CONSULTATIONS Okehampton Town Council: Object to the proposal – ‘’concerns expressed over flood risk, additional run off water creation and the potential covenants on the land’’.

County Highways Authority: Do not wish to comment

Environment Agency: No comments received

Development and Flood Risk Engineer: recommends that any potential flood risk may be overcome by way of condition – No objections. *Refer to recommended conditions.

48 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Natural England: No comments received

County Archaeologist: No comments received

Economic Development Officer: No comments received

Local Residents/Interested Parties: One letter of objection received on the following grounds: - Loss of amenity strip to the east of 31 Upcott Valley. - Concerned for highway safety and ‘lines of sight’. - Covenant on the land. - Disruption of building line and potential disturbance to services (water, gas electricity and telephone). - Flood risk. - Removal of landscaping prior to submission of application.

(additional points via email dated 6th April 2011); - Discrepancy regarding the position of the street light. - No evidence that DCC Highways have been consulted.

Member Comments: No comments received

PLANNING HISTORY 0789/2000/OKE Removal of condition 8 (provision of footpath) from Reserved Matter application (Approved on appeal) 0225/2000/OKE – Conditional approval (20/03/01) 0221/2000/OKE Reserved matters application for the erection of 75 dwellings and associated infrastructure following grant of outline consent – Conditional approval (11/08/00) 0225/2000/OKE Reserved matters application for the erection of 75 dwellings and associated infrastructure following grant of outline consent – Conditonal approval (11/08/00) 1998/9708/013 Variation of condition of outline consent to allow longer period submission of reserved matters – Conditional approval (04/06/98) 1992/9708/004 Variation of conditions to allow submission of reserved matters within six years of outline planning permission and development – Conditional approval (30/06/92) 1989/9708/1 Residential development comprising erection of dwelling units, estate roads and services – Conditional approval (27/09/89)

POLICY FRAMEWORK Local Plan Review: H40 Householder development

49 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

T9 The highway network PS2 Sustainable urban drainage systems

Core Strategy: SP21 Flooding

County Structure Plan 2001 - 2016: CO6 Quality of development

National Planning Policy: PPS25 Development and flood risk

ASSESSMENT The main issues to consider are the design and use of materials, the impact on the character and appearance of the area, amenity and impacts on the flood zone.

Design and use of Materials The design and use of materials are considered to be acceptable and match that of the existing property. The proposed walls are to be smooth render painted with white PVCu windows and doors. The roof of the proposed 2 storey side extension is to be grey concrete tiles to match that of the main dwelling. The proposed roof of the rear conservatory is to be constructed from polycarbonate sheeting which is considered to be acceptable for a conservatory.

Character and Appearance There are a variety of styles of property in the area, ranging in size and massing and the proposals would not significantly alter the balance of the dwellings. The proposed 2 storey side extension is stepped back 3.9 metres from the existing property’s most forward position. Furthermore the proposed 2 storey side extension is stepped back from existing rear elevation by 0.6 metres and therefore appears subordinate to the main property from both the front elevation and rear elevation. Subordination is further achieved with a ridge height which is set down from that of the main property by 0.5 metres. Any potential disruption to the building line, as raised by the objector, is therefore not considered to be significantly detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore the design of the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the area.

The letter of objection to the proposal notes the loss of an ‘amenity strip’ and ‘lines of sight’ as reasons for objecting to the proposal. However, the area of land currently offers little in the way of amenity for the area. The area of land is approximately 140m² and it is Officer opinion that it is an unusable space in terms of the layout and proximity to the applicant property. The proposal would also leave an area of green space to the north and south of the 2 storey side extension. The reduced lines of sight are not considered to significantly impact on highway safety and Devon County Highways do not wish to comment on the application and have not raised any concerns in that respect. An area of land to the south of the proposed 2 storey side

50 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

extension shall remain and therefore provide sufficient visibility for road users. The objector also sights the covenant on the land as a concern. However covenants are a civil matter and therefore cannot be taken into consideration in this application.

The proposed rear conservatory is not considered to significantly alter the character and appearance of the area and would likely be permitted development. The proposed rear conservatory utilises the existing raised patio area and therefore does not increase the area of developed land.

Amenity The level of amenity of neighbouring properties is not considered to be significantly impacted upon as the proposed 2 storey side extension is set back from the rear of the existing property and therefore does not significantly increase the level of overlooking towards no. 29 Upcott Valley to the west or no. 33 Upcott Valley to the east. The proposed rear conservatory is not considered to significantly impact on the level of privacy that no. 29 currently enjoys as it is set on higher ground than no. 31 and a direct line of sight of is interrupted by the raised patio area.

Impact on the Flood Zone For clarity, the flood zones are classified as flood zone 1, 2 and 3. Flood zone 1 is low probability which has less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of flooding in any year. Flood zone 2 is medium probability which has between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 annual probability of flooding in any year. Flood zone 3a is high probability and flood zone 3b is the functional flood plain.

The application site falls within flood zone 2. Due to the elevated position on which the proposed rear conservatory is to be sited it is not considered to significantly impact on flood zone 2. Furthermore, the Council’s Development and Flood Risk Engineer has recommended that the proposal’s potential impacts on flood risk can be safeguarded by way of condition and is therefore acceptable.

The Development and Flood Risk Engineer states that ‘the impact of the proposals is likely to be negligible with respect to flooding but the surface water drainage of the development must be correctly catered for’. Therefore the potential flood risk as a result of the proposal is not considered to be significant and surface water drainage shall be secured by way of condition.

Furthermore the proposed rear conservatory does not breach condition no. 6 attached to 0789/2000/OKE which states ‘A completely development free buffer zone of at least 7.0 metres in width shall be provided adajacent to the northern boundary of the stream and no buildings or fences shall be constrcuted within this zone (with the exception of any post and rail fences to indicate property boundaries)’. Additionally, the reason cited by the inspector for imposing condition no. 6 was ‘in the interests of access for possible future stream maintenance work being required and in the interests of nature conservation’. Therefore following the inspector’s assessment flood risk was not a contributing factor in attaching the condition.

51 WEST DEVON BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING & LICENSING COMMITTEE 24 MAY 2011 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS NORTHERN AREA

Conclusion The proposal, in Officer opinion, is not considered detrimental in design and use of materials, the impact on the character and appearance of the area, amenity and impacts on the flood zone.

For the reasons given above and having taken into account all relevant matters I conclude the application should be

RECOMMENDATION GRANT subject to: 1. Standard time limit 2. Surface water drainage 3. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the foul and surface water drainage systems shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 4. Prior to the commencement of the development details of the construction phase surface water run off management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 5. Such approved foul and surface water drainage, and flood protection measures shall be implemented and become fully operational before the development is first brought into use. Following its installation the approved scheme shall be permanently retained and maintained thereafter. 6. Construction of the surface water systems shall be in accordance with the CIRIA Suds Manual C697 and best practice set out in CIRIA C698 Site Handbook for the Construction of SuDS.

Informative; Written confirmation should be sought by the applicant from South West Water Ltd if proposals are to discharge foul water to main sewer, to ensure that the additional foul flows can be catered for. The point of discharge from the site into the sewer network should be identified on a drawing. This information should be forwarded for review. ______

52